Asia Pacific Journal of Business Review

Kyung Hee University Management Research Institute (경희대학교 경영연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

What Drives Residents Low Carbon Transportation Commuting? Evidence from China

  • Li, Liang (School of Business, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology) ;
  • Tan, Meixuen (School of Business, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology) ;
  • Sun, Huaping (School of Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University) ;
  • Sanitnuan, Nuttida (School of Business, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2021.03.10
  • Accepted : 2021.04.15
  • Published : 2021.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Promoting low carbon transportation adoption is important for energy saving. Some prior studies have discussed on environmental values affect low carbon transportation commuting is inconclusive. This study has constructed the environmental values, utility value, and social influence-based low-carbon transportation adoption model through the theory of the technology acceptance model and VBN model and the IS success model. Through the SEM model and stepwise regression analysis, we have found that environmental values positively affect utility value, and utility value also positively affects the behavior adoption of low carbon transportation. The utility value as mediating effect in the relationship between environmental values and low carbon transportation commuting behavior. Besides, we also have found that social influence positively impacts the behavior adoption of low carbon transportation. It better enhances the level of household residents' environmental values and utility values, and social influence for promoting the adoption of low carbon transportation. This present research provides theoretical guidance and suggestions for promoting the development of low-carbon transportation innovation.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study is supported by Social Science Foundation of Jiangsu, China (No. 19GLC015), Philosophy and Social Science Foundation for Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province (Nos. 2019SJA0160), the key program of National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 21AZD067), Research Start-up Fund of Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology (No. 2018r034), National Research Foundation of Republic of Korea (No. 2019K2A9A2A0602441012). Many thanks for Long, Wang, Cai, Ding, Jiang, Xie, Liang, Shin, Antonio and Zhu co-author in early studies.

References

  1. Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. (1997). Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization Science, 8(3), 289-309. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.3.289
  2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control (pp. 11-39). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  3. Axsen, J., Orlebar, C., & Skippon, S. (2013). Social influence and consumer preference formation for pro-environmental technology: The case of a U.K. workplace electric-vehicle study. Ecological Economics, 95, 96-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.009
  4. Bachand-Marleau, Julie; Lee, Brian; El-Geneidy, Ahmed (2012). Better Understanding of Factors Influencing Likelihood of Using Shared Bicycle Systems and Frequency of Use. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2314, 66-71. https://doi.org/10.3141/2314-09
  5. Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R., & Jeffries, C. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change, 2(8), 600-603. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1532
  6. Bramoulle, Y., Djebbari, H., & Fortin, B. (2009). Identification of peer effects through social networks. Journal of Econometrics, 150(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.12.021
  7. Cai, S., Long, X., Li, L., Liang, H., Wang, Q., & Ding, X. (2019). Determinants of intention and behavior of low carbon commuting through bicycle-sharing in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 602-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.072
  8. Chan, H. W. (2020). When do values promote pro-environmental behaviors? Multilevel evidence on the self-expression hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101361
  9. Chen, S. Y. (2016). Using the sustainable modified TAM and TPB to analyze the effects of perceived green value on loyalty to a public bike system. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 88, 58-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.03.008
  10. Chen, S. Y., & Lu, C. C. (2016). Exploring the relationships of green perceived value, the diffusion of innovations, and the technology acceptance model of green transportation. Transportation Journal, 55(1), 51-77. https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.55.1.0051
  11. Cheolho Yoon; Sanghoon Kim (2007). Convenience and TAM in a ubiquitous computing environment: The case of wireless LAN., 6(1), 102-112.
  12. Cipriani, M. and A. Guarino, 2014. "Estimating a structural model of herd behavior in financial markets." American Economic Review 104(1), 224-251. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.1.224
  13. Crociata, A., Agovino, M., & Sacco, P. L. (2015). Recycling waste: Does culture matter?. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 55, 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2015.01.005
  14. Dahl, G. B., Loken, K. V., & Mogstad, M. (2014). Peer effects in program participation. American Economic Review, 104(7), 2049-74. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.7.2049
  15. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
  16. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  17. Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
  18. Dietz, T., & Whitley, C. T. (2018). Environmentalism, norms, and identity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12334-12336.
  19. Ding, X., Long, X., Li, L., Liang, H., Wang, Q., & Cai, S. (2019). Antecedents of satisfaction and engagement of low-carbon bicycle-sharing using in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(9), 8533-8542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04231-0
  20. Du, H., Liu, D., Sovacool, B. K., Wang, Y., Ma, S., & Li, R. Y. M. (2018). Who buys New Energy Vehicles in China? Assessing social-psychological predictors of purchasing awareness, intention, and policy. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.05.008
  21. Foxon, T., Kohler, J., & Oughton, C. (Eds.). (2008). Innovation for a low carbon economy: economic, institutional and management approaches. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  22. Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1301-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004
  23. Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., & Imbens, G. W. (2013). Social networks and the identification of peer effects. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 31(3), 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2013.801251
  24. Gouveia, V. V., & Ros, M. (2000). Hofstede and Schwartz s models for classifying individualism at the cultural level: their relation to macro-social and macro-economic variables. Psicothema, 12(Su1), 25-33.
  25. Gujarati, D. (2012). Econometrics by example. Macmillan.
  26. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
  27. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications.
  28. Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1999.11518247
  29. Keller, G. (2015). Statistics for Management and Economics, Abbreviated. Cengage Learning.
  30. Kim, J., Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H. (2014). Expanding scope of hybrid choice models allowing for mixture of social influences and latent attitudes: Application to intended purchase of electric cars. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 69, 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.08.016
  31. Lazaric, N., Le Guel, F., Belin, J., Oltra, V., Lavaud, S., & Douai, A. (2019). Determinants of sustainable consumption in France: the importance of social influence and environmental values. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1-30.
  32. Li, D., Zhao, L., Ma, S., Shao, S., Zhang, L. (2019). What influences an individual's pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 28-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.024
  33. Li, L., & Park, C. (2016). The effect of perceived value on customer satisfaction and continuous usage intention in SNS. The e-Business Studies, 17(6), 101-119. https://doi.org/10.20462/tebs.2016.12.17.6.101
  34. Li, L., Msaad, H., Sun, H., Tan, M. X., Lu, Y., & Lau, A. K. (2020b). Green Innovation and Business Sustainability: New Evidence from Energy Intensive Industry in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 7826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217826
  35. Li, L., Zhu, B., Jiang, M., Cai, X., Lau, A. K., & Shin, G. C. (2020a). The role of service quality and perceived behavioral control in shared electric bicycle in China: Does residual effects of past behavior matters?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(19), 24518-24530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08690-8
  36. Li, W., Long, R., Chen, H., & Geng, J. (2017). A review of factors influencing consumer intentions to adopt battery electric vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 78, 318-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.076
  37. Liu, D., Du, H., Southworth, F., & Ma, S. (2017). The influence of social-psychological factors on the intention to choose low-carbon travel modes in Tianjin, China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 105
  38. Mi, Z., & Coffman, D. M. (2019). The sharing economy promotes sustainable societies. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07882-8
  39. Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users' perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 359-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044
  40. Moloney, S., & Strengers, Y. (2014). Going green? the limitations of behaviour change programmes as a policy response to escalating resource consumption. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24(2), 94-107. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1642
  41. Moloney, S., Horne, R. E., & Fien, J. (2010). Transitioning to low carbon communities-from behaviour change to systemic change: Lessons from Australia. Energy policy, 38(12), 7614-7623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.058
  42. Petschnig, M., Heidenreich, S., & Spieth, P. (2014). Innovative alternatives take action-Investigating determinants of alternative fuel vehicle adoption. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 61, 68-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.001
  43. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free press.
  44. Roy, R. (1994). The evolution of ecodesign. Technovation, 14(6), 363-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(94)90016-7
  45. Salazar, H. A., Oerlemans, L., & van Stroe-Biezen, S. (2012). Social influence on sustainable consumption: evidence from a behavioural experiment. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 172-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2012.01110.x
  46. Saleem, M. A., Eagle, L., & Low, D. (2018). Climate change behaviors related to purchase and use of personal cars: Development and validation of eco-socially conscious consumer behavior scale. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 59, 68-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.023
  47. Sayer, J., & Cassman, K. G. (2013). Agricultural innovation to protect the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8345-8348.
  48. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
  49. Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00069-2
  50. Shao, S., Tian, Z., & Fan, M. (2018). Do the rich have stronger willingness to pay for environmental protection? New evidence from a survey in China. World Development, 105, 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.033
  51. Shi, J., Si, H., Wu, G., & Wang, H. (2018). Using behavior and willingness of urban transportation sharing products from the perspective of sustainable development. China Popul. Environ, 28, 63-72.
  52. Sohn, K. S., Yoo, K. W., & Kwon, O. B. (2019). An Influence of Artificial Intelligence Attributes on the Adoption Level of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Products. Korea Society Of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 111-129.
  53. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x
  54. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 81-97. https://doi.org/10.22459/her.24.02.2018.05
  55. Sun, H., Edziah, B. K., Sun, C., & Kporsu, A. K. (2019). Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency. Energy policy, 135, 111002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111002
  56. Sun, H., Pofoura, A. K., Mensah, I. A., Li, L., & Mohsin, M. (2020). The role of environmental entrepreneurship for sustainable development: Evidence from 35 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Science of The Total Environment, 140132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140132
  57. Trappey, A. J., Trappey, C., Hsiao, C., Ou, J. J., Li, S., & Chen, K. W. (2012). An evaluation model for low carbon island policy: The case of Taiwan's green transportation policy. Energy Policy, 45, 510-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.063
  58. Van Kempen, E., Fischer, P., Janssen, N., Houthuijs, D., van Kamp, I., Stansfeld, S., & Cassee, F. (2012). Neurobehavioral effects of exposure to traffic-related air pollution and transportation noise in primary schoolchildren. Environmental research, 115, 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.002
  59. Van Oorschot, J. A., Hofman, E., & Halman, J. I. (2018). A bibliometric review of the innovation adoption literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 134, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.032
  60. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  61. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
  62. Wang, Q., Li, S., & Li, R. (2018). China's dependency on foreign oil will exceed 80% by 2030: Developing a novel NMGM-ARIMA to forecast China's foreign oil dependence from two dimensions. Energy, 163, 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.127
  63. Wang, Q., Long, X., Li, L., Kong, L., Zhu, X., & Liang, H. (2020a). Engagement factors for waste sorting in China: The mediating effect of satisfaction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122046.
  64. Wang, Y., Long, X., Li, L., Wang, Q., Ding, X., & Cai, S. (2020b). Extending theory of planned behavior in household waste sorting in China: the moderating effect of knowledge, personal involvement, and moral responsibility. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-21.
  65. Xiong, H., Payne, D., & Kinsella, S. (2016). Peer effects in the diffusion of innovations: Theory and simulation. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 63,
  66. Yang X., Feng L., & Wei P. (2012). Automobile exhaust pollution and its harm, Frontiers in Science (03), 12-24.
  67. Yoon, C. (2018). Extending the TAM for Green IT: A normative perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.032
  68. Yue, T., Long, R., & Chen, H. (2013). Factors influencing energy-saving behavior of urban households in Jiangsu Province. Energy Policy, 62, 665-675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.051
  69. Zhang, X., Chen, X., & Zhang, X. (2018). The impact of exposure to air pollution on cognitive performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9193-9197.
  70. Zhang, Y., & Mi, Z. (2018). Environmental benefits of bike sharing: A big data-based analysis. Applied Energy, 220, 296-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.101
  71. Zhu, G., Sangwan, S., & Lu, T. J. (2010). A new theoretical framework of technology acceptance and empirical investigation on self efficacy based value adoption model. Nankai Business Review International.