This is a version of a publication
in
Please cite the publication as follows:
DOI:
Copyright of the original publication:
This is a parallel published version of an original publication.
This version can differ from the original published article.
published by
Understanding choice behavior towards plastic consumption: An emerging
market investigation
Kautisha Pradeep, Sharma Rajesh, Mangla Sachin Kumar, Jabeen Fauzia, Usama
Awan
Kautisha, P., Sharma, R., Mangla, S.K., Jabeen, F., Usama, A. (2021). Understanding choice
behavior towards plastic consumption: An emerging market investigation. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, vol. 174. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105828
Final draft
Elsevier
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105828
© 2021 Elsevier
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Resources, Conservation & Recycling
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
Full length article
Understanding choice behavior towards plastic consumption: An emerging
market investigation
Pradeep Kautish a, ⁎, Rajesh Sharma b, Sachin Kumar Mangla c, d, Fauzia Jabeen e, Usama Awan f
a Department of Marketing, Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad-382481, Gujarat, India
b Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies, Nagpur, Constituent of Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, Maharashtra, India
c Jindal Global Business School, O P Jindal Global University, Sonepat Haryana, India
d Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, PL4 8AA, United Kingdom
e College of Business, Abu Dhabi University, Zayed City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
f School of Business and Management, Lappeenranta Lahti University of Technology LUT, Finland
A R T I C L E  I N F O
Keywords:
Environmental concern
Perceived consumer effectiveness
Choice behavior
Connectedness to nature
Love for nature
Plastic Consumption
A B S T R A C T
Globally, plastic production and consumption have led to a large amount of plastic waste. Plastic solid waste
poses a serious menace to the environmental wellbeing. Plastic pollution is a matter of great concern for plane-
tary creatures as plastic consumption is detrimental to human and animal welfare. The present research investi-
gates the empirical relationships among environmental concern, perceived consumer effectiveness, connected-
ness to nature, love for nature, and choice behavior for plastic consumption. The hypothesized relationships are
conversant with the norm activation model (NAM), and the theoretical framework is based on the Biophilia Hy-
pothesis. The research tested the hypotheses employing a covariance-based structural equation modeling. The
cross-sectional data was collected via an online survey with 745 respondents from across the country, viz., India.
The findings propose that environmental concern and perceived consumer effectiveness drive connectedness to
nature and love for nature, with perceived consumer effectiveness being the critical construct in both conditions.
Environmental concerns do not directly influence choice behavior, but perceived consumer effectiveness directly
affects choice behavior. In comparison, perceived consumer effectiveness have the strongest effect on connected-
ness to nature and love for nature. In addition, connectedness to nature and love for nature partially mediate the
relationship of environmental concern and perceived consumer effectiveness with choice behavior for plastic
consumption in an emerging economy.
1. Introduction
Across the globe, plastic is a ubiquitous pollutant, and its tenacity in
the ecosystem and underlying harmful effects that it causes to living or-
ganisms and the total environment is the darkest reality of an urbanized
lifestyle (Kautish et al., 2020; Puskic et al., 2020; Soga et al., 2018). Due
to its physical advantages, such as low cost, design versatility, light-
weight, strength, formability, and bio inertness, modern societies heav-
ily rely on plastic production and consumption (Nielson et al., 2020;
Sharma et al., 2021a). Over the past four decades in the newly industri-
alized and emerging markets (Sharma et al., 2020a; 2020b), e.g., India,
Pakistan, and South Africa, more than 15 billion metric tons of plastic
has been produced and consumed as single-use plastic that includes:
plastic bottles, plastic bags, disposal items, plastic cutlery, and food
packaging, etc. (Kautish, 2016; Khan et al., 2020b). An emerging mar-
ket is transitioning from a low income, less developed, often pre-
industrial economy towards a modern, industrial economy with a
higher standard of living, leading to more plastic consumption (Gaur
and Mani, 2018; Khan et al., 2020a). The recent COVID-19 catastrophe
has underlined the indispensable consumption of plastic in daily life
that enormously contributed to public safety and healthcare measures
(Parashar and Hait, 2021; Sharma et al., 2021b). Since its invention in
the 1950s, plastic has significantly facilitated convenience. It used to be
considered a ‘scientific wonder’ for a long time. Still, now it is being re-
viled as a ‘sustainability scourge’ due to its harmful chemical properties
and damaging after-effects to the natural surroundings (Alam et al.,
2018; Kautish, 2015; Nkwachukwu et al., 2013; Puskic et al., 2020).
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pradeep.kautish@nirmauni.ac.in (P. Kautish), professor.rajeshsharma@gmail.com (R. Sharma), sachin.kumar@plymouth.ac.uk (S.K. Mangla),
fauzia.jabeen@adu.ac.ae (F. Jabeen), Usama.Awan@lut.fi (U. Awan).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105828
Received 9 April 2021; Received in revised form 21 July 2021; Accepted 25 July 2021
0921-3449/© 2021
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
The World Economic Forum (2020) highlighted that if plastic pro-
duction and consumption continue to grow with the present trajectory,
the amount of plastic entering the ocean will triple in volume by 2040
(Eckstein et al., 2019; Fadeeva and Berkel, 2021). Plastic production
will account for more than 20 percent of the worlds’ total crude oil con-
sumption by 2050. The existing urban waste management practices are
deficient in reducing plastic consumption-generated solid waste (Dhir
et al., 2021). It has been reported from emerging markets that a signifi-
cant amount of ecological destructions are associated with excessive
use of chemical additives during plastic usage, disposal, and recycling
processes (Hahladakis et al., 2018; Sharma et al., 2021c; Tandon et al.,
2020a). The present situation is devastating because plastic pollution
causes millions of sea creatures’ death and adversely affects human
health (Dean et al., 2018; Peters and Bratton, 2016).
Hitherto the rising general awareness, environmental knowledge,
and concern about sustainability, most individuals desire to have a
clean and healthy natural environment (Ari and Yilmaz, 2017; Bhatt et
al., 2020). The situation calls for shared tenacities among stakeholders
to seriously discuss plastic pollution as a global disaster since the envi-
ronmental concerns are linked to individual lifestyles. It is crucial to un-
derstand individuals’ choices regarding plastic consumption and their
connection with the environment (Khan et al., 2020b; Sharma et al.,
2021d). In other words, the current research is an initial attempt to un-
derstand how individuals may play a critical role in driving change in
consumption and production practices of plastics. After all, to curb dis-
astrous plastic-led pollution, well-informed and empowered consumers
can encourage and promote sustainable business practices for human
well-being by reducing or removing plastic pollution (De Marchi et al.,
2020).
Worldwide there is a rising environmental concern towards plum-
meting plastic consumption and a visible attitudinal shift towards en-
forcing circular economy (Dauvergne, 2018; Dilkes-Hoffman et al.,
2019). During ‘Our Ocean Conference 2018’, initially, there was a
pledge from six international corporations, including Nestlé, PepsiCo,
The Coca-Cola Company, Unilever, and Walmart, to use hundred per-
cent recyclable, compostable, or reusable packaging 2025’ (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2018). Later on, the number of corporations
rose to eleven committing to the pledge. More than 280 corporations
signed up to the global commitment Despiteto abolish plastic waste and
pollution by 2030 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2018; Sala et al.,
2020; Sharma and Kautish, 2020). A plethora of studies have analyzed
the factors that affect sustainable consumption or pro-environmental
behaviors (Kang and Moreno, 2020; Minton et al., 2018; Tandon et al.,
2021b), but insufficient attention paid to plastic consumption, espe-
cially in emerging markets (Ari and Yilmaz, 2017; Khan et al., 2020b).
There is thus a clear need to research the underlying psychological fac-
tors, including choice behavior towards the nature-based phenomenon,
that influence consumers’ decision-making process for plastic consump-
tion (Khan et al., 2020a).
In recent years, the advancement of non-plastic product consump-
tion has attracted academic scholars and practitioners (Khan et al.,
2020a; Ragaert et al., 2020). To date, while there is undoubtedly a
wide-ranging body of literature on pro-environmental choice behavior
concerning several product categories related to nature-based facets,
e.g., energy-efficient appliances, organic food, sustainable products,
green apparels are traceable in the emerging market contexts (Arbués
and Villanúa, 2016; Kumar and Yadav, 2021; Kushwah et al., 2019a;
López-Mosquera et al., 2015). Amidst a clear sense of global urgency
and increased concern over plastic pollution by governments and cor-
porations, and well evident support from the scientific community,
there is a research gap to understanding the consumer-centric approach
towards nature-based phenomenon and underlying cognitive factors
prevailing plastic consumption choice warrants reflection to save
mother earth (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019; Schuttler et al., 2018).
In the backdrop of the global efforts to effectively manage plastic
waste and pollution, it is imperative to understand the consumers’ level
of environmental concern and the level of perceived consumer effec-
tiveness towards plastic pollution. The present study is piloted in India
because traditional, religious and spiritual Indian belief system not only
advocated people responsibility towards nature and society but also it
has always well documented the importance of the connection between
men and nature in ancient literature (Kala and Sharma, 2010; Sharma
and de Paço, 2021). As per the Advaita life philosophy, the same ‘At-
man’ (inner spiritual soul) is present inside every creature of the planet,
bringing life and connect us to the self, other beings, and nature (Shaw,
2016). Kushwah et al. (2019a; 2019b) identified that environmental
concern is a crucial contributor in building a connection with self, other
people, and biosphere or human-nature relationship. Kautish and Dash
(2017) hypothesized that perceived consumer effectiveness as a realm-
specific belief that individual determinations can be instrumental in
carving a change in resolving the environmental problems specifically
in the emerging market contexts, e.g., India. Connectedness to nature
and love for nature refer to the bond individuals share with nature,
linked to their own beliefs, deep emotions, and behavior (Mayer and
Frantz, 2004; Whitburn et al., 2020). In response to the research gaps
described above, the prime objective of the current research was to de-
velop a theoretical structure that clarifies customers’ pro-
environmental friendly choice behavior towards plastic consumption.
The study aims to respond to its three research questions (RQs)
grounded in the context of an emerging market, e.g., India:
• RQ1: What are the critical antecedents of user choice behavior
towards plastic consumption in India?
• RQ2: Do connectedness to nature and love for nature significantly
mediate the impact of environmental concern and perceived
consumer effectiveness on choice behavior for plastic consumption?
• RQ3: Do connectedness to nature and love for nature mediate the
impact of environmental concern and perceived consumer
effectiveness on choice behavior for plastic consumption?
Previous research on pro-environmental behavior and the identified
research gap in the plastic consumption domain guided the study. We
developed a conceptual model that extends the norm activation model
(NAM) framework by incorporating significant behavioral measures,
namely environmental concern, perceived consumer effectiveness, and
demographic characteristics as a control variable. We tested our model
using a cross-sectional dataset collected from 745 participants across
Indian states from all four regions. This research has substantial impli-
cations for different stakeholders comprising scholars, plastic manufac-
turers, plastic consumers, practitioners, and policymakers. The study
findings will enable various stakeholders to understand the nitty-gritty
of environmental concern and perceived consumer effectiveness para-
digms from consumers’ connectedness to nature, love for nature, and
choice behavior towards consuming plastic products in an emerging
market scenario. Furthermore, study results will enable them to inter-
pret the association of environmental concern and perceived consumer
effectiveness with connectedness to nature, love for nature, and choice
behavior for plastic products. The practitioners may utilize the findings
to develop suitable marketing and promotional strategies, e.g., nature-
based branding, nature-based campaigns, to improve the company im-
age and facilitate their brand identity creation in the emerging market
context (Chauhan et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2020b).
The entire paper is structured as follows: the succeeding sections in-
troduce the study's theoretical framework and exhaustively review the
previous scholarly work related to pro-environmental behavior and
plastic consumption. The research methodology section specifies the re-
search approach, research design, data collection, sample, measures,
data curation, and analysis. A presentation of results follows. In the
later sections, we discuss the findings in light of their contribution to
2
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
the theory, literature, and managerial implications. Lastly, the study de-
tails limitations and suggests future research directions in the emerging
market context to reduce the ecological footprints concerning plastic
production and consumption.
2. Conceptual framework
Globally unsustainable production and consumption caused envi-
ronmental deterioration, and emerging markets are no exception
(Goossens et al., 2018; Sala et al., 2020). In today's world, with increas-
ing levels of environmental degradation all around due to human activi-
ties, there is a requirement to understand why people exhibit pro-
environmental choice behavior. The personal costs (i.e., consumption
risk, product price) of pro-environmental choice behavior are generally
more conspicuous than personal gains (Kang and Moreno, 2020;
Kautish et al., 2020). A rational decision-making approach would cus-
tomarily predict that individuals' pro-environmental choice behavior
will not be voluntarily practiced by individuals (Collado and Evans,
2019).
2.1. Norm activation model
The current study operationalizes the NAM model as it posits that
basically, two aspects determine the personal norms: first, the mindful-
ness that performing (or not performing) the specific activity (behavior)
has a few assured consequences and second, the feeling of responsibility
for completing the particular action to bring change (Ateş, 2020;
Schwartz, 1977). The norm activation model (NAM) is considered a
widely acclaimed and conferred model that describes altruistic and en-
vironmentally friendly behaviors (He and Zhan, 2018; van der Werff
and Steg, 2015). Originally, Schwartz (1977) developed NAM and per-
sonal norms as a core construct of the model to explain pro-
environmental behavioral facets. Schwartz (1977) stated that these sub-
jective norms are dynamically experienced as “feelings of moral obliga-
tion not as intentions” (p. 227), and personal criteria predict individual
behavior. De Groot and Steg (2009) provided strong evidence that an
individual must be mindful of the consequences of behavior before ex-
periencing responsibility; in turn, feelings of guilt stimulate personal
norms, and those activated, subjective criteria prompt individual be-
havioral choices (p. 428). As per Fig. 1 for representing the NAM, we
used this model to explore how connectedness to nature and love for
nature are associated with personal norms (individual level of environ-
mental concern and stimulated perceived consumer effectiveness) and
choice behavior for non-plastic consumption in an emerging market
context.
3. Literature review and hypotheses development
Worldwide emerged, and emerging economies face environmental
problems, i.e., climate change, water, and air pollution due to plastic
consumption (see Heldbreder et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2020b). Addi-
tionally, emerging markets’ urban consumer advancements combined
with the heavy dependence on online shopping and takeaway facilities
for home delivery have led to an increased demand for plastic-led or un-
sustainable packaging practices. Despite the continuous restrictions in
many emerging countries, including India, China, Brazil, Pakistan, and
Russia (ET, 2019; Kautish, 2013; Khan et al., 2020a; Parashar et al.,
2020), there is an upsurge for single-use plastics (SUPs) and other plas-
tic-based alternatives.
3.1. Environmental concern
Crosby et al. (1981; p. 22) defined environmental concern as a
strong positive attitude towards environmental protection, and later
on, Gill et al. (1986) demarcated environmental concern as a general
or global attitude that got an indirect influence on behavior choices (p.
540). Environmental concern is a multidimensional construct that em-
braces ecologically accountable engagements, pro-environmental atti-
tudes, and environmental values embedded in emerging markets, e.g.,
India (Kautish and Dash, 2017; Kautish and Sharma, 2020). In the
scholarly explorations, environmental concern is deliberated as indi-
viduals’ level of knowledge and awareness concerning harmful and ad-
verse consequences of an act that is not environmentally friendly and
against individuals’ value disposition (Armstrong and Stedman, 2019;
Minton and Rose, 1997). In its broadest sense, Rhead et al. (2015)
posit that environmental concern indicates “the degree to which indi-
viduals are aware of problems regarding the environment, their sup-
port of efforts to solve such problems” (p. 176). This environmental
concern may drive a global movement that offers a unique opportunity
for general consumer-centric environmental engagement beyond the
immediate resolution of the environmental problems such as plastic
pollution due to plastic production and consumption in emerging mar-
kets (Kautish and Soni, 2012; Sharma and do Paço, 2021).
3.2. Perceived consumer effectiveness
For the first time, Kinnear et al. (1974) illustrated perceived con-
sumer effectiveness (PCE) as a measure of an individuals’ belief that
they can have an active role to play in environmental protection or pol-
lution reduction. Ellen et al. (1991) demarcated PCE as a ‘realm-
specific consumer belief that the individuals’ efforts or endeavors can
Fig. 1. Conceptual model
3
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
make a big difference in the resolution’ (p. 103). In other words, PCE is
the consumers’ perception of what degree to which their activities can
make a difference in resolving environmental problems (Ellen et al.,
1991). As a construct, PCE is comparable to self-efficacy, which refers
to the personal belief in one's ability to achieve common objectives
through efforts (Bandura, 1986). Attitude is considered a function of
salient thought (Tandon et al., 2020b); but, PCE is not the same as atti-
tude regarding its approach towards ‘evaluation of an issue’ (Wesley et
al., 2012). In the literature on sustainable consumption from emerging
markets, PCE has been recognized by numerous scholars as a strong
predictor of environmentally sustainable consumer behavior in a vari-
ety of product categories, e.g., green products, sustainable apparel, or-
ganic food, etc. (Dagher and Itani, 2014; Kautish and Dash, 2017; Kim,
2011; Mostafa, 2006; Tan, 2011).
3.3. Connectedness to nature
In the early evolutionary phases of civilization, physically and psy-
chologically, humans were more connected to nature than the modern
industrialized world. This situation implies a possible disconnect with
natural surroundings primarily because of people's effort towards rapid
urbanization, leading to a vacuum or humanly isolation from vital envi-
ronmental cues, i.e., plastic, air, and water pollution (Koop and van
Leeuwen, 2017; Peters and Bratton, 2016). Human activities are pri-
marily focused on non-environment interventions coupled with techno-
logical impediments. Urbanization is affecting peoples’ capability to
connect with nature in their day to day chores, possibly constructing a
void or a human-nature disconnect which is assumed to influence our
empathetic view towards other creatures and aspiration to help in envi-
ronmental conservation efforts (Mayer et al., 2009; Sharma et al.,
2020a; Wilting et al., 2017). The connectedness to nature is related to
the understanding of how individuals recognize themselves with the
heart. It is epitomized by the range of terms used to explain the phe-
nomenon, e.g., passionate empathy with nature (Kals et al., 1999), con-
nectivity with nature (Dutcher et al., 2007), empathizing with nature
(Schultz, 2000; 2001), inclusion with nature (Schultz, 2001; 2002), na-
ture relatedness (Nisbet et al., 2009; Nisbet and Zelenski, 2013), con-
nectedness to nature (Brügger et al., 2011), nature connectedness
(Howell et al., 2011) and connection with nature (Tam, 2013).
3.4. Love for nature
Over the last century, people have witnessed increasing environ-
mental problems due to rapid technological inventions such as plastic,
polymers, and synthetic cloth. Gradually, individuals take ownership of
ecological deterioration, and a positive emotional influence (e.g., love,
affection, affinity, care) is evident in their pro-social consumption para-
digms (Cavanaugh et al., 2015). Love as a feeling has three constituents
which are classic positive emotions: passion, intimacy, and commit-
ment (Sternberg, 1986; 1997). Previous research has discussed the posi-
tive effects of emotions (i.e., guilt and pride) on sustainable consump-
tion choices on pro-environmental behavior sustainable consumption
choices (Antonetti and Maklan, 2014; Onwezen et al., 2013), but love
for nature has never been surveyed. Wang and Wu (2016) discovered
significant effects of respect and anger on sustainable consumption
choices; likewise, negative emotions (e.g., fear and anxiety) induced ap-
peals reinforce people's intentions to get engage in pro-environmental
behavior facets (Chen, 2016). It is well evident that love for nature can
directly affect sustainable consumption (Dong et al., 2020; Lastovicka
and Sirianni, 2011). According to the philosophies of love, emotions
can directly affect individual decision-making and judgments (Perkins,
2010). Love for nature resonates with consumer levels of bonding, com-
passion, commitment, and intimacy with nature, affecting usage or
choice behavior. Secondly, love symbolizes the level of commitment be-
tween individual and nature, thus aids in narrowing down the psycho-
logical distance (e.g., volunteerism) between individual and nature, en-
couraging sustainable consumption practices (Omoto and Packard,
2016).
3.5. Environmental concern, connectedness to nature, and choice behavior
In behavioral research related to ecological aspects, environmental
concern is always considered an individual's level of cognizance to-
wards environmental problems (Prakash and Pathak, 2017). For a very
long, environmental concern is highlighted as one of the basic cognitive
measures to predict individuals’ environmentally friendly behavior in
green marketing-related scholarly work. In general, it holds the individ-
uals’ mindfulness or connectedness towards environmental complica-
tions and a deep inclination to resolve related problems (Roberts and
Bacon, 1997; Kautish and Sharma, 2021). Furthermore, it entails the
sense of responsibility to safeguard the environment, exemplified with
an individualistic emotional appeal that echoes their level of engage-
ment with environmental conservation (Kautish and Sharma, 2020).
Connectedness to nature denotes the relationship individuals’ share
with nature- it is primarily related to and often defined by individuals’
pro-environmental beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and behavioral disposi-
tions towards nature in terms of environmental concern (Frantz et al.,
2005; Mayer and Frantz, 2004; Whitheartt al., 2020).
The plastic-led environmental vulnerabilities have grown into an
area of increased attention in business practice and a scholarly debate
from psychosocial, economic, and public policy perspectives related to
sustainable consumption (Khan et al., 2020a; 2020b; Luís et al., 2020).
The choice of product attributes (e.g., sustainable packaging) is directly
or indirectly influenced by individuals’ level of environmental concern
or connectedness to nature to protect the environment (Dilkes-Hoffman
et al., 2019; Kautish and Dash, 2017). In turn, it impacts consumer per-
ceptions about the product offerings and underlying choice behavior
(Martinho et al., 2015). Previous studies have acknowledged the con-
sumers’ displeasure towards plastic consumption, notwithstanding its
widespread usage (Orset et al., 2017), and started showing interest in
other substitutes such as biodegradable plastic (Dilkes-Hoffman et al.,
2019). Therefore, the study suggests the following hypotheses:
H1: Environmental concern has a direct impact on choice behavior.
H2: Environmental concern leads to the connectedness to nature.
3.6. Environmental concern and love for nature
Fransson and Gärling (1999) stated that environmental concern is
the “appraisal of, or an attitude toward the realities of individuals’ be-
havior, or others’ behavior with concerns for the environment (p.
370). Since the measure of environmental concern required to be solv-
ing the environmental problems at individual level disparate to collec-
tive orientations. In other words, environmental concern led to indi-
vidualistic mindfulness or exposure is not related to their collectivistic
predispositions (i.e., waste recycling) to resolve the natural troubles at
a universal level (Tandon et al., 2020b). Research evidence suggests
that environmental concern has a direct, positive, and significant in-
fluence on several cognitive and behavioral facets (e.g., empathy)
which further impact the perspectives towards ecological issues
(Schultz, 2000) and lead to positive emotions (e.g., care or love for na-
ture) (Perkins, 2010; Perrin and Benassi, 2009). Schultz (2000) con-
tends that individual environmental concerns are related to the inten-
sity or degree to which they view themselves interconnected with na-
ture (p. 391). The environmental conservation-driven interconnection
with nature takes the perspective of animals (fauna). Being impaired
by pollution creates a significantly higher level of environmental con-
cerns for the wellbeing of other creatures (Cavanaugh et al., 2015).
Based on the arguments presented above, the study hypothesizes as:
4
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
H3: Environmental concern leads to the love for nature.
3.7. Perceived consumer effectiveness, connectedness to nature, love for
nature, and choice behavior
Ellen et al. (1991) validate that PCE towards environmental prob-
lems is distinct from environmental concerns or green attitudes and
provides a unique contribution to the predictability of environmentally
conscious consumer behavior, for instance, consumer choice for non-
plastic product consumption (Crowley, 2020). Consumer concerns
about the environment might not effortlessly culminate into pro-
environmental behaviors: however, individuals with strong PCE or be-
lief, and blend of connectedness to nature, and a love for nature may re-
sult in support of their concerns (Cavanaugh et al., 2015; Dong et al.,
2020). The self-efficacy-oriented beliefs and primitive beliefs underly-
ing environmental attitudes, e.g., connectedness to nature and love of
nature, may influence the likelihood of performing sustainable con-
sumption (Geng et al., 2015). By nature, human lives are entrenched
with positive emotions, e.g., the need to feel connected, loved, and lov-
ing others (Hutcherson et al., 2008). As in many environmental or sus-
tainability-oriented studies, PCE (e.g., ecological belief) had been de-
marcated as an internal locus of control detained by an individual that
one's actions can make a difference in preserving the environmental
well-being (Cleveland et al., 2012; Ohtomo and Ohnuma, 2014). Based
on these relationships described above, the study hypothesizes that:
H4: Perceived consumer effectiveness has an impact on connectedness
to nature.
H5: Perceived consumer effectiveness has an impact on love for nature.
H6: Perceived consumer effectiveness has an impact on choice
behavior.
3.8. Connectedness to nature, love for nature, and choice behavior
Connectedness to nature denotes individuals’ cognitive, experien-
tial, and emotional relationship with nature (Mayer and Frantz, 2004).
Ecological and social psychologists have moved their attention from
materialistic and narrow-focused issues to the wide-ranging human-
nature connectedness (Clayton and Opotow, 2003; Nisbet and Zelenski,
2013). According to psychologists, connectedness to nature and love for
nature are associated with social intimacy, altruism, and outlook-
building (Mayer and Frantz, 2004). The necessity to associate with a
human community, the desire to connect with others, and the longing
to become a participant of a social community have together been de-
liberated as rudimentary human needs (Fiske, 2004). Expanding on the
notion of the need to connect with nature, Edward Osborne Wilson
(1984) coined the term Biophilia to describe it as ‘humanity's instinctive
affinity for and interest in building connections with the outer natural
world, which assumes that humans hold the biological need to connect
with and fit into the broader natural ecosphere. Wilson (1984) defined
Biophilia as ‘the innate propensity to focus on life and lifelike progres-
sions’ (p. 1). Wilson (1993) further elaborated on Biophilia in the con-
text of conservation ethics as it encompasses a set of wisdom-oriented
rules that ‘fall along several emotional continuums: from attraction to
aversion, awe to indifference, and peacefulness to panic-driven anxiety’
(p. 31).
Stephen R. Kellert (2005) offers an additional explanation in the
form of the Biophilia Hypothesis, which declares the presence of a bios-
phere-based, innate human need to connect with life and lifelike devel-
opments (e.g., love for nature)…The human need for nature is intercon-
nected…to the impact of the natural world on individuals’ cognitive,
emotional, aesthetic, and spiritual development. The Biophilia concep-
tion, thus, powerfully proclaims that a comprehensive human choice-
driven search for a logically coherent and satisfying existence is closely
dependent upon individuals’ connection with nature (Vining et al.,
2008). As an underlying dimension or intervening variable for environ-
mental facets, connectedness to nature and love of nature can be ob-
served through explicit and implicit measures. The explicit and implicit
processes encompass diverse psychological progressions in behavioral
determination, e.g., choice behavior (Kushwah et al., 2019a; 2019b).
Hence the current study endeavors to survey the choice behavior to-
wards everyday plastic consumption to validate the emerging market,
e.g., Indian context corresponding to the reflections narrated above; the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H7: Connectedness to nature has an impact on choice behavior.
H8: Love for nature has an impact on choice behavior.
3.9. Mediating influence of connectedness to nature and love for nature
From the standpoints of environmental psychology, a sense of relat-
edness or a sense of being connected a central theme of the natural
world, e.g., connectedness to nature and love for nature, humans expe-
rience psychological gains such as social or personal well-being (Mayer
et al., 2009). The underlying characteristics of connectedness to nature
are comparable to personality traits as it is also moderately stable over
time and across life situations. The three components of love (passion,
intimacy, and commitment) are quite interactive as stronger desire
brings more vital intimacy and commitment; similarly, stronger inti-
macy may bring stronger passion and dedication or vice-versa. Human
beings continuously share an inborn need to connect with other forms
of life and living creatures around, but some human beings experience
it explicitly, and some feel it implicitly (Nisbet et al., 2009). Human in-
teraction or collaboration with natural surroundings often involves var-
ious ecological entities, i.e., self-identity, other humans’ identity, other
than human creatures’ wellbeing, and ecosystem synergies (Brügger et
al., 2011; Jordan, 2009). Therefore, when humans experience strong
ecological entity validation, specifically environmental concern and
perceived consumer effectiveness, harming the planet or ecosystem cul-
minates into harming themselves (Hinds and Sparks, 2008; Poortinga et
al., 2019). How much individuals empathize with the natural atmos-
phere is the key to human-nature relationships, e.g., connectedness to
nature and love for nature in the milieu of their level of environmental
concern and perceived consumer effectiveness matters (Jaiswal and
Kant, 2018).
Connectedness to nature as a thought often fails to quantify the indi-
viduals’ emotional link towards nature or individuals’ emotional bond-
ing with nature and nature-based phenomena. Instead, it only measures
cognitive belief (Perrin and Benassi, 2009; Tam, 2013). Still, the con-
cept of connectedness to nature has superior psychometric properties to
embrace the new environmental paradigm. Thus, it serves as a critical
predictor of ecology-oriented choice behavior and subjective well-being
for consumers (Howell et al., 2011; Mayer and Frantz, 2004; Mayer et
al., 2009). To explain the emotional facets, Kals et al. (1999) proposed a
theory of emotional affinity, which entails traits related to nature, i.e.,
love for nature. Continuing in surrounding nature (present and past ex-
periences) is considered to be valuable to individuals’ emotional con-
nectedness, which positively affects emotional affinity and these experi-
ences comprise the self-extension involvements (direct interactions
with nature) or the self-expansion involvements (distant interactions
with nature). Based on the above arguments, initializing from the cog-
nitive-emotional path, connectedness to nature, and love for nature re-
veals an individuals’ cognition and nature-based experiences. Thus, the
present research examines the underlying mediating impact of connect-
edness to nature and love for nature to understand choice behavior.
Therefore, the study hypothesizes the following:
H9a: Connectedness to nature substantially mediates the linkage
between environmental concern and choice behavior
5
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
H9b: Love for nature substantially mediates the linkage between
environmental concern and choice behavior.
H10a: Connectedness to nature substantially mediates the linkage
between perceived consumer effectiveness and choice behavior.
H10b: Love for nature mediates the relationship between perceived
consumer effectiveness and choice behavior.
3.10. Role of demographic variables
The public opinion of the societal members to consider plastic as a
malicious polluter has continuously get raised in the media reports and
newspaper articles stressing the concerns for aggravated environmental
situations due to the mismanagement of plastic wastes (Chen et al.,
2020). Sustainable consumption embraces various environmental con-
servation practices such as recycling, reducing energy usage, decreas-
ing household waste, dropping plastic consumption, and promoting en-
vironmentally friendly purchases (Sharma et al., 2021e). In the present
study context, sustainable consumption relates specifically to non-
plastic product consumption. A plethora of researches has investigated
the consumer characteristics related to plastic consumption (Confente
et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2020a; Luís et al., 2020) and drivers of sustain-
able consumption (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019; Meng and Leary, 2021).
A few studies have suggested demographics variables are of limited sig-
nificance (Joshi and Rahman, 2017), preferring psychographic and be-
havioral variables (Arbués and Villanúa, 2016; Kautish et al., 2019).
In contrast, other sets of researches proclaim that demographic
characteristics like age, gender, income, education, and household
characteristics (i.e., family structure) are key variables to understand
sustainable consumption and stressed the importance of these variables
(Kumar and Yadav, 2021; Li et al., 2017; Qian et al., 2019). Addition-
ally, the accessibility of diverse demographics across the population can
facilitate effective segmentation for better target-oriented behavioral
change campaigns for different consumer segments (Grimmer and
Wooley, 2014), and it is particularly appropriate for the emerging mar-
kets, where green consumers’ profiling and market segmentation is of-
ten challenging for practitioners (Jaiswal et al., 2020; Kumar and
Yadav, 2021). Hence, based on the arguments given above, we offer the
last and final hypothesis as follows:
H11: The relationships among connectedness to nature, love for nature,
and choice behavior will vary across demographic variables, e.g.,
gender, age, income, and education.
4. Research methodology
The study employed a cross-sectional design and a hypo-deductive
method in which the constructs are categorized in two clusters, func-
tional and structural, an arrangement that determines the hypotheses
creation and the statistical tests to be executed on the dataset to
strengthen the proficiency of the research findings (Mesly, 2015, p. 69).
In the subsequent sections, the details about methods are presented.
4.1. Research context and product category
The current study was conducted in the emerging market, e.g., In-
dia, which is encountered severe environmental threats due to plastic
pollution and rising unsustainable consumption. But Indian population
has a relatively higher level of awareness and knowledge about the
harmful impact of plastic consumption and is committed to beat plastic
pollution (Business Standard, 2018; Singh and Mathur, 2019). Plastic
was chosen as the focused product category for this study owing to two
main reasons. First, the plastic problem contributes to global warming
and climate change and its other adverse environmental impacts
(Heldbreder et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2021b), particularly in emerg-
ing markets like India. Second, the Government of India is also keen on
discouraging plastic consumption and promoting sustainable consump-
tion (Kautish et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2020b).
4.2. Sample and data collection
With the intention to analyzing representative data and ensure di-
versity of the entire country, the study leveraged the resource credibil-
ity of Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Therefore, one state capital
from each of the eastern (E), western (W), northern (N), and southern
(S) regions of the country were selected to collect samples. As per the
Indian census data, Kolkata (E), Mumbai (W), New Delhi (N), and Ben-
galuru (S) are the top populous state capitals from these four regions of
the country (Kapoor and Dwivedi, 2020). The study data were collected
during January-February 2021 from all participants almost at the same
point in time; thus, the researchers used the cross-sectional design
(Spector, 2004) and the sample data with the aim of a minimum of 100
responses from each of these four state capitals were collected with the
help of MTurk services. On the recommendations of Paolacci and
Chandler (2014), specific measures were applied to adequately gener-
ate the quality data, such as the participants were invited from all four
regions to increase the representativeness of the population, the sample
was paid sufficiently before actual data collection a pilot sample of 25
participants was administered and only once the invitation to partici-
pate was sent to the potential respondents (Simcox and Fiez, 2014).
MTurk workers or respondents tend to be demographically differ-
ent, and most belong to India (Paolacci and Chandler, 2014). The tar-
geted population was Indian citizens from the four regions above 18
years of age. Keeping the time and cost constraints in mind, conve-
nience (non-probability) sampling was considered appropriate. The
minimum suggested the number of responses for the SEM model struc-
ture with five latent variables, 48 observed variables, 0.2 effect size, 0.8
statistical power, and p-value 0.5 was 376 (Soper, 2021; Stevens, 1996).
A total of 782 responses were gathered, but only 745 responses were
utilized for data analysis due to outlier problems. Data cleaning on 782
datasets for sensitivity (questionnaire with sig. < 0.001 and SD < 0.5
were eliminated), univariate and multivariate outlier (Leys et al., 2018)
tests were performed. Finally, 745 clean responses were acquired; the
demographic description of the same is given in Table 1. The demo-
graphic characteristics of study participants included age, gender, in-
Table 1
Details about respondents (N = 745)
Criteria Frequency %
Gender
Female 327 43.90
Male 418 56.10
Age (in years)
18-25 104 13.96
26-40 297 39.86
41-55 232 31.14
Above 55 112 15.04
Status
Single 357 47.91
Married 388 52.09
Education
Graduate 249 33.43
Postgraduate 284 38.12
Professional 212 28.45
Occupation
Service 358 48.05
Business 272 36.51
Others 115 15.44
Household income level (monthly)
INR 35,000/- to INR 50,000/- 136 18.25
INR 50,001 to INR 1,00,000/- 269 36.10
INR above 1,00,000/- 340 45.65
Note: INR = Indian National Rupee
6
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
come, education, occupation, and marital status. The participants’ age
varied from 18 to 55 years. A total of 418 (56.10%) were male 327
(43.90%) were female. More than 33% (n=249) of the participants
were graduates, more than 38% (n=284) were postgraduate, and more
than 28% (n=212) were professionally qualified. More than 18%
(n=136) participants’ monthly household income was in the range of
INR 35,000/-INR 50,000/-, more than 36% (n=269) participants’
monthly household income was in the range of INR 50,001/- INR
100,000/- and more than 45% (n=197) participants’ monthly house-
hold income was above INR 100,000/-.
4.3. Measures
The research instrument or questionnaire was designed to measure
the influencing factors of consumers' plastic consumption-related
choice behavior based on prior research on the theme. The measure-
ment constructs and scale items used were adapted from previously val-
idated measures after a careful analysis of the literature. The prelimi-
nary draft of the questionnaire was pretested on 40 respondents from
divergent backgrounds (including university students, marketing pro-
fessors, and the general public), and based on their feedback, a few mi-
nor language corrections were incorporated (see Table 2). The scale
items for environmental concern and perceived consumer effectiveness
were adapted from Heo and Muralidharan (2019). Tandon et al.
(2020b), scale items for connectedness to nature was adapted from
Dong et al. (2020), and Perrin and Banassi (2009), love for nature was
adapted from Dong et al. (2020) and Lastovicka and Sirianni (2011),
lastly, choice behavior was adapted from Kushwah et al. (2019a;
2019b) and Lin and Huang (2012). The questionnaire was designed us-
ing unbiased language and included simple statements with choices of-
fered to be marked either on a 7-point Likert-type scale or a 5-point Lik-
ert-type scale (Likert, 1932).
4.4. Common method bias (CMB)
To reduce the effect of CMB and to ensure robust results, in addition
to carefully constructing the scale items, following the recommenda-
tions of Podsakoff et al. (2003), the study participants were informed
that their responses would be evaluated anonymously, utmost confi-
dentiality will be maintained, and there are no correct or incorrect an-
swers to the questions given in the questionnaire (p. 883). Furthermore,
in line with the guidelines of Podsakoff et al. (2003), the present re-
search operationalized a seven-point Likert-type scale for dependent
variables and a five-point Likert-type scale for independent variables to
rectify the CMB concerns related to self-reported cross-sectional data
(Lindell and Whitney, 2001). Additionally, Harman's one-factor test in
which one-static factor gets mined from all principal constructs to clar-
ify below 50 percent of the variance (Harman, 1976). The data analysis
revealed that the first factors explained only 32.74 percent of the vari-
ance. In addition, the correlation above 0.9 indicates CMB, but in the
current research, the relationship between environmental concern and
connectedness to nature has the strongest correlation with 0.57 (Ali et
al., 2020); thus, the threat of CMB was minimized in the study.
5. Data analysis
According to the aim of the study and subsequent hypothesized
model, data analysis is being completed using covariance-based struc-
tural equation modeling (CB-SEM) using IBM SPSS AMOS v. 26.0. Fol-
lowing the guidelines provided by Hair et al. (2015), the data was first
put through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to calculate the model
fit indices and evaluate the reliability and validity measurement. Sec-
ondly, the SEM was performed to test hypotheses by employing a two-
step research approach (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Lastly, modera-
tion with control variables was executed.
Table 2
Constructs, scale items and descriptive statistics
Environmental Concern Mean SD Loadings
The Environmental pollution due to plastic consumption is
one of the most critical environmental concerns today.
4.26 1.23 0.750
The importance of the environment is many folds, so I
avoid plastic consumption.
5.42 1.05 0.765
There is no much consideration has been given to
environmental protection in recent times to avoid plastic
consumption.
4.96 1.14 0.797
Concerns relating to the natural environment are essential
for me, so I avoid plastic consumption.
5.23 1.03 0.788
Increasing devastation of the environment is a grave
concern, so I avoid plastic consumption.
4.74 1.12 0.881
Environment protection is an excellent human ethos, so I
intentionally avoid plastic consumption. (rc)
2.86 1.35 0.796
There has to be great concern about the environment
among citizens, so I avoid plastic consumption.
5.74 1.07 0.734
There is no severe other issue facing human society than
environmental pollution due to plastic consumption.
5.40 1.02 0.862
Globally, we are doing enough to protect the environment
and counter plastic pollution. (rc)
5.66 1.07 0.825
We must try to preserve the natural environment for
future generations by avoiding plastic pollution.
5.32 1.21 0.817
We should allocate some share of the national resources
for environmental protection and avoiding plastic
pollution.
5.27 1.13 0.792
The benefits of environmental protection in the form of
avoiding plastic consumption justify the costs involved
in it.
5.24 1.12 0.788
Perceived Consumer Effectiveness
It is worthy for potential consumers to make efforts to
protect the environment by avoiding plastic
consumption.
5.41 1.02 0.862
When I purchase products, I attempt to consider the
plastic waste out of my consumption.
5.66 1.07 0.825
When I purchase products, I try to understand whether my
plastic consumption will affect the environment.
5.32 1.20 0.816
Each consumer affects environmental problems due to
plastic consumption.
5.27 1.13 0.793
I can make a meaningful difference by avoiding plastic
consumption.
5.25 1.11 0.787
Each consumer can positively affect the natural
environment and society by not using consuming plastic-
made products.
5.18 1.14 0.816
Connectedness to Nature
By avoiding plastic consumption, I usually feel a sense of
openness with the natural environment around me.
5.84 1.17 0.886
By avoiding plastic consumption in my routine, I
considerably think about the natural environment as a
community to which I belong.
5.85 1.15 0.764
By avoiding plastic consumption in my life, I can identify
and appreciate the presence of other living organisms on
this planet.
5.84 1.17 0.885
By avoiding plastic consumption in my life, I frequently
feel disconnected from nature. (rc)
5.85 1.15 0.764
By avoiding plastic consumption in my life, when I reflect
on my life, I visualize myself as part of a more extensive
cyclical process of natural inhabitant.
5.22 1.18 0.817
By avoiding plastic consumption in my life, I often feel a
connection with plants and animals.
4.32 1.45 0.712
By avoiding plastic consumption in my life, I sense my
belonging with the mother earth in the same way as it
belongs to me.
2.96 1.63 0.766
By avoiding plastic consumption in my life, I profoundly
understand how my activities adversely affect the
natural environment.
3.73 1.23 0.774
By avoiding plastic consumption, I habitually feel part of
the network of life.
5.09 1.34 0.806
By avoiding plastic consumption, I feel that all creatures of
the mother earth, human and nonhuman share a mutual
‘life force.’
5.31 1.31 0.751
By avoiding plastic consumption, I feel entrenched within
the larger natural world.
5.13 1.43 0.784
(continued on next page)
7
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
Table 2 (continued)
Environmental Concern Mean SD Loadings
By avoiding plastic consumption, I can reflect on myself as
an associate at the top of the hierarchy that survives in
natural surroundings.
3.63 1.52 0.742
By avoiding plastic consumption, I often feel that I can
contribute to the minor part of the natural ecosphere
around me.
5.35 1.13 0.794
By avoiding plastic consumption, I can make sure of my
well-being and the natural world.
4.80 1.45 0.757
Love for Nature
I attempt to visualize the nature around me without plastic
consumption and feel happy about it.
5.24 0.91 0.793
Sometimes just experiencing nature without plastic can be
very stimulating to me.
5.38 0.94 0.763
When I am not surrounded by nature, I find myself craving
to see it without plastic substances.
4.42 1.53 0.729
The day I will touch nature without plastic will be a
dream come accurate for me.
4.46 1.31 0.704
I know that nature without plastic is of little interest to the
maximum number of people around me.
4.34 1.33 0.716
I realize that I don't understand natural surroundings and
plastic led pollution in the environment. (rc)
5.24 0.91 0.793
I relish spending time with nature and avoiding plastic
consumption in my personal life.
5.37 0.94 0.761
I am pleased to share myself and my possessions with
nature by avoiding plastic consumption.
4.42 1.53 0.729
I am always keen on learning about nature and the
environment without plastic consumption.
4.47 1.31 0.704
I would love to keep in touch with nature by not buying
plastic products.
4.34 1.33 0.715
I can't imagine leaving nature and plastic consumption.
(rc)
5.13 1.32 0.732
I think nature is irreplaceable, so we should avoid plastic
consumption.
4.64 1.28 0.824
Choice Behavior
I make sure to purchase products that do not add to plastic
pollution.
5.17 1.22 0.810
I have switched to products that do not add to plastic
pollution.
5.21 1.28 0.831
Whenever I have a product alternative between two or
more identical products, I buy products that do not add
to plastic pollution.
5.38 0.94 0.763
I make sure to purchase household utensils or accessories
that do not add to plastic pollution.
4.41 1.52 0.728
Annotation: rc = Reverse Coded
5.1. Exploratory factor analysis
Before analyzing the measurement model, an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) was executed using SPSS v. 25 to ascertain the extraction
of the principal factors (Hair et al., 2015). A Bartlett test of sphericity
(3782.439) and the measure of sampling adequacy or Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin (KMO) statistics (0.862) conclude a substantial correlation
among variables to approve the use of factor analysis (Pallant, 2016).
Principal component analysis was performed to extract a set of factors.
On recommendations of Comrey and Lee (1992), all the variables
within the factors were found to have communalities more than 0.50
(communality below 0.4 and loading below 0.45 were deleted). Fur-
thermore, all factors comprising dependent and independent variables
were inputted with Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings. Five latent con-
structs attaining Eigenvalues above ‘1’ testified to 72.157 percent of the
total variance mined after varimax rotation. To be on the safer side for
normality assumption (Mardia coefficient = 231.45; critical ra-
tio = 46.32), the study chosen the maximum likelihood estimation
(MLE) technique and bootstrapping procedure for 1,000 resample
(West et al., 1995). Bollen-Stine's adjusted p-value was taken to test the
null hypothesis during the bootstrapping process, and adjusting the
model with incremental, absolute, and parsimonious measurements
aided in validating the model's adjustments (Preacher and Hayes,
2008).
5.2. Measurement model: Reliability and validity analyses
The CFA results of the measurement model revealed a good model
fit with a MLE method and the current study comprehensively verified
the statistical fit and construct validity, viz., χ2/df = 2.853;
CFI = 0.968; IFI = 0.967; NFI = 0.958; TLI = 0.959; GFI = 0.948;
PGFI = 0.670; RMSEA = 0.057; SRMR = 0.037, as per the recom-
mended thresholds if normed chi-square value χ2/df ranges between 2
and 5, CFI, IFI, NFI and TLI are more than 0.90 (Hu and Bentler, 1999),
PGFI is above 0.50 and RMSEA and SRMR are less than 0.08 and 0.05
respectively then the model fit indices are confirmatory in nature. As
displayed in Table 2, all the standardized factor loadings were above
0.70 (ranges from 0.712 to 0.886). Table 3 demonstrate that the com-
posite reliability of all five latent constructs (ranges from 0.785 to
0.891) is well above the recommended value of 0.70 (Neuman, 2007);
thus, the model has adequate internal consistency and reliability. More-
over, the AVE estimates of all the latent constructs (ranges from 0.572
to 0.748) are more than the suggested value of 0.50, and the ASV values
(ranges from 0.185 to 0.291) and MSV values (ranges from 0.297 to
0.352) are less than the AVE values, so the observable variance of all
the constructs that are explicated by latent constructs is more than the
number of variables explained by error (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hair et
al., 2015).
The discriminant validity is verified by comparing the AVE values
and the correlation coefficient of constructs (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). If the square root of the AVE value is more than the correlation
coefficient, it is presumed that the variable has good discriminant valid-
ity. The square root estimate of the AVE value of each construct is more
than its correlation coefficient, which confirms the discriminant valid-
ity of the variables (see diagonals in Table 3). The multicollinearity of
formative constructs was also calculated with variance inflation factor
(VIF) values. The model constructs presented the VIF values not exceed-
ing the conventional score of 3.30, i.e., VIF for environmental concern
model: 2.34; VIF for perceived consumer effectiveness model: 1.87; VIF
for connectedness to nature model: 2.18; VIF for love for nature model:
1.96 and VIF for choice behavior model: 2.45. The tolerance values
were more than the threshold estimate of 0.20 for all the constructs. All
the correlations estimates between constructs were below 0.90, specify-
ing that multicollinearity should not be an issue in the study (Grewal et
al., 2004).
Table 3
Reliability, validity, and collinearity estimates
ASV AVE MSV CR VIF Tolerance CB CN PCE EC LN
CB 0.291 0.748 0.343 0.785 2.45 0.46 0.745
CN 0.193 0.656 0.352 0.891 2.18 0.51 0.581 0.822
PCE 0.242 0.693 0.325 0.852 1.87 0.49 0.452 0.411 0.774
EC 0.185 0.724 0.297 0.864 2.34 0.38 0.544 0.383 0.545 0.795
LN 0.220 0.572 0.332 0.843 1.96 0.54 0.563 0.424 0.472 0.558 0.832
Annotations: EC = Environmental Concern; PCE = Perceived Consumer Effectiveness; CN = Connectedness to Nature;
LN = Love for Nature; CB = Choice Behavior; VIF = Variance Inflation Factor; ASV = Average Shared Squared Variance;
AVE = Average Variance Extracted; MSV = Maximum Shared Squared Variance; CR = Composite Reliability
8
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
5.3. Structural model: Hypotheses testing
CB-SEM was employed to test the hypothesized model testing. The
results of the structural model presented a decent model fit which is
verified with statistical fit, viz., χ2/df = 2.732; CFI = 0.967;
IFI = 0.968; NFI = 0.957; TLI = 0.958; GFI = 0.951; PGFI = 0.668;
RMSEA = 0.055; SRMR = 0.036 (Hair et al., 2015). The regression
weights of the hypothesized relationships and corresponding probabil-
ity estimates were supported in the hypothesis testing. The outcomes
indicated (see Table 4) that except H1: (β = 0.08; p > 0.05) which sub-
stantiate the fact that environmental concern has a weak direct rela-
tionship with pro-environmental behaviour in some countries owing to
cultural factors (Tam and Chan, 2017), rest all the hypotheses were ac-
cepted in the study, namely H2: (β = 0.17, p < 0.001); H3: (β = 0.19, p
< .001); H4: (β = 0.48, p < .001); H5: (β = 0.31, p < .001); H6:
(β = 0.29, p < .001); H7: (β = 0.38, p < .001) and H8 (β = 0.27, p <
.001) and well corroborate with the previous research on sustainable
consumption (Kautish and Sharma, 2020; Kautish and Dash, 2017). As
displayed in the Fig. 2, the hypothesized model explained 19.2 per cent
variance in connectedness to nature, 36.5 per cent variance in love for
nature and 54.7 per cent in choice behaviour for plastic consumption.
All R2 values revealed robust outcomes, since, in consumer behavioural
researches, any R2 value of more than 20 per cent is deliberated to be
reasonably good (Hair et al., 2015). The findings of the study provide
strong support for environmental concern, connectedness to nature and
choice behaviour among consumers from emerging market.
Table 4
Hypotheses testing
Hypotheses Path relationship β - value Significance Decision
H1 EC CB 0.08 ns Rejected
H2 EC CN 0.17 < 0.001 Supported
H3 EC LN 0.19 < 0.001 Supported
H4 PCE CN 0.48 < 0.001 Supported
H5 PCE LN 0.31 < 0.001 Supported
H6 PCE CB 0.29 < 0.001 Supported
H7 CN CB 0.38 < 0.001 Supported
H8 LN CB 0.27 < 0.001 Supported
Annotations: ns = Non-significant; EC = Environmental Concern;
PCE = Perceived Consumer Effectiveness; CN = Connectedness to Nature;
LN = Love for Nature; CB = Choice Behavior
5.4. Mediation: Direct and indirect effects
As per the suggestions of Hayes (2013), the current study employed
PROCESS Macro Model IV to perform the mediation analysis to under-
stand the indirect effects of love for nature and connectedness to nature
on the association between environmental concern and perceived con-
sumer effectiveness with choice behavior for plastic consumption. The
data analysis shown that love for nature and connectedness to nature
partially mediated the link between environmental concern with choice
behaviour for plastic consumption: PEDirect = 0.19, 95% confidence in-
terval (CI) (CI 0.0869 – 0.2173); PEIndirect Effect (love for nature) = 0.17, BCa
95% (CI 0.1041 – 0.2215); PEIndirect Effect (connectedness to nature) = 0.10,
BCa 95% (CI 0.2158 – 0.3314). Correspondingly, both love for nature
and connectedness to nature also reasonably mediated the relationship
between perceived consumer effectiveness and choice behaviour for
plastic consumption: PEDirect = 0.29, 95% (CI 0.1815 – 0.3239);
PEIndirect Effect (love for nature) = 0.16, BCa 95% (CI 0.1032 – 0.1923);
PEIndirect Effect (connectedness to nature) = 0.11, BCa 95% (CI 0.1121 –
0.1428). Table 5 and Table 6 depicted that the nonappearance of zeros
in the bootstrapped CIs substantiates partial mediation for all the rela-
tionships mentioned above. The study findings are in tandem with pre-
vious research on sustainable consumption practices (Ali et al., 2020;
Bhatt et al., 2020; Soga et al., 2018; Tandon et al., 2020b; Taylor,
2018).
5.5. Control variables
Notable studies (see Botetzagias et al., 2015; Taylor, 2018) have re-
ported that socio-cultural and demographic variables, i.e., age (Otto
and Kaiser, 2014); gender (López-Mosquera et al., 2015); income
(Brochado et al. 2017) and education (Barth et al., 2014) can poten-
tially affect consumers’ sustainable behavior. Therefore the current
study is controlled for gender, age, income and education in the hy-
pothesized model. The data analyses specified that connectedness to na-
ture was influenced by all the demographic variables, viz., gender
(β = 0.15, p > 0.05), age (β = 0.14, p > 0.05), income (β = 0.12, p >
0.05) and education (β = 0.13, p > 0.05). Furthermore, love for nature
was not influenced by any of the demographic variables, e.g., gender
(β = 0.41, p < 0.05), age (β = 0.51, p < 0.05), income (β = 0.46, p <
0.05) and education (β = 0.43, p < 0.05). Finally, education did not af-
fect choice behavior (β = 0.51, p > 0.05), while gender (β = 0.13, p >
0.05), age (β = 0.11, p > 0.05), and income (β = 0.12, p < 0.001) did
affect the choice behavior for plastic consumption so H11 have varied
Fig. 2. Structural model Annotations: ( ) = Significant; ( ) = Non-significant (ns); nsp > 0.05; ***p < 0.001
9
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
Table 5
Mediation results
EC CN and LN CB
β - estimate Standard Error t - estimate p - estimate Lower Level of Confidence Limit Upper Level of Confidence Limit
EC CN 0.23 0.03 10.13 0.00 0.1845 0.2724
EC LN 0.41 0.02 13.04 0.00 0.3427 0.4611
EC CB 0.19 0.03 5.06 0.00 0.0869 0.2173
CN CB 0.43 0.04 10.17 0.00 0.3725 0.5455
LN CB 0.35 0.03 9.44 0.00 0.2998 0.4530
Total effect of EC CB 0.16 0.04 7.88 0.00 0.8843 0.2082
PCE CN and LN CB
β - estimate Standard Error t - estimate p - estimate LLCI ULCI
PCE CN 0.27 0.02 11.20 0.00 0.2146 0.3127
PCE LN 0.53 0.02 18.38 0.00 0.4671 0.5842
PCE CB 0.29 0.04 6.85 0.00 0.1815 0.3239
CN CB 0.44 0.03 11.02 0.00 0.3548 0.5281
LN CB 0.32 0.03 8.78 0.00 0.2482 0.3924
Total effect of PCE CB 0.53 0.04 15.81 0.00 0.4536 0.5910
Annotations: EC = Environmental Concern; PCE = Perceived Consumer Effectiveness; CN = Connectedness to Nature;
LN = Love for Nature; CB = Choice Behavior
Table 6
Indirect effects
Effect Standard
Error
Lower Level of
Confidence Limit
Upper Level of
Confidence Limit
EC CN
CB
0.10 0.02 0.2158 0.3314
EC LN
CB
0.17 0.03 0.1041 0.2215
PCE CN
CB
0.11 0.03 0.1121 0.1428
PCE LN
CB
0.16 0.02 0.1032 0.1923
Annotations: EC = Environmental Concern; LN = Love for Nature; PCE = Per-
ceived Consumer Effectiveness;
CN = Connectedness to Nature; CB = Choice Behavior
results for demographic variables and got partially supported. The
aforesaid findings are in line with the results of past studies on sustain-
able consumption (Nguyen et al., 2019; Shiel et al., 2020).
6. Discussion
H1 hypothesizes the relationship between environmental concern
and choice behavior was not supported, but H2 and H3, which hypothe-
size the relationship of environmental concern with connectedness to
nature and love for nature correspondingly, were supported by the re-
sults. These results could be because consumers are concerned about
the deteriorating quality of the environment and feel connected to na-
ture with love but are unable to understand that plastic products can
damage the environment. The notion gets approved as consumers’
choice behavior can make a difference in the environmental quality.
The results described above regarding environmental concern are in
tandem with the past studies (Eom et al., 2016; Kushwah et al., 2019a;
2019b; Tam and Chan, 2015). One more possible explanation could be
that consumers perceive that non-plastic products’ production may re-
quire many energy resources not linked to pro-environmental facets. It
gets reflected in a negative association with environmental concerns
(Kautish, 2018; Kautish and Dash, 2017). Nevertheless, the current re-
search outcomes specify that cognitive constructs play a decisive role in
developing pro-environmental behavior. It is in line with the previous
investigations conducted with environmental concern as a construct in
an emerging market context, i.e., India (Kautish and Sharma, 2020;
Muralidharan et al., 2015; Muralidharan and Xue, 2016).
H4 and H5, which hypothesize a link of perceived consumer effec-
tiveness with connectedness to nature and love for nature, were also
supported by our findings inter alia with past studies in which per-
ceived consumer effectiveness was confirmed to be behavior-specific
and perceived consumer effectiveness further enriches the likelihood of
indulgence in sustainable consumption (Heo and Muralidharna, 2017;
Kautish and Dash, 2017). Understandably, the previous studies also
posit that the Indian people who have a positive attitude towards the
environment and perceive the effectiveness of their efforts in mitigating
environmental problems certainly feel connected to nature and develop
a love for the same (Parashar et al., 2020; Sharma and de Paço, 2021).
H6, which hypothesizes a positive association between perceived
consumer effectiveness and choice behavior, was also supported.
Across the world, the policymakers are facing the challenge of motivat-
ing people towards sustainable consumption practices, and the current
policy initiatives primarily focus on positively or negatively incentiviz-
ing the eco-friendly choice behavior (Berger and Corbin, 1992). These
findings indicate that efforts should be towards instigating personal
norms by identifying self-efficacy oriented choice behavior, e.g., moral
engagement, self-regulation, etc. To design public awareness programs
and communication strategies to promote sustainable consumption
(Sharma and do Paço, 2021).
In addition, H7 and H8, which examine the positive relationship of
connectedness to nature and love for nature with choice behavior, were
supported by the findings. In the last few years, there is a growing con-
sensus that individuals in modern societies are becoming more con-
cerned about nature, feeling connected to their surroundings, and feel-
ing responsible for natural environmental deterioration for themselves
and other species on the planet (Whitburn et al., 2020). H9a and H9b,
which test the mediating influence of connectedness to nature and love
for nature on the linkage between environmental concern and choice
behavior, respectively, were supported by the study results, endorsing
the existence of partial mediation in the case of both the relationships.
These findings corroborate with Biophilia Hypothesis (Wilson, 1984)
that the individuals understand the importance of consumption pat-
terns that affect nature in varied insightful ways to build an environ-
mentally sustainable society for all living creatures of the planet. H10a
and H10b, which propose a positive indirect effect of environmental con-
cern on choice behavior through connectedness to nature and love for
nature, respectively, were also reinforced by the current findings. These
results endorse the Norm Activation Model (NAM) as well. The study
outcomes add substance to the argument that environmental concern
may not directly affect the choice behavior for sustainable consump-
tion. Still, when the target consumers are exposed to nature and nature-
based experiences, they always feel connected to nature and fall in love
with the environment's natural beauty. This study underlines the psy-
chological significance of the human-nature connection not just for the
10
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
well-being of nature or the natural environment per se but also for the
human-being and planet-wide creatures.
Finally, H11, which proposes the relationships among connectedness
to nature, love for nature, and choice behavior vary across demographic
features, i.e., gender, age, income, and education, is also partially sup-
ported by the findings. Concerning demographic variables, the current
research identified age, gender, and income as better predictors of sus-
tainable choice behavior for plastics than education. Recently, Chekima
et al. (2016) and Sharma and do Paço (2021) pointed out how positive
attitudes towards environmentally friendly products do not get trans-
lated into sustainable consumption due to consumers’ limited knowl-
edge about green product alternatives, thus improving their under-
standing through educational inputs appears to be a logical approach to
encourage choice behavior. The past researches also validated educa-
tion as the critical demographic factor to ensure environmentally sus-
tainable consumption practices (Botetzagias et al., 2015; López-
Mosquera et al., 2015) therefore governments, especially in emerging
markets like India, should increase their educational initiatives to pro-
mote non-plastic consumption practices mere banning plastic bags or
imposing restrictions may not give better outcomes.
6.1. Theoretical contributions
The study findings build on and extend prior research in the grow-
ing area of sustainable consumption and production mandate among
SDGs, which the United Nations has recognized as a significant Research
Priority area to better nature well-being (Kautish et al., 2020). The pre-
sent research contributes to the existing literature on sustainable con-
sumption and the Norm Activation Model (NAM) utility in predicting
pro-environmental behavior (Biophilia Hypothesis), specifically in
emerging market consumers’ choice behavior plastic consumption. The
present study's investigation of Indian consumers’ non-plastic con-
sumption has contributed by operationalizing a few socio-psychological
constructs, e.g., environmental concern and perceived consumer effec-
tiveness with connectedness to nature and love for nature for choice be-
havior non-plastic consumption an emerging market context. The re-
search identifies significant determinants of choice behavior for sus-
tainability and inspires to ponder igniting individuals’ implicit passion
for protecting nature. A universal perspective of the paper is that if indi-
viduals’ got a sense of connectedness to nature, then surely they will
not be likely to damage the nature and natural environment, as they
will have a notion that harming the wildlife would be equals to hurting
themselves (Brügger et al., 2011). In the long-term perspective, it
would be prudent to foster individuals’ connectedness to nature and en-
dorse emotional and cognitive bonding, i.e., love for nature, between
humans and the natural environment, which will increase the sensitiv-
ity of being one with nature. Past studies have also verified that con-
nectedness to nature and love for nature promotes pro-environmental
behavior patterns (Dong et al., 2020; Whitburn et al., 2020) in associa-
tion with environmental concern and perceived consumer effectiveness
(Schultz, 2004; Schultz and Tabanico, 2007; Schultz et al., 2002). As
connectedness to nature and love for nature are intrinsic human life
perspectives that are not likely to changes in the short term, it is vital to
internally or externally reinstate one's connectedness to nature for long-
term benefits (Rosa and Collado, 2020).
Additionally, the study lucidly presented an indication for the co-
herence of Leopard's visualization that feeling in terms of a sense of
community, belongingness, embeddedness, kinship, and egalitarianism
towards nature are all facets of a broader dimension to feeling con-
nected to nature (Mayer and Frantz, 2004). It would be an actual rou-
tine for individuals to devote considerable time amidst natural environ-
ment and have direct emotional connect with nature (i.e., camping in
forests, traveling in nature-based theme parks, mountaineering, etc.) to
intensify connectedness to nature. Individuals experience nature which
builds an emotional and cognitive natural bond, e.g., love for nature,
consequently maintaining a pro-environmental lifestyle (e.g., non-
plastic consumption) that then activates sustainable choice behaviors.
In conclusion, the study highlights individual psychological differences
among Indian consumers by examining the controlled influence of de-
mographic variables such as gender, age, income, and education on
consumers’ connectedness to nature, love of nature, and choice behav-
ior for plastic consumption. Emphasizing the critical role of control
variables (gender, age, income, and education) will also be documented
as a noteworthy contribution to the existing literature (see Chekima et
al., 2016) because scholars have acknowledged the moderating influ-
ence of individual dissimilarities in consumer behavior (Kumar and
Yadav, 2021; Qian et al., 2019). The research adds to the general con-
cern for sustainable consumption practices in the NAM milieu, specifi-
cally by enhancing the understanding of choice behavior for plastic
consumption.
6.2. Managerial implications
From the practice-oriented point of view, the study advocates the
significance of connectedness to nature and love for nature as triggers
to choice behavior for plastic consumption. The need to understand
choice behavior for plastic consumption is particularly timely due to in-
creasing environmental concerns with new sustainability priorities
(e.g., Sustainability Development Goals) comprising the Plastic Strat-
egy recommended by the European Commission, which embraces revo-
lutionary projects aimed toward converting urban waste and ocean
garbage into raw materials (see Kautish et al., 2020; Magnier et al.,
2019). Thus, connectedness to nature and love for nature should be
communicated in the marketing strategy to promote non-plastic con-
sumption. The public shaming technique can be utilized to evoke a
sense of nature connectedness and action orientation in advertising
strategy (Brennan and Binney, 2010). In accordance, the marketers may
dovetail a nature-oriented message inserted through a public shaming
practice to deepen the logic towards environmental concern (Kautish,
2016; Shaw et al., 2017). Consumers’ perceived consumer effectiveness
about plastic production and consumption is good enough to acknowl-
edge its potential threat to the environment, so they are willing to
change their choice towards non-plastic based products.
Furthermore, to upsurge the nature-based retail visits, a few sign-
boards with the social message, “Is the person next to you choosing
non-plastic packaging and cloth bags while purchasing merchandise?”
may be demonstrated at the billing desk and entrance gate. In continua-
tion, the present study can embrace the notion of nudge marketing. A
nudge intends to place individuals in a social setting that encourages
them to adopt a particular behavior style without any external compul-
sion (Rettie et al., 2014). There at stake is not a temporary attitudinal
modification of consumers, but a long-lasting behavioral transforma-
tion will encompass the corporate landscape as well (Kautish, 2016). In
the present case with the NAM conception, the activation of positive de-
scriptive norm functions as a category of nudge deployed to encourage
purchasing of products with non-plastic packaging material. A similar
kind of nudge could be placed at the point of sale. Manufacturers or
marketers can cue product packaging about the social or individual
norms about non-plastic compliance as a government directive or as-
cribed responsibility.
Moreover, the current study ratifies the relatively meager environ-
mental concern ascribed to the below standard quality of environmen-
tal learning aspects facilitated by the Indian education system. The In-
dian education curriculum for primary and secondary education is
quite deficient about ‘the logical conception, information, and ability
required to tackle the environmental issues’ (Kautish et al., 2019). To
efficaciously stimulate a circular economy led sustainability orientation
in the emerging markets, it will be required to embark on educational
campaigns for students and customers that provide adequate informa-
tion about natural-based experiences which is getting contaminated
11
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
due to plastic production and consumption (Cleary et al., 2020; Sharma
and do Paço, 2021). Corporations could use socially relevant marketing
activities or promotional events to facilitate non-plastic product aware-
ness, develop positive attitudes, intentions, and choose behavior among
consumers (Kautish et al., 2020).
7. Conclusion
The prime objective of the research was to empirically evaluate the
determinants of connectedness to nature and love for nature towards
choice behavior for non-plastic consumption in the light of environ-
mental concern and perceived consumer effectiveness. Although in-
evitable in urban societies from emerging markets, unsustainable plas-
tic consumption and inefficient plastic production are among the most
pertinent and complex problems faced by the human race. Alongside
sustainable movement, consumption complexities and the circular
economy challenge is augmenting it being a contemporary threat for so-
ciety (Kautish, 2016; Khan et al., 2020a; Tandon et al., 2021a). There-
fore, the pressing goal of environmental sustainability is to embark on
radical lifestyle changes (i.e., energy-efficient, organic, and non-plastic
consumption) to reduce their ecological footprints (Sharma et al.,
2020b) and pursue practical environmental actions (Jaca et al., 2018;
Kautish and Sharma, 2019). Sustainable product alternatives made up
of non-plastic compounds can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions
during plastic manufacturing and reduce waste-generated litter prob-
lems. The conceptual model explains a decent explanatory power (ad-
justed R2 = 0.547; e.g., 54.7%) in determining consumers’ choice be-
havior to purchase non-plastic products. Opportunities for reducing
non-recyclable plastic waste are highest in emerging markets, e.g., In-
dia, where rapid population growth, urban lifestyle, disposable income,
and economic activities intensify plastic production and consumption.
To date, general public adoption of non-plastic material has been slug-
gish in these emerging markets but owing to government initiatives
such as Swachh Bharat Abhigyan (Clean India Mission) and Sabka
Saath Sabka Vikas (Collective Effort, Inclusive Development). Even
non-government initiatives such as sustainable and adaptive agricul-
ture promotions have led to public acceptance of sustainability-
oriented behavior in the last few years.
7.1. Limitations and directions for future research
Although the research divulges innovative and stimulating findings
concerning the relationships among environmental concern, perceived
consumer effectiveness, connectedness to nature, love for nature, and
choice behavior for plastic consumption, besides its own merits, the
study has a few limitations. The research followed the prescribed guide-
lines to ensure superior data quality and offer meaningful insights into
psychological phenomena. Still, social desirability bias usually getting
observed in cross-sectional studies could not be completely ruled out as
we measured the choice behavior of individuals through self-reported
data. The measurement might be oversimplified (e.g., structural equa-
tion modeling), demanding the development of a more elaborative
method (i.e., experimental design) in future researches. In other words,
the participants’ perception about the environmental concern, per-
ceived consumer effectiveness, connectedness to nature, and love for
nature might not accord with the objectivity and rational reality por-
trayed in the research. In addition to environmental concern and per-
ceived consumer effectiveness, other relevant psychological or psycho-
graphic variables might be included as exogenous variables in the con-
ceptual model to improve the models’ sufficiency in predicting choice
behavior. The present study is confined to plastic consumption. Future
research could test the hypothesized model in other sustainability ar-
eas, e.g., organic product consumption, energy-efficient appliances,
biodegradable products, and eco-friendly retail contexts. Another limi-
tation of the present research is that it only surveyed six state capitals
from northern India; thus, future research may expand the sample to
state capitals or other districts in different states in India and other
countries from emerging markets.
Consequently, the study findings are not generalizable to the large
plastic-consuming population strata of the developed and developing
countries. It is suggested that researchers in the future should under-
take similar quantitative and qualitative investigations with different
samples. In addition, it would be even more helpful to investigate con-
sumers’ attitudes, behavioral intentions, and choice behavior over a
substantial period by conducting a longitudinal data-based study.
Uncited References:
Onwenzen et al., 2013, Orr, 1993, Westley et al., 2012, Davis et al.,
2009
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pradeep Kautish: Conceptualization, Visualization, Methodol-
ogy, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Rajesh Sharma: Conceptualiza-
tion, Data curation, Writing – review & editing. Sachin Kumar
Mangla: Writing – review & editing, Data curation. Fauzia Jabeen:
Writing – review & editing, Data curation. Usama Awan: Writing – re-
view & editing, Data curation.
Declaration of competing interest
Referring to the manuscript, “Understanding choice behavior to-
wards plastic consumption: An emerging market investigation” hereby
we would like to declare that there is no conflict of interest among au-
thors and any other party directly or indirectly. We have not received
any financial support for this manuscript and nor we intended the same
at any stage. We have followed ethical procedure to conduct the study.
References
Alam, O., Billah, M., Yajie, D., 2018. Characteristics of plastic bags and their potential
environmental hazards. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 132, 121–129.
Ali, F., Ashfaq, M., Begum, S., Ali, A., 2020. How “Green” thinking and altruism translate
into purchasing intentions for electronic products: the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation
mechanism. Sustain. Prod. Consumpt. 24, 281–291.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411–423.
Antonetti, P., Maklan, S., 2014. Feelings that make a difference: how guilt and pride
convince consumers of the effectiveness of sustainable consumption choices. J. Bus.
Ethics 124 (1), 117–134.
Arbués, F., Villanúa, I., 2016. Determinants of behavior toward selective collection of
batteries in Spain. A bivariate probit model. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 106, 1–8.
Ari, E., Yilmaz, V., 2017. Consumer attitudes on the use of plastic and cloth bags. Environ.
Dev. Sustain. 19 (4), 1219–1234.
Armstrong, A., Stedman, R.C., 2019. Understanding local environmental concern: the
importance of place. Rural Sociol. 84 (1), 93–122.
Ateş, H., 2020. Merging theory of planned behavior and value identity personal norm
model to explain pro-environmental behaviors. Sustain. Prod. Consumpt. 24, 169–180.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Market.
Sci. 16 (1), 74–94.
Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thoughts and Action: A Social Cognition Theory.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barth, M., Adomßent, M., Fischer, D., Richter, S., Rieckmann, M., 2014. Learning to
change universities from within: a service-learning perspective on promoting sustainable
consumption in higher education. J. Cleaner Prod. 62 (1), 72–81.
Berger, I.E., Corbin, R.M., 1992. Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as
moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. J. Publ. Policy Market. 11 (2),
79–89.
Bhatt, Y., Ghuman, K., Dhir, A., 2020. Sustainable manufacturing. Bibliometrics and
content analysis. J. Cleaner Prod. 260, 120988.
Botetzagias, I., Dima, A.F., Malesios, C., 2015. Extending the theory of planned behavior
in the context of recycling: the role of moral norms and of demographic predictors.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 95, 58–67.
Brennan, L., Binney, W., 2010. Fear, guilt and shame appeals in social marketing. J. Bus.
Res. 63 (2), 140–146.
Brochado, A., Teiga, N., Oliveira-Brochado, F., 2017. The ecological conscious consumer
behavior: are the activists different?. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 41 (2), 138–146.
Brügger, A., Kaiser, F.G., Roczen, N., 2011. One for all? Connectedness to nature,
12
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
inclusion of nature, environmental identity and implicit association with nature. Eur.
Psychol. 16 (4), 324–333.
Business Standard 2018. Towards plastic-free world: all the steps taken this World
Environment Day. https://mybs.in/2VnaNSY (accessed on July 8, 2021).
Cavanaugh, L.A., Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F., 2015. Feeling love and doing more for distant
others: specific positive emotions differentially affect prosocial consumption. J. Market.
Res. 52 (5), 657–673.
Chauhan, C., Dhir, A., Ul Akram, M., Salo, J., 2021. Food loss and waste in food supply
chains. A systematic literature review and framework development approach. J. Cleaner
Prod. 295, 126438.
Chekima, B., Wafa, S.A.W.S.K., Igau, O.A., Chekima, S., Sondoh Jr., S.L., 2016. Examining
green consumerism motivational drivers: does premium price and demographics matter
to green purchasing?. J. Cleaner Prod. 112, 3436–3450.
Chen, W.-Q., Ciacci, L., Sun, N.-N., Yoshioka, T., 2020. Sustainable cycles and
management of plastics: a brief review of RCR publications in 2019 and early 2020.
Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 159, 104822.
Clayton, S., Opotow, S., 2003. Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological
Significance of Nature. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Cleary, A., Fielding, K.S., Murray, Z., Roiko, A., 2020. Predictors of nature connection
among urban residents: assessing the role of childhood and adult nature experiences.
Environ. Behav. 52 (6), 579–610.
Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., Laroche, M., 2012. It’s not easy being green: exploring green
creeds, green deeds and internal environmental locus of control. Psychol. Market. 29 (5),
293–305.
Collado, S., Evans, G.W., 2019. Outcome expectancy: a key factor to understanding
childhood exposure to nature and children’s pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ.
Psychol. 61, 30–36.
Comrey, A.L., Lee, H.B., 1992. A First Course in Factor Analysis. 2nd Ed Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc., USA, New Jersey.
Confente, I., Scarpi, D., Russo, I., 2020. Marketing a new generation of bio-plastic
products for circular economy: the role of green self-identity, self-congruity and
perceived value. J. Bus. Res. 112, 431–439.
Crosby, L.A., Gill, J.D., Taylor, J.R., 1981. Consumer/voter behavior in the passage of
Michigan Container Law. J. Market. 45 (2), 19–32.
Crowley, J., 2020. Plastic bag consumption habits in the Northern Philippines. Resour.
Conservat. Recycl. 160, 104848.
Dagher, G.K., Itani, O., 2014. Factors influencing green purchasing behavior: empirical
evidence from the Lebanese consumer. J. Consum. Behav. 13 (3), 188–195.
Dauvergne, P., 2018. Why is the global governance of plastic failing the oceans?. Global
Environ. Change 51, 22–31.
Davis, J.L., Green, J.D., Reed, A., 2009. Interdependence with the environment:
commitment, interconnectedness and environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 29
(2), 173–180.
De Groot, J.I.M.D., 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.
De Marchi, E., Pigliafreddo, S., Banterle, A., Parolini, M., Cavaliere, A., 2020. Plastic
packaging goes sustainable: an analysis of consumer preferences for plastic water
bottles. Environ. Sci. Policy 114, 305–311.
Dean, J., Shanahan, D., Bush, R., Gaston, K., Lin, B., Barber, E., Franco, L., Fuller, R., 2018.
Is nature relatedness associated with better mental and physical health?. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Publ. Health 15 (7), 1371.
Dhir, A., Koshta, N., Goyal, R.K., Sakashita, M., Almotairi, M., 2021. Behavioral reasoning
theory (BRT) perspectives on E-waste recycling and management. J. Cleaner Prod. 280
(1), 124269.
Dilkes-Hoffman, L., Ashworth, P., Laycock, B., Pratt, S., Lant, P., 2019. Public attitudes
towards bioplastic-knowledge, perception and end-of-life management. Resour.
Conservat. Recycl. 151, 104479.
Dong, X., Liu, S., Li, H., Yang, Z., Liang, S., Deng, N., 2020. Love of nature as a mediator
between connectedness to nature and sustainable consumption behavior. J. Cleaner
Prod. 242, 118451.
Eckstein, D., Künzel, V., Schäfer, L., Winges, M., 2019. Global Climate Risk Index 2020.
Germanwatch, Bonn.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2017. Eleven companies announce major step towards
circular economy. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/news/11-companies-
take-major-step-towards-a-new-plastics-economy (accessed on July 22, 2021).
Eom, K., Kim, H.S., Sherman, D.K., Ishil, K., 2016. Cultural variability in the link between
environmental concern and support for environmental concern. Psychol. Sci. 27 (10),
1331–1339.
ET. 2019. How plastic ban will affect businesses and consumers. https://economictimes.
indiatimes.com/industry/indl-goods/svs/paper-/-wood-/-glass/-plastic/-marbles/how-
plastic-ban-will-affect-businesses-and-consumers/articleshow/71236532.cms?from=
mdr (accessed on July 21, 2021).
Fadeeva, Z., Berkel, R.V., 2021. Unlocking circular economy for prevention of marine
plastic pollution: an exploration of G20 policy and initiatives. J. Environ. Manage. 277,
111457.
Fiske, S.T., 2004. Social Beings: Core Motives in Social Psychology. Wiley, New York.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Frantz, C., Mayer, F.S., Norton, C., Rock, M., 2005. There is no ‘I’ in nature: the influence
of self-awareness on connectedness to nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 25 (4), 427–436.
Fransson, N., Gärling, T., 1999. Environmental concern: conceptual definitions,
measurement methods and research findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 19 (4), 369–382.
Gaur, J., Mani, V., 2018. Antecedents of closed-loop supply chain in emerging economies:
a conceptual framework using stakeholder’s perspective. Resour. Conservat. Recycl.
139, 219–227.
Geng, L., Xu, J., Ye, L., Zhou, W., Zhou, K., 2015. Connections with nature and
environmental behavior. PLoS One 10 (5), e0127247.
Gill, J.D., Crosby, L.A., Taylor, J.R., 1986. Ecological concern, attitudes and social norms
in voting behavior. Public Opin. Q. 50 (4), 537–554.
Goossens, Y., Tavernier, J.D., Geeraerd, A., 2018. The Risk of Earth Destabilization (RED)
index, aggregating the impact we make and what the planet can take. J. Cleaner Prod.
198, 601–611.
Grewal, R., Cote, J.A., Baumgartner, H., 2004. Multicollinearity and measurement error in
structural equation models: implications for theory testing. Market. Sci. 23 (4), 519–529.
Grimmer, M., Wooley, M., 2014. Green marketing messages and consumers’ purchase
intentions: promoting personal versus environmental benefits. J. Market. Commun. 20
(4), 231–250.
Hahladakis, J.N., Velis, C.A., Weber, R., Iacovidou, E., Purnell, P., 2018. An overview of
chemical additives present in plastics: migration, release, fate and environmental impact
during their use, disposal and recycling. J. Hazard. Mater. 344, 179–199.
Hair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, B.J., 2015. Multivariate Data Analysis.
7th Edition Pearson Education, New Delhi.
Harman, H.H., 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
IL.
Hayes, A.F., 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process
Analysis. The Guilfold Press, New York.
He, X., Zhan, W., 2018. How to activate moral norm to adopt electric vehicles in China? an
empirical study based on extended norm activation theory. J. Cleaner Prod. 172,
3546–3556.
Heldbreder, L.M., Bablok, I., Drews, S., Menzel, C., 2019. Tackling the plastic problem: a
review on perceptions, behaviors and interventions. Sci. Total Environ. 668, 1077–1093.
Heo, J., Muralidharan, S., 2019. What triggers young Millennials to purchase eco-friendly
products?: The relationships among knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness and
environmental concern. J. Market. Commun. 25 (4), 421–437.
Hinds, J., Sparks, P., 2008. Engaging with the natural environment: the role of affective
connection and identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (2), 109–120.
Howell, A.J., Dopko, R.L., Passmore, H.-A., Buro, K., 2011. Nature connectedness:
associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personal. Individ. Diff. 51 (2), 166–171.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Eq. Model. 6 (1), 1–55.
Hutcherson, C.A., Seppala, E.M., Gross, J.J., 2008. Loving-kindness meditation increases
social connectedness. Emotion 8 (5), 720–724.
Jaca, C., Prieto-Sandoval, V., Psomas, E.L., Ormazabal, M., 2018. What should consumer
organizations do to drive environmental sustainability?. J. Cleaner Prod. 181, 201–208.
Jaiswal, D., Kant, R., 2018. Green purchase behaviour: a conceptual framework and
empirical investigation of Indian consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 41, 60–69.
Jaiswal, D., Kaushal, V., Singh, P.K., Biswas, A., 2020. Green market segmentation and
consumer profiling: a cluster approach to an emerging consumer market. Benchmarking:
Int. J. 28 (3), 792–812.
Jordan, M., 2009. Nature and self - an ambivalent attachment?. Ecopsychology 1 (1),
26–31.
Joshi, Y., Rahman, Z., 2017. Investigating the determinants of consumers’ sustainable
purchase behaviour. Sustain. Prod. Consumpt. 10, 110–120.
Kala, M., Sharma, A., 2010. Traditional Indian beliefs: a key toward sustainable living.
The Environmentalist 30 (1), 85–89.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., Montada, L., 1999. Emotional affinity toward nature as a
motivational basis to protect nature. Environ. Behav. 31 (2), 178–202.
Kang, J., Moreno, F., 2020. Driving values to actions: predictive modeling for
environmentally sustainable product purchases. Sustain. Prod. Consumpt. 23, 224–235.
Kapoor, K.K., Dwivedi, Y.K., 2020. Sustainable consumption from the consumer’s
perspective: antecedents of solar innovation adoption. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 152,
104501.
Kautish, P., 2013. Environmentally concerned consumer behavior: insights from Indian
consumers. In: Thakur, R.R., Jain, P., Vijayvergy, L. (Eds.), Creating A Sustainable
Business: Managerial Implications and Challenges. Bloomsbury, New Delhi, pp.
209–218.
Kautish, P., 2015. Empirical Study on Understanding of Consumer Behavioral Factors for
Marketing of Environmental Friendly Products. IMR Manag. Speak 8 (2), 1–12.
Kautish, P., 2016. Volkswagen AG: defeat device or device defeat?. IMT Case Journal 7
(1), 19–30.
Kautish, P., 2018. Environmentally conscious consumer behavior and green marketing: an
analytical study of the Indian market. In: Malyan, R.S., Duhan, P. (Eds.), Green
Consumerism: Perspectives, Sustainability, and Behavior. CRC Press, pp. 119–142.
Kautish, P., Dash, G., 2017. Environmentally concerned consumer behavior: evidence
from consumers in Rajasthan. J. Modell. Manag. 12 (4), 712–738.
Kautish, P., Paul, J., Sharma, R., 2019. The moderating influence of environmental
consciousness and recycling intentions on green purchase behavior. J. Cleaner Prod.
228, 1425–1436.
Kautish, P., Sharma, R., 2019. Value orientation, green attitude and green behavioral
intentions: an empirical investigation among young consumers. Young Consumers 20
(4), 338–358.
Kautish, P., Sharma, R., 2020. Determinants of pro-environmental behavior and
environmentally conscious consumer behavior: an empirical investigation from
emerging market. Bus. Strategy Dev. 3 (1), 112–127.
Kautish, P., Sharma, R., 2021. Study on relationships among terminal and instrumental
values, environmental consciousness and behavioral intentions for green products. J.
Indian Bus. Res. 13 (1), 1–29.
Kautish, P., Soni, S., 2012. The determinants of consumer willingness to search for
environmental friendly products: a survey. Int. J. Manag. 29 (2), 696–711.
Kautish, P., Khare, A., Sharma, R., 2020. Values, sustainability consciousness and
intentions for SDG endorsement. Market. Intell. Plann. 38 (7), 921–939.
13
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
Kellert, S.R., 2005. Building for life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature
Connection. Island Press, Washington DC.
Khan, F., Ahmed, W., Najmi, A., 2020a. Understanding consumers’ behavior intentions
towards dealing with the plastic waste: perspective of a developing country. Resour.
Conservat. Recycl. 142, 49–58.
Khan, O., Daddi, T., Slabbinck, H., Kleinhans, K., Vazquez-Brust, D., Meester, S.D., 2020b.
Assessing the determinants of intentions and behaviors of organizations towards a
circular economy for plastics. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 163, 105069.
Kim, Y., 2011. Understanding green purchase: the influence of collectivism, personal
values and environmental attitudes and the moderating effect of perceived consumer
effectiveness. Seoul J. Bus. 17 (1), 65–92.
Kinnear, T.C., Taylor, J.R., Ahmed, S.A., 1974. Ecologically concerned consumers: who
are they?. J. Market. 38 (2), 20–24.
Koop, S.H.A., van Leeuwen, C.J., 2017. The challenges of water, waste and climate change
in cities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 19 (2), 385–418.
Kumar, S., Yadav, R., 2021. The impact of shopping motivation on sustainable
consumption: a study in the context of green apparel. J. Cleaner Prod. 295, 126239.
Kushwah, S., Dhir, A., Sagar, M., 2019a. Ethical consumption intentions and choice
behavior towards organic food. Moderation role of buying and environmental concerns.
J. Cleaner Prod. 236, 117519.
Kushwah, S., Dhir, A., Sagar, M., 2019b. Understanding consumer resistance to the
consumption of organic food. A study of ethical consumption, purchasing, and choice
behaviour. Food Quality Preference 77, 1–14.
Lastovicka, J.L., Sirianni, N.J., 2011. Truly, deeply, madly: consumers in the throes of
material possession love. J. Consum. Res. 38 (2), 323–342.
Leys, C., Klein, O., Dominicy, Y., Ley, C., 2018. Detecting multivariate outliers: use a
robust variant of the Mahalanobis distance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 74, 150–156.
Li, Q., Long, R., Chen, H., 2017. Empirical study of the willingness of consumers to
purchase low-carbon products by considering carbon labels: a case study. J. Cleaner
Prod. 161, 1237–1250.
Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140 (22),
5–55.
Lin, P.C., Huang, Y.H., 2012. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green
products based on the theory of consumption values. J. Cleaner Prod. 22 (1), 11–18.
Lindell, M.K., Whitney, D.J., 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (1), 114–121.
López-Mosquera, N., Lera-López, F., Sánchez, M., 2015. Key factors to explain recycling,
car use and environmentally responsible purchase behaviors: a comparative perspective.
Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 99, 29–39.
Luís, S., Roseta-Palma, C., Matos, M., Lima, M.L., Sousa, C., 2020. Psychosocial and
economic impacts of a charge in lightweight plastic carrier bags in Portugal: keep calm
and carry on?. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 161, 104962.
Magnier, L., Mugge, R., Schoormans, J., 2019. Turning ocean garbage into products-
Consumers’ evaluations of products made of recycled ocean plastic. J. Cleaner Prod. 215
(1), 84–98.
Martinho, G., Pires, A., Portela, G., Fonseca, M., 2015. Factors affecting consumers’
choices concerning sustainable packaging during product purchase and recycling.
Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 103, 58–68.
Mayer, F.S., Frantz, C.M., 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of
individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 24 (4), 503–515.
Mayer, F.S., Frantz, C.M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Dolliver, L., 2009. Why is nature
beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environ. Behav. 41, 607–643.
Meng, M.D., Leary, R.B., 2021. It might be ethical, but won’t buy it: perceived
contamination of, and disgust towards, clothing made from recycled plastic bottles.
Psychol. Market. 38 (2), 298–312.
Mesly, O., 2015. Creating Models in Psychological Research. Springer, United States, p.
126.
Minton, A.P., Rose, R.L., 1997. The effects of environmental concern on environmentally
friendly consumer behavior: an exploratory study. J. Bus. Res. 40 (1), 37–48.
Minton, E.A., Spielmann, N., Kahle, L.R., Kim, C.H., 2018. The subjective norms of
sustainable consumption: a cross-cultural exploration. J. Bus. Res. 82 (1), 400–408.
Mostafa, M.M., 2006. Antecedents of Egyptian consumers’ green purchase intentions: a
hierarchical multivariate regression model. J. Int. Consum. Market. 19 (2), 97–126.
Muralidharan, S., Rejón-Guardia, F., Xue, F., 2015. Understanding the green buying
behavior of younger Millennials from India and the United States: a structural equation
modeling approach. J. Int. Consum. Market. 28 (1), 54–72.
Neuman, W.L., 2007. Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Pearson, Boston, USA.
Nielson, T.D., Hasselbalch, J., Holmberg, K., Stripple, J., 2020. Politics and the plastic
crisis: a review throughout the plastic life cycle. WIREs Energy Environ. 9 (1), e360.
Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M., 2013. The NR-6: a new brief measure of nature relatedness.
Front. Psychol. 4, 813.
Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M., Murphy, S.A., 2009. The nature relatedness scale: linking
individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ.
Behav. 41, 715–740.
Nguyen, N., Greenland, S., Lobo, A., Nguyen, H.V., 2019. Demographics of sustainable
technology consumption in an emerging market: the significance of education to energy
efficient appliance adoption. Soc. Responsib. J. 15 (6), 803–818.
Nkwachukwu, O.I., Chima, C.H., Ikenna, A.O., Albert, L., 2013. Focus on potential
environmental issues on plastic world towards a sustainable plastic recycling in
developing countries. Int. J. Ind. Chem. 4 (1), 34.
Ohtomo, S., Ohnuma, S., 2014. Psychological interventional approach to reduce resource
consumption: reducing plastic bag usage at supermarkets. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 84,
57–65.
Omoto, A.M., Packard, C.D., 2016. The power of connections: psychological sense of
community as a predictor of volunteerism. J. Soc. Psychol. 156 (3), 272–290.
Onwenzen, M.C., Antonides, G., Bartels, J., 2013. The norm activation model: an
exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental
behaviour. J. Econ. Psychol. 39, 141–153.
Orr, D.W., 1993. Love it or lose it: the coming biophilia revolution. In: Kellert, S.R.,
Wilson, E.O. (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp.
415–440.
Orset, C., Barret, N., Lemaire, A., 2017. How consumers of plastic water bottles are
responding to environmental policies?. Waste Manage. (Oxf.) 61, 13–27.
Otto, S., Kaiser, F.G., 2014. Ecological behavior across the lifespan: why
environmentalism increases as people grow older. J. Environ. Psychol. 40, 331–338.
Pallant, J., 2016. SPSS Survival Manual. 6th Ed Open University Press, Berkshire,
England.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., 2014. Inside the Turk: understanding mechanical turk as a
participant pool. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23 (3), 184–188.
Parashar, N., Hait, S., 2021. Plastics in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: protector or
polluter?. Sci. Total Environ. 759, 144274.
Parashar, S., Sood, G., Agrawal, N., 2020. Modelling the enablers of food supply chain for
reduction in carbon footprint. J. Cleaner Prod. 275, 122932.
Perrin, J.L., Benassi, V.A., 2009. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of
emotional connection to nature?. J. Environ. Psychol. 29 (4), 434–440.
Perkins, H.E., 2010. Measuring love and care for nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (4),
455–463.
Peters, C.A., Bratton, S.P., 2016. Urbanization is a major influence on microplastic
ingestion by sunfish in the Brazos River Basin, Central Texas, USA. Environ. Pollut. 210,
380–387.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G., Fisher, S., 2019. Climate change
perceptions and their individual-level determinants: a cross-European analysis. Global
Environ. Change 55, 25–35.
Prakash, G., Pathak, P., 2017. Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among
young consumers of India: a study on developing nation. J. Cleaner Prod. 141, 385–393.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40 (3),
879–891.
Puskic, P.S., Lavers, J.L., Bond, A.L., 2020. A critical review of harm associated with
plastic ingestion on vertebrates. Sci. Total Environ. 743, 140666.
Qian, C., Yu, K., Gao, J., 2019. Understanding environmental attitude and willingness to
pay with an objective measure of attitude strength. Environ. Behav. 53 (2), 119–150.
Ragaert, K., Huysveld, S., Vyncke, G., Hubo, S., Veelaert, L., Dewulf, J., Du Bois, E., 2020.
Design from recycling: a complex mixed plastic waste case study. Resour. Conservat.
Recycl. 155, 104646.
Rettie, R., Burchell, K., Barnham, C., 2014. Social normalisation: using marketing to make
green normal. J. Consum. Behav. 13 (1), 9–17.
Rhead, R., Elliot, M., Upham, P., 2015. Assessing the structure of UK environmental
concern and its association with pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 43,
175–183.
Roberts, J.A., Bacon, D.R., 1997. Exploring the subtle relationships between
environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. J. Bus. Res. 40
(1), 79–89.
Rosa, C.D., Collado, S., 2020. Enhancing nature conservation and health: changing the
focus to active pro-environmental behaviours. Psychol. Stud. 65 (1), 9–15.
Sala, S., Crenna, E., Secchi, M., Sanyé-Menguel, E., 2020. Environmental sustainability of
European production and consumption assessed against planetary boundaries. J.
Environ. Manage. 269, 110686.
Schwartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influences on altruism. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp. 221–279 Vol. 10.
Schultz, P.W., 2000. Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on concern
for environmental issues. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 391–406.
Schultz, P.W., 2001. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other
people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 21 (4), 327–339.
Schultz, P.W., 2002. Inclusion with nature: the psychology of human-nature relations. In:
Schmuck, P., Schultz, W.P. (Eds.), Psychology of Sustainable Development. Kluwer,
Norwell, pp. 62–78.
Schultz, P.W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J.J., Khazian, A.M., 2004. Implicit connections with
nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 24 (1), 31–42.
Schultz, P., Tabanico, J., 2007. Self, identity, and the natural environment: exploring
implicit connections with nature. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37 (6), 1219–1247.
Schuttler, S.G., Sorensen, A.E., Jordan, R.C., Cooper, C., Shwartz, A., 2018. Bridging the
nature gap: can citizen science reverse the extinction of experience?. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 16 (7), 405–411.
Sharma, N., do Paço, A., 2021. Moral disengagement: a guilt free mechanism for non-
green buying behavior. J. Cleaner Prod. 297, 126649.
Sharma, R., Kautish, P., 2020. Examining the nonlinear impact of selected macroeconomic
determinants on FDI inflows in India. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 14 (5), 711–733.
Sharma, R., Kautish, P., Uddin, G.S., 2020a. Do the international economic endeavors
affect CO2 emissions in open economies of South Asia?. Empiric. Exam. Under
Nonlinear. Manag. Environ. Qual. 31 (1), 89–110.
Sharma, R., Sinha, A., Kautish, P., 2020b. Examining the impacts of economic and
demographic aspects on the ecological footprint in South and Southeast Asian countries.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (29), 36970–36982.
Sharma, R., Shahbaz, M., Kautish, P., Vo, X.V., 2021a. Does energy consumption reinforce
environmental pollution? Evidence from emerging Asian economies. J. Environ.
Manage. 297, 113272.
Sharma, R., Shahbaz, M., Kautish, P., Vo, X.V., 2021b. Analyzing the impact of export
14
UN
CO
RR
EC
TE
D
PR
OO
F
P. Kautish et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling xxx (xxxx) 105828
diversification and technological innovation on renewable energy consumption:
evidences from BRICS nations. Renew. Energy 178, 1034–1045.
Sharma, R., Sinha, A., Kautish, P., 2021c. Do economic endeavors complement
sustainability goals in the emerging economies of South and Southeast Asia?. Manag.
Environ. Qual. 32 (3), 524–542.
Sharma, R., Sinha, A., Kautish, P., 2021d. Does financial development reinforce
environmental footprints? Evidence from emerging Asian countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 28 (8), 9067–9083.
Sharma, R., Sinha, A., Kautish, P., 2021e. Does renewable energy consumption reduce
ecological footprint? Evidence from eight developing countries of Asia. J. Cleaner Prod.
285, 124867.
Shaw, D., McMaster, R., Longo, C., Özçagler-Toulouse, N., 2017. Ethical qualities in
consumption: towards a theory of care. Market. Theory 17 (4), 415–433.
Shaw, J., 2016. Religion, ‘nature’ and environmental ethics in ancient India:
archaeologies of human: non-human suffering and well-being in early Buddhist and
Hindu contexts. World Archaeol. 48 (4), 517–543.
Shiel, C., do Paço, A., Alves, H., 2020. Generativity, sustainable development and green
consumer behaviour. J. Cleaner Prod. 245, 118865.
Simcox, T., Fiez, J.A., 2014. Collecting response times using Amazon mechanical turk and
adobe flash. Behav. Res. Methods 46 (1), 95–111.
Singh, K.D.P., Mathur, A., 2019. Plastic pollution in India: an evaluation of public
awareness and consumption behaviour. OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 12 (7), 25–40.
Soga, M., Yamanoi, T., Tsuchiya, K., Koyanagi, T.F., Kanai, T., 2018. What are the drivers
of and barriers to children’s direct experiences of nature?. Landscape Urban Plann. 180,
114–120.
Soper, D. S. 2021. A-priori Sample Size Calculator for Structural Equation Models
[software], available at: http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc.
Spector, P. E. 2004. Cross-sectional data. In Lewis-Beck, M.S., Bryman, A.E., Liao, T.F.
(Eds.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Vol. 1, (229), Sage
Publishing Inc., London.
Sternberg, R.J., 1986. A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 93 (2), 119–135.
Sternberg, R.J., 1997. Construct validation of a triangular love scale. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.
27 (3), 313–335.
Stevens, J., 1996. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc, New Jersey.
Tam, K.-P., 2013. Concepts and measures related to connection with nature: similarities
and differences. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 64–78.
Tam, K.-P., Chan, H.-W., 2017. Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-
environmental behavior in some societies than others: a cross-cultural psychology
perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 213–223.
Tan, B.C., 2011. The roles of knowledge, threat and PCE on green purchase behavior. Int.
J. Bus. Manag. 6 (12), 14–27.
Tandon, A., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Kushwah, S., Salo, J., 2020a. Behavioral reasoning
perspectives on organic food purchase. Appetite 154, 104786.
Tandon, A., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Kushwah, S., Salo, J., 2020b. Why do people buy organic
food? The moderating role of environmental concerns and trust. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
57, 102247.
Tandon, A., Jabeen, F., Talwar, S., Sakashita, M., Dhir, A., 2021a. Facilitators and
inhibitors of organic food buying behavior. Food Qual. Preference 88, 104077.
Tandon, A., Jabeen, F., Talwar, S., Sakashita, M., Dhir, A., 2021b. What drives willingness
to purchase and stated buying behavior toward organic food? A Stimulus-Organism-
Behavior-Consequence (SOBC) perspective. J. Cleaner Prod. 293, 125882.
Taylor, D.E., 2018. Racial and ethnic differences in connectedness to nature and landscape
preferences among college students. Environ. Justice 11 (3), 118–372.
van der Werff, E., Steg, L., 2015. One model to predict them all: predicting energy
behaviours with the norm activation model. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6, 8–14.
Vining, J., Merrick, M.S., Price, E.A., 2008. The distinction between humans and nature:
human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and
unnatural. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 15 (1), 1–11.
Wang, J., Wu, L., 2016. The impact of emotions on the intention of sustainable choices:
evidence from a big city in an emerging country. J. Cleaner Prod. 126, 325–336.
West, S.G., Finch, J.F., Curran, P.J., 1995. Structural equations models with nonnormal
variables: problems and remedies. In: Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Model:
Concepts, Issues and Applications. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 57–75.
Westley, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Kim, E.Y., 2012. The role of perceived consumer effectiveness
and motivational attitude on socially responsible purchasing behavior in South Korea. J.
Glob. Market. 25 (1), 29–44.
Wilting, H.C., Schipper, A.M., Bakkenes, M., Meijer, J.R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2017.
Quantifying biodiversity losses due to human Consumption: a global-scale footprint
analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 3298–3306.
Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., Abrahamse, W., 2020. Meta-analysis of human connection to
nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conserv. Biol. 34 (1), 180–193.
Wilson, E.O., 1984. Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species. Harvard University
Press, Boston, MA.
Wilson, E.O., 1993. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In: Wilson, E.O., Kellert, S.R.
(Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 31–41.
15