Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Jun 5:1–17. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-27998-9

Willingness to pay premium prices for green buildings: evidence from an emerging economy

Abdullah Al Mamun 1,✉, Muhammad Khalilur Rahman 2,3, Muhammad Mehedi Masud 4, Muhammad Mohiuddin 5
PMCID: PMC10240480  PMID: 37273051

Abstract

The building sector is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which may impede the achievement of Malaysia’s intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) by 2030. Therefore, this paper is aimed at identifying the underlying factors that affect working adults’ willingness to pay (WTP) premium prices for green buildings. Data were collected from a total of 1198 respondents and analyzed using structural equitation modeling partial least square (SEM-PLS) to measure the willingness to pay for green buildings among working adults in Malaysia. The findings reveal that environmental literacy affects environmental belief as well as awareness of consequences among working adults in Malaysia. The findings also reveal that incentives for green building buyers have a significant impact on perceived behavioral control, while awareness of consequences has a significant influence on ascription of responsibility. However, the results reveal that awareness of consequences does not influence buyers’ willingness to pay for green buildings. Moreover, the ascription of responsibility and perceived behavioral control have a significant effect on willingness to pay for green buildings. The findings of this study will help the concerned authorities to take appropriate steps to promote willingness to pay for green buildings, which will contribute significantly to the realization of INDC by 2030 as part of the Paris Agreement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11356-023-27998-9.

Keywords: Willingness to pay, Green building, Working adults, Malaysia

Introduction

Malaysia is making continued efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, which includes a commitment to reducing its carbon emission by 40% in 2020 and 45% in 2030. It is also facing the challenge of decarbonizing its energy-driven economy in the face of population growth and high levels of poverty (Susskind et al. 2020). In accordance with this target, the government has put forth several initiatives to achieve the intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) that forms part of the Paris Agreement. Throughout these initiatives, it was discovered that the building sector is one of the main contributors of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as it makes up approximately 40% of the world’s energy consumption, 12% of its water, and 40% of the waste that is sent to landfills (Amaral et al. 2020). Given this information, this sector could threaten Malaysia’s achievement of the INDC. Therefore, there is an urgent need for Malaysia to pay attention to the construction of energy efficient and zero emission buildings for sustainable and pollution free cities.

The development of sustainable construction is built upon the principles of green building. The economy is undoubtedly impacted by the construction industry, which generates a large portion of the gross domestic product. Although green buildings have numerous positive effects on society, there are numerous market hurdles that prevent the growth of green buildings, particularly in Malaysia (Samari et al. 2013). Green buildings may bring multiple benefits (Portnov et al. 2018a, b; Ampratwum et al. 2021) to working adults in Malaysia. However, the lack of environmental literacy, environmental belief, incentives for green building buyers, or any uncertainty about these benefits, combined with a nominal price premium for green buildings, may prevent potential working adults from entering the green building market. As a result, government incentives might be required.

There are several market hurdles that prevent the growth of green buildings in Malaysia (Kamranfar et al. 2022), including lack of awareness and understanding, high initial cost, limited financing options, regulatory barriers, and limited market demand (Addy et al. 2021). Many people in Malaysia are not familiar with the concept of green buildings and do not understand the benefits of sustainable construction practices. From the perspective of Malaysian working adults, the issue with the willingness to pay premium prices for green buildings is closely related to the high initial cost hurdle (Manzoor et al. 2021). Many working adults may not be willing or able to pay a premium price for a green building, even if they understand the long-term benefits of sustainable features. Additionally, limited financial options, green environmental literacy, and ascription of responsibility may also make it difficult for working adults to invest in a green building, as they may not have access to the necessary financing options and knowledge of green building information. In the context of Malaysia, the previous studies mostly focused on the adoption of green office building development (Ohueri et al. 2020), and green construction development barriers as well as strategies for adopting green building information (Kamranfar et al. 2022; Manzoor et al. 2021). Therefore, this study is to examine the determinants of the ascription of responsibility, awareness of consequences, and perceived behavioral control of prospective working adults in Malaysia who are willing to pay premium prices for green buildings.

Green buildings preserve natural resources and improve the quality of life of human beings, while also playing a crucial role in achieving sustainability in the construction industry (Hemmati et al. 2022). Darko et al. (2019) reported that the construction industry has made efforts to improve green building practices over the past two decades in order to improve the quality of indoor environments. Environmental issues such as the energy crisis, climate change, and pollution growth are gaining attention around the world. Transforming how buildings are constructed is growing more urgent as its impact on the environment is likely to increase with population growth and changes in economic and demographic factors. Aghili et al. (2019) reported that buildings are the top 40–50% greenhouse gas producers globally. Similarly, the green building revolution has grown to reduce the negative effect on people and simultaneously support the environment and the propensity to increase opportunities that reinforce positive benefits (Allen et al. 2015).

The green building sector’s investments in energy-efficient measures can maintain both ecological and economic benefits by reducing their consumption of waste, water, and energy. For instance, green buildings can create high standard environmental quality indoors (Steinemann et al. 2017; Sant’Anna et al. 2018), which may increase employee productivity, improve health conditions, and develop working environments (Wiencke 2014). Thus, sustainable business behavior is a necessary part of Malaysia’s carbon reduction goal. As such, investment in green practices (Chen et al. 2022), structures, and institutional guidelines is required. This study is aimed at investigating the environmental literacy, belief, incentives, responsibility, awareness of consequences, and the perceived behavioral control that influences working adults’ willingness to pay (WTP) premium prices for green buildings in Malaysia. In the Malaysian context, relatively few studies focus on working adults’ WTP premium prices for green buildings. Aghili et al. (2019) reported that Malaysia has not included management criteria in the green building index. The appropriate management key practices and environmental literacy are required for green building management to reach sustainable development objectives. Besides, most of the studies are related to the real estate market and focus on analyzing the WTP for energy-efficient measures in the residential real estate market.

Green building practices have become increasingly popular in recent years due to the growing awareness of environmental sustainability and the need to reduce carbon emissions. One key factor that has emerged is the willingness of working adults to pay a premium for green buildings in Malaysia. Here are some new contributions to green building that have increased working adults’ willingness to pay a premium. First is environmental literacy and sustainability: green buildings are designed to reduce carbon emissions and minimize environmental impact, which is increasingly important to working adults who are environmentally conscious. This has led to a greater willingness among working adults to pay a premium for buildings that prioritize environmental sustainability. The second is aspiration of responsibility: many companies have started to prioritize sustainability as part of their corporate social responsibility initiatives. This has led to a greater willingness among working adults to pay a premium for buildings that align with their company’s values and initiatives. These new contributions of green building have increased working adults’ willingness to pay a premium for buildings that prioritize their health, productivity, cost savings, environmental sustainability, and corporate responsibility. As a result, green building practices are likely to become increasingly prevalent in the future as working adults demand buildings that meet their evolving needs and values.

The study is structured in the following manner: in Sect. "Literature review", the relevant literature presents the theoretical grounding of the conceptual framework and hypothesis development. Section three explains the research design, data collection method, measurement of constructs, assessment of common method variance, multivariate normality, and data analysis method. Section four presents the findings of the demographic profile and a step-by-step analysis of the partial least squares technique, including measurement and structural model assessment. Finally, this study elaborates on the major findings, discussion, implications, limitations, and future scope of the study simultaneously.

Literature review

Theoretical foundation

Behaviors can be influenced by norms, beliefs, values, and attitudes toward the environment. Stern et al. (1999) recommended the value belief norm (VBN) on the environment and suggested that pro-environmental behavior is built on a causal chain of representational components. Ajzen (1991) postulated that the theory of planned behavior (TPB) evaluates attitudinal components in predicting and explaining behavior. According to Kaiser et al. (2005), TPB measures learning environmental behavior and explains consumers’ intention and behavior. To this effect, this study used the theory of value belief norm and theory of planned behavior to explore working adults’ WTP for green buildings. The TPB highlights the attitudinal facets of behavior (Sánchez-García et al. 2021). Based on this concept, this study explored the relationship among environmental literacy, environmental beliefs, an incentive for green building buyers, an ascription of responsibility, awareness of consequences, and perceived behavioral control. VBN theory emphasized the significance of moral components (Arias et al. 2022). Accordingly, this study used the concept of value belief norm theory and investigated the significant relationship between the ascription of responsibility, awareness of consequences, perceived behavioral control, and WTP premium prices for green buildings.

There is a lack of research on the factors that influence working adults’ willingness to pay a premium for green buildings. While there have been studies conducted on the general attitudes and awareness of green buildings among the Malaysian public, including working adults, there is a dearth of research specifically focused on their willingness to pay a premium for green buildings (Zuo and Zhao 2014). A lack of study on the specific factors that influence consumers’ decision-making when it comes to choosing between green and non-green buildings (Rosner et al. 2022). This includes factors such as perceived benefits of green buildings, environmental attitudes, responsibilities, and other relevant factors (e.g., incentives for green building buyers, awareness of consequences, and perceived behavioral control) that may impact their decision to pay a premium for green buildings. These gaps in the literature on the factors that influence working adults’ willingness to pay a premium for green buildings in Malaysia can have important implications for the green building industry and sustainable development in the country.

The green building industry in Malaysia

Green building refers to the resource efficiency, energy performance, indoor environmental quality, lifecycle effects, and low-waste emissions that are integrated into the building technology systems to develop its management efficiency and inhabitant functions (Xie and Gou 2020). Abisuga and Okuntade (2020) indicated that the development of green buildings started as early as 1976–1980. Green building for environmental quality has become one of the key drivers in nation development. Malaysia’s government is actively ratifying policies to ensure affordable and quality houses to all nations (Shafiei et al. 2017). It implies that the adoption of sustainable construction and green buildings has become prominent in the Malaysian building industry. Green buildings that are built by Malaysia aim to use less energy and resources, as well as to mitigate health and environmental risks.

Environmental literacy

Environmental literacy is a crucial component of the green building since people who are life-long building customers and tenants can have significant influence over resource preservation estimates, such as energy efficiency and material recycling (Gill et al. 2011; Chengqin et al. 2022). The conceptualization of environmental literacy is a mix of social and environmental proficiency that endeavors to string together the complicated association between human development biological healthcare wellbeing. People’s environmental literacy may solve complex environmental challenges. Edsand and Broich (2020) pointed out that people’s literacy on environmental issues can change awareness into an issue looking for environmental elements. Klein et al. (2021) and Tsirmpa et al. (2021) examined the significant relationship between environmental literacy and environmental belief in a different context. Curdt-Christiansen (2021), and Garcia and Cobar-Garcia (2022) identified the positive relationship between environmental literacy and awareness of consequences. Saribas et al. (2017) reported that environmental literacy could improve an individual’s beliefs about self-efficacy. Regarding this effect, this study proposes that environmental literacy has a significant impact on awareness of consequences and environmental beliefs among working adults in Malaysia.

Hypothesis (H1): Environmental literacy has a positive effect on environmental beliefs.

Hypothesis (H2): Environmental literacy has a positive effect on awareness of consequences.

Environmental beliefs

Environmental beliefs are connected with environmental behavioral attitudes. People are involved in environmental issues and exhibit pro-environmental behavior as they believe in and are worried about the personal consequences of environmental issues (Hansla et al. 2008). In other words, the awareness of consequences has a positive impact on environmental beliefs (Liobikienė & Poškus 2019). Khan et al. (2020) stated that awareness depends on understanding the extent of particular actions. Rosenthal (2022) discussed the positive and significant effect of environmental beliefs and awareness of consequences in the context of climate change beliefs, whereas D’Arco and Marino (2022) identified the positive and significant relationship between environmental behavior and awareness of consequences. Liobikienė et al. (2020) found that environmental beliefs have a positive and direct effect on preservation behavior. The environmental belief might be reflected by the awareness of the environmental-related issues (Anthony et al. 2020). Ogiemwonyi et al. (2020) postulated that awareness of consequences about the environment is a crucial part of behavioral science, as it is comprised of environmental beliefs. Therefore, this study postulates that environmental beliefs may reflect awareness of consequences among Malaysian working adults and their willingness to pay for green buildings.

Hypothesis (H3): Environmental beliefs has a positive effect on awareness of consequences.

Incentives for green building buyers

Incentives for green building buyers are crucial to promoting green building, as they are a means to facilitate sustainable development in the green building industry (Rana et al. 2020; Fan and Hui 2020). The incentives for green building are incentive categorization (Onuoha et al. 2018), its viability on green structure advancement, analysis of green motivating force execution, and approaches to boost green structure (Olubunmi et al. 2016). Some studies have argued in favor of the effectiveness, criticisms, strategies, and development of government incentives (Olubunmi et al. 2016; Gou et al. 2013; Heijden 2012), while others have upheld outer and inner impetuses for green structure purchasers (Olubunmi et al. 2016; Bond 2010). Rosner et al. (2022) found a significant relationship between incentives and perceived behavioral control. Duong et al. (2022) identified a significant and positive effect between incentives and perceived behavioral control in the context of green purchase intention. This study proposes that incentives for green building buyers reflect Malaysian working adults’ perceived behavioral control. Thus, we postulate that:

Hypothesis (H4): Incentives for green building buyers has a positive effect on perceived behavioral control.

Awareness of consequences

The awareness of consequences (AC) is crucial for people to perform pro-environmental behaviors. It must prompt a credited duty to perform the behaviors that in turn actuate a personal norm to perform said behaviors (Hansla et al. 2008). De Groot and Steg (2009) stated that AC refers to whether an individual is aware of the negative effects on other people or other belongings. Sang et al. (2020) reported that people’s pro-environmental behavior is anticipated by their AC. AC and ascribing responsibility may lead to activating an individual’s sense of moral obligation (Han 2020), as they are the key components of social behaviors (Schwartz 1994). Stern (2000) pointed out that AC is associated with people’s consciousness about harmful environmental consequences when they act in a way that is not aligned with being environmentally friendly. Gao et al. (2022) investigated the positive and significant relationship between awareness of consequences and ascription of responsibility in the context of digital contract tracing apps. Walker et al. (2021) discussed the importance of awareness of consequences and willingness to pay premiums in the context of sustainable food packaging. Van Doorn and Verhoef (2011) and Anselmsson et al. (2014) explored the relationship between awareness of consequences and consumers’ willingness to pay for products. In line with this effect, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis (H5): Awareness of consequences has a positive effect on the ascription of responsibility.

Hypothesis (H6): Awareness of consequences has a positive effect on willingness to pay for green buildings.

Ascription of responsibility

Ascribing responsibility (AR) refers to the sense of duty surrounding negative consequences that do not stem from social interaction (De Groot & Steg 2009; Borusiak et al. 2020). Han et al. (2020) stated that AR indicates people’s feelings of responsibility for adverse environmental consequences resulting from non-green behaviors. Han (2020) pointed out that an individual’s pro-environmental behavior is predicted by the ascription of responsibility. Borusiak et al. (2020) found that the AR of environmental issues is positively associated with buying behavior. Landon et al. (2018), Sang et al. (2020), and Kyle et al. (2020) hypothesized that AR could influence consumers’ green conservation behaviors. Nelson et al. (2021) identified the significant and positive relationship between the ascription of responsibility and willingness to pay in the context of green hotels. Xiao et al. (2021) discussed the importance of the ascription of responsibility and willingness to pay in the context of green behavior toward a low-carbon society. Regarding this effect, we argue that AR may lead to working adults’ willingness to pay for green buildings. Thus, this study postulates that:

Hypothesis (H7): Ascription of responsibility has a positive effect on working adults’ willingness to pay for green buildings.

Perceived behavioral control

Perceived behavioral control refers to the belief that an individual will approve and preserve an unusual behavior (Ajzen 2011). Ngah et al. (2020) explained the relationship between consumers’ perceived behavioral control and their willingness to pay for products. In a study on green behavior, Zhang et al. (2018) found that perceived behavioral control could have a significant impact on willingness to pay for green housing. Schniederjans and Starkey (2014) postulated that an individual’s perception of behavioral control might significantly affect his/her willingness to pay for services. If a consumer has high levels of perceived behavioral control, this suggests that they would be more willing to pay for green buildings (Zhang et al. 2019), have a more positive outlook on organizations investing in green transportation initiatives (Ngah et al. 2020), and be more willing to pay for green packaging (Hao et al. 2019). Zhang et al. (2021) examined the relationship between perceived behavioral control and willingness to pay for urban heat island effect mitigation. Kasilingam and Krishna (2022) identified the positive effect between perceived behavioral control and willingness to pay for the internet of things services. To this effect, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis (H8): Perceived behavioral control has a positive effect on working adults’ willingness to pay for green buildings.

The mediating effect of awareness of consequences

The mediating effect of awareness of consequences indirectly influences the willingness to pay for green buildings through environmental literacy and environmental beliefs. Sang et al. (2020) found that AC indirectly influences willingness to pay. Similarly, a series of studies explained that AC positively affects consumers’ willingness to exhibit environmental behavior (De Groot and Steg 2009; Sang et al. 2020; Yue et al. 2020), and this plays a mediating role in the relationship between environmental beliefs, awareness, and willingness. Yue et al. (2020) indicated that environmental behavior is an inclusive and universal view of environmental issues. Cole (2019) stated that effective environmental action entails critical environmental literacy. In line with this, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis (H9): Awareness of consequences mediates the effect of environmental literacy and environmental beliefs on Malaysian adults’ willingness to pay for green buildings.

The mediating effect of perceived behavioral control

In general, psychological factors can also affect working adults’ willingness to pay for green buildings. Earlier studies explained that the mediating effect of perceived behavioral control is underpinned by a significant association between psychological factors and willingness or intentions (Dalila et al. 2020; Giantari et al. 2013). According to TPB, perceived behavioral control is expected to mediate the link between consumers, psychological factors, and willingness. These effects can reflect working adults’ willingness, as they have been found to influence the course of actions that individuals choose to pursue and how much stress they face in coping with environmental demands. In line with this, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis (H10): Perceived behavioral control mediates the effect of incentives on green building buyers’ willingness to pay for green buildings (based on working adults in Malaysia).

The mediating effect of ascription responsibility

The ascription of responsibility alludes to working adults having accountability for the unsuccessful results made by their willingness to pay for a building. Based on the VBN and the TPB analysis of mediating effects, working adults should know about the unfriendly ecological impact of their exercises before they feel obliged to make supportive of natural moves. Previous studies have found that awareness of consequences can play a significant role in predicting the ascription of responsibility (Shin et al. 2018; Han et al. 2019; Sang et al. 2020). Loaiza-Ramírez et al. (2022) examined the mediating role of consumers’ perceived comfort on the relationship between renewability of the energy source and the willingness of consumer to pay the premium. Hence, if working adults do not comprehend the adverse consequences of green structure, they will confront challenges and might be attributed some liability regarding these outcomes. Similarly, if working adults are mindful of the adverse environmental impact, they will form the obligation. Thus, we postulated that:

Hypothesis (H11): Ascription of responsibility mediates the effect of awareness of consequences on working adults’ willingness to pay for green buildings.

All the hypothesized and tested associations are presented in Fig. 1 below.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Research framework

Research methodology

Research design

To measure the effect of environmental literacy, beliefs, incentives, the ascription of responsibility, awareness of consequences, and perceived behavioral control that influences working adults’ willingness to pay premium prices for green buildings in Malaysia, this study used a cross-sectional design and collected quantitative data from working adults in Malaysia. The population of this study was composed of working adults in Malaysia aged between eighteen and sixty years. Due to mobility issues during the COVID-19 lockdown, this study used an online survey method using Google Forms, a professional online questionnaire survey platform that allows the stipulation of various question types, storage of answers, and handling of data. The online survey structure featured the purpose and dealing process of the study. Before the survey, informed consent was obtained from the respondents. The survey was appropriated by sharing the connection by means of email and different online entertainment stages including Facebook and WhatsApp. The data collection for this research took place from June to August 2020, and a total of 1198 usable responses were collected. A total of 1500 questionnaires were sent to the potential respondents and 1205 responses were returned. After the data scanning procedure, seven responses were identified with incomplete information; thus, this study identified 1198 valid responses for data analysis that indicated a response rate of 79.86%.

The power of the 1198 samples was assessed utilizing G*Power 3.1.9.2 form. Applying G*Power yielded a power of 0.97 at a significance level of 0.05. The acquired value was bigger than 0.80, demonstrating a suitable degree of test power in this study (Chin 2001). As indicated by Faul et al. (2009), the example size met the expected ability to dismiss the invalid speculation (null hypothesis). T-test was run on the early and late reactions to find non-response bias. The findings indicated no significant contrasts between the two samples.

Measurement of constructs

The empirical study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire, which was divided into eight sections: demographic information, environmental literacy, environmental beliefs, incentives for green building buyers, awareness of consequences, ascriptions of responsibility, perceived behavioral control, and willingness to pay for green buildings. A five-point Likert scale was used in this study to assess all items of the constructs except for the demographic information of the participants. The measurement items were adapted from the existing literature of this study to certify content validity. The scales for environmental literacy were adopted from Nunez and Clores (2017) and Maichum et al. (2016), while environmental belief items were based on Xie et al. (2017). The items of incentives for green building buyers were adapted from Portnov et al. (2018a, b). The scales of awareness of consequences were modified from Portnov et al. (2018a, b), and the items for the ascription of responsibility were adapted from Zhang et al. (2013) and Sang et al. (2020). Next, items for perceived behavioral control were adopted from Armitage and Conner (2001), Kim and Han (2010), and Maichum et al. (2016), while the items for willingness to pay for green buildings were modified from Afroz et al. (2015). All items used in this study presented in Supplementary Table 1.

Assessment of common method variance (CMV)

Sociology research strategies are associated with common method bias is started utilizing a solitary source and a single time point (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Harman’s one-factor test was applied in this study to decide the impact of CMV, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). The single factor represented 32.595%, which is beneath the suggested value of 50% in Harman’s one-factor test that supports the irrelevant impact of CMV on this study. Moreover, the recommended assessment decided on the connections among the latent variables, wherein a relationship that scored underneath 0.9 indicates the absence of CMV (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The present study satisfied this requirement as well (Podsakoff et al. 2003). This study assessed the CMV by using the concept of Kock’s (2015) reference to test the full collinearity of all variables. The variable used in this study regressed on a normal variable, and variance inflation factor (VIF) values were under 3.3 (most extreme VIF worth of 2.52 for awareness of consequences), in this manner demonstrating the absence of bias from the single-source data.

Multivariate normality

Multivariate normality is an important assumption in many statistical techniques, therefore, measuring multivariate normality is important to ensure that the statistical techniques used are appropriate for the data being analyzed and that the results obtained are accurate and reliable. One of the key properties of the multivariate normal distribution is that any linear combination of the variables also follows a normal distribution. This property makes the multivariate normal distribution very useful in statistical inference and hypothesis testing. For this study, the multivariate normality was evaluated using the Web Power online tool (Source: https://webpower.psychstat.org/wiki/tools/index). The p values of Mardia’s multivariate skewness and kurtosis are less than 0.05, confirms the non-normality of the data (Cain et al. 2017).

Data analysis method

The partial least square technique (SmartPLS 3.1 version) was used to evaluate the reliability and hypothesis relationship among the constructs. SmartPLS is a multivariate examination instrument that evaluates the way models with composite-based latent variables. In the first stage, the measurement estimation was performed to test the reliability and validity analysis (Hair et al. 2017; 2019). Then, the subsequent stage included the evaluation of the structural model using the bootstrapping method with 5000 resamples for the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Model estimation was performed with r2, Q2, and effect size of f2 to describe the path effect of the constructs (Hair et al. 2019). The mediating effects of ascription of responsibility, awareness of consequences, and perceived behavioral control were investigated to determine the impact on WTP for premium prices for green buildings using the PLS-SEM Bootstrapping method (Hair et al. 2019). The relative importance of various constructs in explaining various other constructs in the structural model is provided by standard PLS-SEM analysis. Importance-performance map analysis (IPMA) is a useful tool that is commonly used in business and market research to help organizations identify areas of improvement in their products or services. In addition, IPMA is an effective tool for businesses to use to understand their customers’ needs and expectations, prioritize improvement efforts, and gain a competitive advantage in the market (Wanasida et al. 2021). Hence, IPMA expands the findings of the PLS-SEM assessment by accounting for each construct’s performance, allowing for the drawing of conclusions on two dimensions (i.e., both importance and performance), which is crucial when prioritizing managerial actions.

Results

Demographic characteristics

The respondents’ information is illustrated in Table 1. Male respondents made up 47.6% of the sample and females made up 52.4%. The majority of the working adults’ age group was 21–25 years (48.4%), followed by 18–21 years (28.2%), 26–30 (9.6%), 36–40 (2.3%), 41–45 (2%), 46–50 (2.2%), 51–55 (1.3), 56–60 (0.9%), and above 60 years (0.6%). In terms of ethnicity, Chinese participants made up 88.3%, 3.1% were Malaysians, 2.9% were Indians, and other ethnicities made up 5.7%. Working adults living in urban areas made up 85.8% of the sample and those living in rural areas made up 14.2%; 86.2% of respondents were single, 12.3% were married, and those that were divorced or widowed each made up 0.8%. Most of the respondents had good education levels, with bachelor degrees (or equivalent) making up 57.5%, diploma/technical school certificates accounting for 21.7%, secondary school certificates making up 17.6%, master’s degree making up 2.4%, and doctoral degree making up 0.8%. The monthly income of most respondents (63.1%) was below RM25000, followed by RM2501-RM5000 (23.5%), RM5001-RM7500 (6.4%), RM7501-RM10,000 (3%), more than RM12500 (2.4%), and RM10,001-RM12500 (1.5%). In terms of the employment status of the respondents, those who were unemployed/unable to work accounted for 38.1%, those who were employed full-time accounted for 37.7%, those who were self-employed made up 14.1%, those who were employed part-time accounted for 9.3%, and those who were retired made up 0.8%.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics

N % N %
Gender Marital status
Male 570 47.6 Single 1033 86.2
Female 628 52.4 Married 147 12.3
Total 1198 100.0 Divorced 9 0.8
Widowed 9 0.8
Age group Total 1198 100.0
Below 21 years 338 28.2
21–25 years 580 48.4 Education
26–30 years 115 9.6 Secondary school certificate 211 17.6
31–35 years 53 4.4 Diploma/technical school certificate 260 21.7
36–40 years 28 2.3 Bachelor degree or equivalent 689 57.5
41–45 years 24 2.0 Master’s degree 29 2.4
46–50 years 26 2.2 Doctoral degree 9 0.8
51–55 years 16 1.3 Total 1198 100.0
56–60 years 11 0.9
 > 60 years 7 0.6 Monthly income
Total 1198 100.0 Below RM2500 756 63.1
RM2501-RM5000 282 23.5
Ethnicity RM5001-RM7500 77 6.4
Malay 37 3.1 RM7501-RM10,000 36 3.0
Chinese 1058 88.3 RM10,001-RM12500 18 1.5
Indian 35 2.9 More than RM12500 29 2.4
Others 68 5.7 Total 1198 100.0
Total 1198 100.0
Employment status
Living areas Unemployed/unable to work 456 38.1
Urban 1028 85.8 Self-employed 169 14.1
Rural 170 14.2 Employed full-time 452 37.7
Total 1198 100.0 Employed part-time 112 9.3
Retired 9 0.8
Total 1198 100.0
Open in a new tab

Reliability and validity analysis

Cronbach’s alpha test was applied for each of the constructs to evaluate the reliability of the study. Hair et al. (2017) indicated that the accepted requirement of Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.70. The Cronbach’s alphas for environmental literacy, environmental beliefs, incentives for green building buyers, awareness of consequences, ascription of responsibility, perceived behavioral control, and WTP premium prices for green buildings were 0.820, 0.807, 0.866, 0.860, 0.867, 0.857, and 0.891, respectively, which indicated sufficient reliability levels. Golbazi et al. (2020a, b) measured the reliability and validity assessment in the context of students’ perceptions on higher education and their WTP for green buildings. The existing study measured the construct validity using convergent validity and discriminant validity. Hair et al. (2017) reported that if average variance extracted (AVE) value is greater than 0.50 and composite reliability (CR) value of each construct is larger than 0.70; then, convergent validity will meet the requirement. The findings of this study show that the AVE score of each construct exceeded 0.50 and the CR of each factor exceeded 0.70 (Table 2), suggesting that there is convergent validity in the study. The minimum value of Dijkstra-Hensele’s rho was 0.807, which exceeded the threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al. 2019). The variance inflation factor (VIF) value for each factor was less than 3.3, indicating there was no multi-collinearity issue in the structural model.

Table 2.

Reliability and validity

Variables No. items Mean Standard deviation Cronbach’s alpha Dijkstra-Hensele’s rho Composite reliability Average variance extracted Variance inflation factors
Variables No. items Mean SD CA DG rho CR AVE VIF
EL 6 3.758 0.694 0.820 0.828 0.869 0.527 1.184
EB 6 4.050 0.605 0.807 0.807 0.861 0.509 1.184
IN 6 4.190 0.655 0.866 0.868 0.899 0.598 1.000
AC 6 4.097 0.654 0.860 0.861 0.895 0.588 1.813
AR 5 3.967 0.733 0.867 0.867 0.904 0.653 1.880
PB 6 3.609 0.774 0.857 0.860 0.892 0.581 1.378
WGB 7 4.666 1.061 0.891 0.926 0.918 0.627
Open in a new tab

EL, environmental literacy; EB, environmental beliefs; IN, incentives for green building buyers; AC, awareness of consequences; AR, ascription of responsibility; PB, perceived behavioral control; WGB, willingness to pay for green building. Source: Author’s data analysis

The discriminant validity (DV) was assessed utilizing the Fornell-Larcker standard and heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). In light of Fornell and Larcker (1981), DV is accomplished when the square root of the AVE for each variable surpasses the comparing connection among the other variable. The findings at the top of each column in Table 3 show the AVE square root is bigger than the values in the same row and column, which demonstrates a satisfactory level of discriminant validity. In addition, for the robustness of the DV, heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio is used to identify HTMT ratios were under 0.90. It implies that DV meets a satisfactory level, and the variables of this study were conceptually distinct (Henseler et al. 2015). Besides, the results indicated that the cross-loading achieves a significant level of DV (Supplementary Table 1).

Table 3.

Discriminant validity

EL EB IN AC AR PB WGB
Fornell-Larcker criterion
EL 0.726
EB 0.394 0.713
IN 0.345 0.607 0.773
AC 0.447 0.621 0.688 0.767
AR 0.486 0.588 0.586 0.649 0.808
PB 0.489 0.343 0.419 0.460 0.490 0.762
WGB 0.494 0.373 0.407 0.400 0.477 0.593 0.792
Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT)
EL -
EB 0.476 -
IN 0.397 0.728 -
AC 0.528 0.745 0.800 -
AR 0.575 0.703 0.676 0.752 -
PB 0.585 0.389 0.449 0.509 0.551 -
WGB 0.566 0.428 0.448 0.439 0.523 0.661 -
Open in a new tab

EL, environmental literacy; EB, environmental beliefs; IN, incentives for green building buyers; AC, awareness of consequences; AR, ascription of responsibility; PB, perceived behavioral control; WGB, willingness to pay for green building

Source: Author’s data analysis

Path analysis

The path coefficient, t-value, significant level, predictive relevance (Q2), and F-square (f2) values were computed for the assessment of the structural model (Table 4). The results reveal that environmental literacy has a significant influence on environmental beliefs (β = 0.394, t = 14.741); thus, hypothesis H1 was supported. The study examined the factors affecting awareness of consequence among working adults in Malaysia; the result indicates that environmental literacy (β = 0.239, t = 8.623) and environmental beliefs (β = 0.527, t = 19.933) are greatly associated with awareness of consequence, thereby supporting hypothesis H2 and H3. Incentives for green building buyers had a significant impact on perceived behavioral control (β = 0.419, t = 16.825). This finding statistically indicates that hypothesis H4 was supported. Awareness of consequence is positively related to the ascription of responsibility (β = 0.649, t = 34.009); thus, hypothesis H5 is accepted. This study examined the factors affecting working adults’ WTP premium prices for green buildings, and the results reveal that awareness of consequences (β = 0.042, t = 1.318) has an insignificant impact on WTP premium prices for green buildings; therefore, hypothesis H6 was not supported. However, the ascription of responsibility (β = 0.222, t = 6.015) and perceived behavioral control (β = 0.465, t = 16.417) have a significant effect on WTP for green buildings, thereby supporting hypotheses H7 and H8. Idris et al. (2022) and Kalfas et al. (2022) highlighted WTP for urban and suburban green space in a different context.

Table 4.

Path coefficients

Hypo Beta CI—min CI—max t p r2 f2 Q2 Decision
Factors effecting environmental beliefs
H1 EL → EB 0.394 0.353 0.441 14.741 0.000 0.155 0.184 0.077 Accept
Factors effecting awareness of consequences
H2 EL → AC 0.239 0.194 0.287 8.623 0.000 0.434 0.086 0.253 Accept
H3 EB → AC 0.527 0.486 0.570 19.933 0.000 0.415 Accept
Factors effecting perceived behavioral control
H4 IN → PB 0.419 0.378 0.459 16.825 0.000 0.176 0.213 0.087 Accept
Factors effecting ascription of responsibility
H5 AC → AR 0.649 0.621 0.684 34.009 0.000 0.422 0.730 0.273 Accept
Factors effecting willingness to pay for green building
H6 AC → WGB 0.042 -0.013 0.089 1.318 0.094 0.002 Reject
H7 AR → WGB 0.222 0.169 0.286 6.015 0.000 0.399 0.044 0.245 Accept
H8 PB → WGB 0.465 0.414 0.511 16.417 0.000 0.261 Accept
Open in a new tab

EL, environmental literacy; EB, environmental beliefs; IN, incentives for green building buyers; AC, awareness of consequences; AR, ascription of responsibility; PB, perceived behavioral control; WGB, willingness to pay for green building. Source: Author’s data analysis

The adjusted r2 value for the environmental literacy explained 15.5% of the change in environmental beliefs. Environmental literacy and environmental beliefs explained 43.4% of the change in awareness of consequences. Incentives for green building buyers explained 17.6% of the change in perceived behavioral control and awareness of consequence explained of 42.2% of the change in the ascription of responsibility. The findings also revealed that awareness of consequences, the ascription of responsibility, and perceived behavioral control explained 39.9% of the change in WTP premium prices for green buildings. The f2 value was estimated by applying the effect size, and the results were as follows: f2 score of 0.184 for environmental beliefs, 0.086 for environmental literacy, 0.415 for awareness of consequence, 0.213 for incentives for green building buyers, 0.370 for the ascription of responsibility, and 0.261 for WTP premium prices for green building. Cohen (1988) indicated that the effect sizes 0.02 and 0.15 are measured for small and medium effects, while those above 0.35 are considered high effects. The results revealed that the Q2 values for environmental value (0.007), awareness of consequence (0.253), perceived behavioral control (0.087), the ascription of responsibility (0.273), and WTP premium prices for green buildings (0.245) were all greater than zero, which signified the predictive relevance of the construct (Fornell & Cha 1994).

Mediating effects

The results reveal that the awareness of consequences did not mediate the relationship between environmental literacy, environmental beliefs, and WTP premium prices for green buildings (β = 0.083, CI min = 0.057, CI max = 0.110, p > 0.05) and (β = 0.098, CI min = 0.072, CI max = 0.123, p > 0.05), thus rejecting hypothesis H9. However, the mediating effect of perceived behavioral control on the relationship between incentives for green building buyers and WTP premium prices for green buildings (β = 0.195, CI min = 0.170, CI max = 0.223, p = 0.000) did support hypothesis H10. Similarly, the ascription of responsibility was found to mediate the correlation between awareness of consequences and WTP premium prices for green buildings (β = 0.144, CI min = 0.108, CI max = 0.186, p = 0.000); therefore, indicating statistical support for hypothesis H11. The findings of the mediating effect are reported in Table 5.

Table 5.

Mediating effects

Hypo Associations Beta CI—min CI—max t p Decision
Mediating effect of awareness of consequences
EL → AC → WGB 0.083 0.057 0.110 0.518 0.440 No effect
H9 EB → AC → WGB 0.098 0.072 0.123 0.585 0.500
Mediating effect of perceived behavioral control
H10 IN → PB → WGB 0.195 0.170 0.223 12.194 0.000 Accept
Mediating effect of ascription of responsibility
H11 AC → AR → WGB 0.144 0.108 0.186 5.904 0.000 Accept
Open in a new tab

EL, environmental literacy; EB, environmental beliefs; IN, incentives for green building buyers; AC, awareness of consequences; AR, ascription of responsibility; PB, perceived behavioral control; WGB, willingness to pay for green building. Source: Author’s data analysis

Importance performance matrix

The importance-performance matrix analysis (IPMA) identified that perceived behavioral control appeared as the crucial factor for the performance of the working adults’ WTP premium prices for green buildings (0.465; 66.688). The next most significant factors for the performance of working adults’ WTP premium prices for green buildings were the ascription of responsibility (0.222; 47.189), incentives for green building buyers (0.195; 79.684), awareness of consequences (0.186; 77.431), environmental beliefs (0.098; 77.431), and environmental literacy (0.083; 69.352). Table 6 illustrates the results of performance and total effect.

Table 6.

Performance and total effects

Target construct Purchase of ES
Variables Total effect Performance
Environmental literacy 0.083 69.352
Environmental beliefs 0.098 77.353
Incentives for green building buyers 0.195 79.684
Awareness of consequences 0.186 77.431
Ascription of responsibility 0.222 74.189
Perceived behavioral control 0.465 66.688
Willingness to pay for green building 64.455
Open in a new tab

Source: Author’s data analysis

Discussion

The findings revealed that environmental literacy and environmental beliefs affect the level of environmental awareness. Simultaneously, environmental awareness also influences environmental beliefs, which was theoretically supported. However, this is inconsistent with the results of Edsand and Broich (2020), who found weak evidence on the significant positive relationship between environmental literacy and environmental awareness, thereby contradicting the assumption underpinning the theories used in this study. Wu et al. (2020) stated that environmental literacy plays an important role in improving environmental knowledge, awareness, attitudes, and behaviors. This was supported by the results of this study, as high environmental literacy on green buildings led to greater WTP premium prices for green buildings. Consistently with this, the study of Golbazi et al. (2020a, b) and Chau et al. (2010) confirmed the relationship between environmental behavior and WTP premium prices. Subsequently, this study also identified that environmental belief is a crucial predictor of awareness of consequences, which relates to the study of Maichum et al. (2016) and Chen et al. (2022), who pointed out that green products are widely used around the globe due to their environmental beliefs.

The study found that incentives for buyers of green buildings play an important role in perceived behavioral control. This result is consistent with Ting et al. (2019), who found that perceived behavioral control influences the behavior of green consumers and integrates the incentive mechanism. It is indeed a real fact that various incentive factors (financial, fiscal, and structural) motivate an individual to triumph over a certain ambition. Thus, the incentive package should include key players such as developers, investors, and owners to encourage green building construction by establishing them as the smarter choice in new developments (Hashim et al. 2016).

The study identified a significant and positive relationship between awareness of consequences and ascription of responsibility. The awareness of consequences and ascription of responsibility can lead to an increase in consumers’ WTP premium prices for green buildings. This result is consistent with the results of Borusiak et al. (2020) and Sharma et al. (2020), who focused on building sustainable consumption behaviors and pro-environmental behavior. This implies that the study recognizes the potential role of awareness of consequences, ascription of responsibility, and perceived behavioral control on working adults’ WTP premium prices for green buildings in Malaysia. This is in line with the study of Golbazi et al. (2020a, b and Ofek and Portnov (2020), who explored stakeholders and students’ perceptions and WTP premium prices for green buildings. The study identified that the majority of working adults in Malaysia were willing to consider paying for green buildings. This is an interesting outcome, as the crucial objective of green buildings is to provide a comfortable and healthy environment for residents.

The study identified that there is no mediating effect of awareness of consequences between environmental literacy, environmental beliefs, and WTP premium prices for green buildings. This is perhaps the cultural fact of awareness of the consequences of working adults in Malaysia regarding their WTP premium prices in green buildings. Besides, the results indicated that the environmental beliefs of working adults in Malaysia have a direct relationship with awareness of consequences which in turn reflect a WTP premium prices in green buildings. It implies that working adults’ environmental belief and awareness of consequences are important, which lead to reflecting WTP premium prices in green buildings in the context of Malaysia. However, this finding is inconsistent with the previous findings of De Groot and Steg, (2009), Sang et al. (2020), and Yue et al. (2020) who particularly investigated the general consumers’ willingness to purchase green hosing in a different culture, province, and country.

In this study, the mediating effect of perceived behavioral control was found between incentives for green building buyers and their WTP premium prices for green buildings. The mediating effect of perceived behavioral control between incentives for green building buyers and WTP premium pricing for green buildings may be affected by a number of reasons in the context of Malaysia. First, Malaysia has been actively encouraging green buildings through numerous policies and programs, including the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act and the Green Building Index (GBI) certification program (Mustaffa and Kudus 2022). These initiatives may increase the perception of behavioral control of consumers toward green buildings due to the fact that they offer precise guidelines and criteria for sustainable building practices. Second, the level of environmental awareness and consciousness among Malaysian buyers may also impact the mediating effect of perceived behavioral control. Buyers may sense more behavioral control over their purchase decisions and the adoption of green building practices if they have a higher level of environmental awareness and concern about the effects of buildings on the environment. Third, Malaysia’s culture and social standards may also play a role in influencing the mediating effect of perceived behavioral control. If green buildings are seen as a status symbol or a marker of social responsibility, buyers may be more likely to perceive a greater level of control over their decision to purchase green buildings. In addition, the mediating effect of perceived behavioral control between incentives for green building buyers and their willingness to pay premium prices for green buildings is based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB). According to TPB, working adults’ intention to perform a behavior is influenced by their attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control.

In the context of green building purchasing, incentives can influence working adults’ perceived behavioral control toward green buildings, while awareness of consequences and ascription of responsibility can be influenced by environmental literacy and environmental beliefs about the importance of sustainability. Previous studies have shown that perceived behavioral control has a significant mediating effect on the association between psychological factors and willingness or intentions (Dalila et al. 2020; Giantari et al 2013). The study also found a mediating effect of the ascription of responsibility between awareness of consequences and WTP premium prices for green buildings. This finding was also supported by previous studies by Shin et al. (2018), Han et al. (2019), and Sang et al. (2020). The findings of the mediating hypothesis indicated that factors affecting the ascription of responsibility, awareness of consequences, perceived behavioral control, and environmental belief can play a significant role in measuring working adults’ WTP premium prices for green buildings. Similarly, the findings of the IPMA assessments, it is indicated that perceived behavioral control, ascription of responsibility, incentives for green building buyers, awareness of consequences, environmental beliefs, and environmental literacy can lead to encouraging working adults’ WTP for premium prices in green buildings in Malaysia.

Implications

Theoretical implications

The results encompass the research on working adults’ WTP premium prices for green building buying behavior in Malaysia. This paper extends the research based on the concept of attitudinal behavior of TPB on the association between environmental literacy, environmental belief, incentive for green building buyer, ascription of responsibility, awareness of consequences, and working adults’ perceived behavioral control toward their WTP premium prices in green buildings in Malaysia. In addition, the concept of VBN theory is used to investigate the relationship among the ascription of responsibility, awareness of consequences, perceived behavioral control, and WTP premium prices in green buildings, which theoretically contributes to an evolving stream of research that investigates the impact in the context of Malaysian working adults. There is enough literature highlighting the association between environmental behavior and green consumption (Patwary et al. 2022a), and most of it simply focuses on the drivers of green consumer behavior (Patwary et al. 2022b; Hu et al. 2022), particularly from the organizational policy perspective. Research on the role of working adults’ awareness and environmental responsibility in promoting a WTP premium prices for green buildings in the context of Malaysia is still scarce. This study proposes an important mechanism to explore the relationship between incentives for green building buyers and perceived behavioral control; it found that incentives play a crucial role in green behavior. Ascription of responsibility explains the positive effect on WTP premium prices for green buildings, which reveals that environmental concerns lead to promoting sustainable green consumption behavior. Perceived behavioral control and ascription of responsibility also play a mediating role in working adults’ WTP premium prices for green buildings.

Practical and managerial implications

The study has practical implications for policymakers and managers of green industrial policy. The findings reveal that environmental literacy and environmental beliefs have a significant effect on awareness of consequences, which in turn leads to working adults’ willingness to pay for green buildings. To boost green building purchase behavior, policymakers could incorporate environmental literacy to improve the environmental value of management and promote the relationship between human activities and green environmental policy. Furthermore, policymakers can promote working adults’ environmental literacy, awareness, and beliefs using multiple communication channels (e.g., TV, social media, and news media) to discuss different environmental issues.

The knowledge derived from this study helps practitioners, construction managers, and stakeholders to recognize the role of governments in fostering and improving collaborative relationships between partners in green construction buildings. Governments can play an important role in encouraging and motivating construction stakeholders to participate in green building initiatives and promote green policy for the development of green buying houses, which may influence individual and working adults’ WTP premium prices for green buildings. Rethinking the design and engineering processes, reworking the contractual framework, enhancing on-site execution, incorporating technology and new materials, and retraining the workforce are all necessary to increase productivity and capacity on a green building or construction site. These initiatives demand a large financial commitment, ongoing training and supervision, careful planning, and coordination. Green structures can be offered as a product that differs from traditional structures. The green building sector can improve quality of life, resource conservation, and climate change. When the economic and societal benefits of green buildings are fully appreciated, the willingness of individuals or working adults to pay higher costs for green buildings may be attained. Government and corporate leaders should take initiative in developing legislation and policies that will encourage building construction companies to build and occupy green buildings.

Conclusion, limitations, and future studies

Regarding the generalizability of the research findings, in this study, the correlation among environmental literacy, environmental beliefs, awareness of consequences, incentives for green building buyers, ascription of responsibility, perceived behavioral control, and WTP premium prices for green buildings was statistically tested from the perspective of working adults in Malaysia. Thus, it is crucial to explore whether the conclusions are pertinent to other groups or other countries’ green consumption behaviors and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Green building practices can be linked to several SDGs, depending on the specific aspects and impacts that are considered. Hence, SDGs can consist of affordable and clean energy as green buildings can reduce energy consumption and reliance on fossil fuels, thereby contributing to the goal of increasing the use of renewable energy sources. Green building technologies and practices can help drive innovation in the construction and building sector, leading to more sustainable and resilient infrastructure. In addition, green buildings contribute to creating more sustainable and resilient cities by reducing carbon emissions, improving air quality, and promoting energy efficiency. SDGs can consider responsible consumption and production because green buildings can support responsible consumption and production by reducing the environmental impact of building and promoting the use of sustainable materials. Moreover, green buildings can play a significant role in mitigating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting energy efficiency, and adapting to the impacts of climate change. The adoption of green building practices can require partnerships and collaboration between different stakeholders, such as policymakers, builders, investors, and communities, to promote sustainable development.

This study focused on working adults’ willingness to pay premium prices for purchasing the green building in Malaysia. Research on the various green products and services in different countries should be conducted to discover the potential influencing mechanism of green environmental behavior on WTP premium prices for green buildings. This study is also aimed at exploring how environmental awareness or responsibility affects working adults’ WTP premium prices for green buildings. This study investigated the mediating role of awareness of consequences, perceived behavioral control, and ascription of responsibility. Future studies ought to consider other mediating factors and the moderating role of price sensitivity, environmental beliefs, policy intervention, and purchase convenience to promote different groups of people’s WTP premium prices for green buildings.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 21 KB) (21.2KB, docx)

Author contribution

M.K.R, M.M.M, and M.M: conceptualization, methodology, and writing—original draft. A.A.M: conceptualization, methodology, and writing—review and editing.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study submitted as supplementary material.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent for participation was obtained from respondents who participated in the survey. For the respondents who participated the survey online (using google form), they were asked to read the ethical statement posted on the top of the form (There is no compensation for responding nor is there any known risk. In order to ensure that all information will remain confidential, please do not include your name. Participation is strictly voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time) and proceed only if they agree. No data was collected from anyone under 18 years old.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Abdullah Al Mamun, Email: mamun7793@gmail.com, Email: almamun@ukm.edu.my.

Muhammad Khalilur Rahman, Email: khalilur.r@umk.edu.my.

Muhammad Mehedi Masud, Email: mehedi@um.edu.my.

Muhammad Mohiuddin, Email: muhammad.mohiuddin@fsa.ulaval.ca.

References

  1. Abisuga AO, Okuntade TF (2020) The current state of green building development in nigerian construction industry: policy and implications. In: Gou Z (ed) Green Building in Developing Countries. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Cham, pp 129–146. 10.1007/978-3-030-24650-1_7
  2. Addy M, Adinyira E, Danku JC, Dadzoe F. Impediments to the development of the green building market in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Ghana. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment. 2021;10(2):193–207. doi: 10.1108/SASBE-12-2019-0170. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Afroz R, Masud MM, Akhtar R, Islam MA, Duasa JB. Consumer purchase intention towards environmentally friendly vehicles: an empirical investigation in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia Environ Sci Poll Res. 2015;22(20):16153–16163. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-4841-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arias C, Quiroga Beltrán JM, Martínez Ariza JM, Cadena Lozano JB, Bello Bernal MA. Pro-circular consumer profile: an approach to their identification and characterization based on the components of the value-belief-norm theory. Sustainability. 2022;14(13):7883. doi: 10.3390/su14137883. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Aghili N, Hosseini SE, Bin Mohammed AH, Zainul Abidin N. Management criteria for green building in Malaysia; relative important index. Energy Sources, Part a: Recovery, Utilization, Environ Effects. 2019;41(21):2601–2615. doi: 10.1080/15567036.2019.1568634. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Allen JG, MacNaughton P, Laurent JGC, Flanigan SS, Eitland ES, Spengler JD. Green buildings and health. Current Environmental Health Reports. 2015;2(3):250–258. doi: 10.1007/s40572-015-0063-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychol Health. 2011;26(9):1113–1127. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2011.613995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Anthony B, Majid MA, Romli A. Green IS diffusion in organizations: a model and empirical results from Malaysia. Environ Dev Sustain. 2020;22(1):383–424. doi: 10.1007/s10668-018-0207-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Anselmsson J, Bondesson NV, Johansson U. Brand image and customers' willingness to pay a price premium for food brands. J Product Brand Management. 2014;23(2):90–102. doi: 10.1108/JPBM-10-2013-0414. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Amaral RE, Brito J, Buckman M, Drake E, Ilatova E, Rice P, Abraham YS (2020) Waste management and operational energy for sustainable buildings: a review. Sustainability 12(13):5337. 10.3390/su12135337
  12. Ampratwum G, Agyekum K, Adinyira E, Duah D. A framework for the implementation of green certification of buildings in Ghana. Int J Constr Manag. 2021;21(12):1263–1277. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bond S. Lessons from the leaders of green designed commercial buildings in Australia. Pac Rim Prop Res J. 2010;16(3):314–338. [Google Scholar]
  14. Borusiak B, Szymkowiak A, Horska E, Raszka N, Żelichowska E. Towards building sustainable consumption: a study of second-hand buying intentions. Sustainability. 2020;12(3):1–15. doi: 10.3390/su12030875. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cain MK, Zhang Z, Yuan KH. Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: prevalence, influence and estimation. Behav Res Methods. 2017;49(5):1716–1735. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0814-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chin WW. PLS-graph user’s guide. CT Bauer Coll Business: Univ Houston, Houston; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen X, Rahman MK, Rana MS, Gazi MAI, Rahaman MA, Nawi NC. Predicting consumer green product purchase attitudes and behavioral intention during COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol. 2022;12:1–10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.760051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chau CK, Tse MS, Chung KY. A choice experiment to estimate the effect of green experience on preferences and willingness-to-pay for green building attributes. Build Environ. 2010;45(11):2553–2561. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.05.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chengqin EK, Zailani S, Rahman MK, Aziz AA, Bhuiyan MA, Gazi MA (2022) Determinants of household behavioural intention towards reducing, reusing and recycling food waste management. Nankai Bus Rev Int 1–15. 10.1108/NBRI-01-2022-0011
  20. Curdt-Christiansen XL. Environmental literacy: raising awareness through Chinese primary education textbooks. Lang Cult Curric. 2021;34(2):147–162. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2020.1797078. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cole LB. Green building literacy: a framework for advancing green building education. Int J STEM Educ. 2019;6(1):18–29. doi: 10.1186/s40594-019-0171-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  23. Darko A, Chan AP, Huo X, Owusu-Manu DG. A scientometric analysis and visualization of global green building research. Build Environ. 2019;149:501–511. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.059. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dalila D, Latif H, Jaafar N, Aziz I, Afthanorhan A. The mediating effect of personal values on the relationships between attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intention to use. Management Science Letters. 2020;10(1):153–162. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. De Groot JI, Steg L. Morality and prosocial behavior: the role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. J Soc Psychol. 2009;149(4):425–449. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.149.4.425-449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Duong CD, Doan XH, Vu DM, Ha NT, Dam KV. The Role of Perceived Environmental Responsibility and Environmental Concern on Shaping Green Purchase Intention. 2022 doi: 10.1177/097226292210921. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. D'Arco M, Marino V. Environmental citizenship behavior and sustainability apps: an empirical investigation. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. 2022;16(2):185–202. doi: 10.1108/TG-07-2021-0118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Edsand HE, Broich T. The impact of environmental education on environmental and renewable energy technology awareness: empirical evidence from Colombia. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2020;18(4):611–634. doi: 10.1007/s10763-019-09988-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Fan K, Hui ECM (2020) Evolutionary game theory analysis for understanding the decision-making mechanisms of governments and developers on green building incentives. Build Environ 179:1–14. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106972
  30. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavioral Res Methods. 2009;41:1149–1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marking Res. 1981;18:39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fornell C, Cha J. Partial least squares. In: Bagozzi RP, editor. Advanced methods of marketing research. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell; 1994. pp. 52–78. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gao G, Lang R, Oxoby RJ, Mourali M, Sheikh H, Fullerton MM, Tang T, Manns BJ, Marshall DA, Hu J, Benham JL (2022) Drivers of downloading and reasons for not downloading COVID-19 contact tracing and exposure notification apps: a national cross-sectional survey. PLOS ONE 17(7). 10.1371/journal.pone.0269783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. Garcia MNZ, Cobar-Garcia MRV. The environmental literacy of elementary and high school teachers based in Manila and Nueva Ecija province: a mixed methods study. Environ Dev Sustain. 2022;24(5):6878–6902. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01732-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Golbazi M, El Danaf A, Aktas CB. Willingness to pay for green buildings: a survey on students’ perception in higher education. Energy and Buildings. 2020;216:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109956. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Gill ZM, Tierney MJ, Pegg IM, Allan N. Measured energy and water performance of an aspiring low energy/carbon affordable housing site in the UK. Energy and Buildings. 2011;43(1):117–125. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.08.025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Giantari IGAK, Zain D, Rahayu M, Solimun M. The role of perceived behavioral control and trust as mediator of experience on online purchasing intentions relationship a study on youths in Denpasar city (Indonesia) Int J Business Manage Invention. 2013;2(1):30–38. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gou Z, Lau SSY, Prasad D. Market readiness and policy implications for green buildings: case study from Hong Kong. J Green Building. 2013;8(2):162–173. doi: 10.3992/jgb.8.2.162. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hansla A, Gamble A, Juliusson A, Gärling T. The relationships between awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations. J Environ Psychol. 2008;28(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Han H, Hwang J, Lee MJ, Kim J. Word-of-mouth, buying, and sacrifice intentions for eco- cruises: exploring the function of norm activation and value-attitude-behavior. Tour Manage. 2019;70:430–443. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Han H. Theory of green purchase behavior (TGPB): a new theory for sustainable consumption of green hotel and green restaurant products. Bus Strateg Environ. 2020;29(6):2815–2828. doi: 10.1002/bse.2545. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Han H, Lee S, Kim JJ, Ryu HB. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), traveler behaviors, and international tourism businesses: impact of the corporate social responsibility (CSR), knowledge, psychological distress, attitude, and ascribed responsibility. Sustainability. 2020;12(20):8639. doi: 10.3390/su12208639. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) London: Sage Publications; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. 2019;31:2–24. doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hao Y, Liu H, Chen H, Sha Y, Ji H, Fan J. What affect consumers’ willingness to pay for green packaging? Evidence from China. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019;141:21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hashim SZ, Zakaria IB, Ahzahar N, Yasin MF, Aziz AH. Implementation of green building incentives for construction key players in Malaysia. Int J Engineering Technol. 2016;8(2):1039–1044. [Google Scholar]
  47. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43(1):115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Heijden JVD. Voluntary environmental governance arrangements. Environmental Politics. 2012;21(3):486–509. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2012.671576. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hemmati M, Newaz MS, Rahman MK, Appolloni A, Zailani S (2022) Sustainability performance of digitalized manufacturing industry in COVID era: a comparative study between developed and developing economies. Int J Emerging Markets. 1–22. 10.1108/IJOEM-04-2022-0647
  50. Hu P, Bhuiyan MA, Rahman MK, Hossain MM, Akter S. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on consumer behavioural intention to purchase green products. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(10):1–19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  51. Idris I, Hoque ME, Susanto P. Willingness to pay for the preservation of urban green space in Indonesia. Cogent Economics & Finance. 2022;10(1):1–20. doi: 10.1080/23322039.2021.2008588. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kaiser FG, Hübner G, Bogner FX. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2005;35:2150–2170. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02213.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Kalfas D, Chatzitheodoridis F, Loizou E, Melfou K. Willingness to pay for urban and suburban green. Sustainability. 2022;14(4):1–21. doi: 10.3390/su14042332. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Khan U, Haque MI, Khan AM. Environmental sustainability awareness in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The J Asian Finance, Economics, and Business. 2020;7(9):687–695. doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no9.687. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kim Y, Han H. Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel–a modification of the theory of planned behavior. J Sustain Tour. 2010;18(8):997–1014. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2010.490300. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kasilingam D, Krishna R. Understanding the adoption and willingness to pay for internet of things services. Int J Consum Stud. 2022;46(1):102–131. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12648. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kock N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach. Int J e-Collab. 2015;11:1–10. [Google Scholar]
  58. Klein S, Watted S, Zion M. Contribution of an intergenerational sustainability leadership project to the development of students’ environmental literacy. Environ Educ Res. 2021;27(12):1723–1758. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2021.1968348. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kamranfar S, Azimi Y, Gheibi M, Fathollahi-Fard AM, Hajiaghaei-Keshteli M. Analyzing green construction development barriers by a hybrid decision-making method based on DEMATEL and the ANP. Buildings. 2022;12(10):1–28. doi: 10.3390/buildings12101641. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Kyle G, Landon A, Vaske J, Wallen K. Tools for assessing the psychometric adequacy of latent variables in conservation research. Conserv Biol. 2020;34(6):1353–1363. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Landon AC, Kyle GT, van Riper CJ, Schuett MA, Park J. Exploring the psychological dimensions of stewardship in recreational fisheries. North Am J Fish Manag. 2018;38(3):579–591. doi: 10.1002/nafm.10057. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Liobikienė G, Poškus MS. The importance of environmental knowledge for private and public sphere pro-environmental behavior: modifying the value-belief-norm theory. Sustainability. 2019;11(12):3324. doi: 10.3390/su11123324. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Liobikienė G, Liobikas J, Brizga J, Juknys R. Materialistic values impact on pro-environmental behavior: the case of transition country as Lithuania. J Clean Prod. 2020;244:118859. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118859. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Loaiza-Ramírez JP, Reimer T, Moreno-Mantilla CE. Who prefers renewable energy? A moderated mediation model including perceived comfort and consumers’ protected values in green energy adoption and willingness to pay a premium. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2022;91:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102753. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Maichum K, Parichatnon S, Peng KC. Application of the extended theory of planned behavior model to investigate purchase intention of green products among Thai consumers. Sustainability. 2016;8(10):1077. doi: 10.3390/su8101077. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Manzoor B, Othman I, Gardezi SSS, Harirchian E. Strategies for adopting building information modeling (Bim) in sustainable building projects—a case of Malaysia. Buildings. 2021;11(6):1–14. doi: 10.3390/buildings11060249. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Mustaffa NK, Kudus SA (2022) Challenges and way forward towards best practices of energy efficient building in Malaysia. Energy 259:124839. 10.1016/j.energy.2022.124839
  68. Ngah AH, Jeevan J, Salleh NHM, Lee TTH. Willingness to pay for halal transportation cost: the moderating effect of knowledge on the theory of planned behavior. J Environ Treat Techniques. 2020;8(1):13–22. [Google Scholar]
  69. Nelson KM, Partelow S, Stäbler M, Graci S, Fujitani M. Tourist willingness to pay for local green hotel certification. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(2):1–18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Nunez M, Clores M. Environmental literacy of K–10 student completers. Int J Environ Sci Educ. 2017;12(5):1195–1215. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ogiemwonyi O, Harun AB, Alam MN, Othman BA. Do we care about going green? Measuring the effect of green environmental awareness, green product value and environmental attitude on green culture An. insight from Nigeria. Environ Climate Technol. 2020;24(1):254–274. doi: 10.2478/rtuect-2020-0015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Onuoha IJ, Aliagha GU, Rahman MSA. Modelling the effects of green building incentives and green building skills on supply factors affecting green commercial property investment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2018;90:814–823. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Ohueri CC, Enegbuma WI, Habil H. MyCREST embedded framework for enhancing the adoption of green office building development in Sarawak. Built Environ Proj Ass Management. 2020;10(2):215–230. doi: 10.1108/BEPAM-10-2018-0127. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Olubunmi OA, Xia PB, Skitmore M. Green building incentives: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;59:1611–1621. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Ofek S, Portnov BA. Differential effect of knowledge on stakeholders’ willingness to pay green building price premium: implications for cleaner production. J Clean Prod. 2020;251:119575. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119575. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Patwary AK, Mohd Yusof MF, Bah Simpong D, Ab Ghaffar SF, Rahman MK (2022a) Examining proactive pro-environmental behaviour through green inclusive leadership and green human resource management: an empirical investigation among Malaysian hotel employees. J Hospit Tour Insights 1–18. 10.1108/JHTI-06-2022-0213
  77. Patwary AK, Sharif A, Aziz RC, Hassan MGB, Najmi A, Rahman MK. Reducing environmental pollution by organisational citizenship behaviour in hospitality industry: the role of green employee involvement, performance management and dynamic capability. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022;30(9):1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-24710-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Portnov BA, Trop T, Svechkina A, Ofek S, Akron S, Ghermandi A. Factors affecting homebuyers' willingness to pay green building price premium: evidence from a nationwide survey in Israel. Build Environ. 2018 doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Portnov BA, Trop T, Svechkina A, Ofek S, Akron S, Ghermandi A. Factors affecting homebuyers' willingness to pay green building price premium: evidence from a nationwide survey in Israel. Build Environ. 2018;137:280–291. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Rana A, Sadiq R, Alam MS, Karunathilake H, Hewage K. Evaluation of financial incentives for green buildings in Canadian landscape. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2020;135:110199. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Rosenthal S. Information sources, perceived personal experience, and climate change beliefs. J Environ Psychol. 2022;81:1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101796. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Rosner Y, Amitay Z, Perlman A. Consumer's attitude, socio-demographic variables and willingness to purchase green housing in Israel. Environ Dev Sustain. 2022;24(4):5295–5316. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01659-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Sang P, Yao H, Zhang L, Wang S, Wang Y, Liu J. Influencing factors of consumers’ willingness to purchase green housing: a survey from Shandong Province, China. Environ Dev Sustain. 2020;22(5):4267–4287. doi: 10.1007/s10668-019-00383-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Sánchez-García M, Zouaghi F, Lera-López F, Faulin J. An extended behavior model for explaining the willingness to pay to reduce the air pollution in road transportation. J Clean Prod. 2021;314:128134. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128134. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Sant’Anna DO, Dos Santos PH, Vianna NS, Romero MA. Indoor environmental quality perception and users’ satisfaction of conventional and green buildings in Brazil. Sustain Cities Soc. 2018;43:95–110. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Samari M, Godrati N, Esmaeilifar R, Olfat P, Shafiei MWM. The investigation of the barriers in developing green building in Malaysia. Mod Appl Sci. 2013;7(2):1–10. doi: 10.5539/mas.v7n2p1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Saribas D, Kucuk ZD, Ertepinar H. Implementation of an environmental education course to improve pre-service elementary teachers’ environmental literacy and self-efficacy beliefs. Int Res Geographical Environ Educ. 2017;26(4):311–326. doi: 10.1080/10382046.2016.1262512. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Shafiei MWM, Abadi H, Osman WN. The indicators of green buildings for Malaysian property development industry. Int J Appl Eng Res. 2017;12(10):2182–2189. [Google Scholar]
  90. Shin YH, Im J, Jung SE, Severt K. The theory of planned behavior and the norm activation model approach to consumer behavior regarding organic menus. Int J Hosp Manag. 2018;69:21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.10.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Sharma R, Gupta A. Pro-environmental behaviour among tourists visiting national parks: application of value-belief-norm theory in an emerging economy context. Asia Pacific J Tourism Res. 2020;25(8):829–840. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2020.1774784. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues. 1994;50(4):19–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Schniederjans DG, Starkey CM. Intention and willingness to pay for green freight transportation: an empirical examination. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ. 2014;31:116–125. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements, the case of environmental concern. Hum Ecol Rev. 1999;6:81–97. [Google Scholar]
  95. Stern PC. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally signifi- cant behavior. J Soc Issues. 2000;56(3):407–424. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Steinemann A, Wargocki P, Rismanchi B. Ten questions concerning green buildings and indoor air quality. Build Environ. 2017;112:351–358. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Susskind L, Chun J, Goldberg S, Gordon JA, Smith G, Zaerpoor Y. Breaking out of carbon lock-in: Malaysia’s path to decarbonization. Frontiers in Built Environ. 2020;6(1):1–16. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ting CT, Hsieh CM, Chang HP, Chen HS. Environmental consciousness and green customer behavior: the moderating roles of incentive mechanisms. Sustainability. 2019;11(3):819. doi: 10.3390/su11030819. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Tsirmpa C, Stellakis N, Lavidas K. Beliefs of parents of preschool children about literacy: facilitative and conventional approaches. Eur Early Child Educ Res J. 2021;29(4):519–532. [Google Scholar]
  100. Van Doorn J, Verhoef PC. Willingness to pay for organic products: differences between virtue and vice foods. Int J Res Mark. 2011;28(3):167–180. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.02.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Walker TR, McGuinty E, Charlebois S, Music J. Single-use plastic packaging in the Canadian food industry: consumer behavior and perceptions. Human Soc Sci Commu. 2021;8(1):1–11. [Google Scholar]
  102. Wanasida AS, Bernarto I, Sudibjo N, Purwanto A. The role of business capabilities in supporting organization agility and performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: an empirical study in Indonesia. The J Asian Finance, Econ Business. 2021;8(5):897–911. [Google Scholar]
  103. Wiencke A. Willingness to pay for green buildings: empirical evidence from Switzerland. J Sustain Real Estate. 2014;5(1):111–130. doi: 10.1080/10835547.2014.12091852. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Wu E, Cheng JQ, Zhang JB. Study on the environmental education demand and environmental literacy assessment of citizens in sustainable urban construction in Beijing. Sustainability. 2020;12(1):241. doi: 10.3390/su12010241. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. Xie X, Gou Z (2020) Obstacles of Implementing Green Building in Architectural Practices. In: Gou Z (ed) Green Building in Developing Countries. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Cham, pp 33–47. 10.1007/978-3-030-24650-1_3
  106. Xiao J, Zhen Z, Tian L, Su B, Chen H, Zhu AX. Green behavior towards low-carbon society: theory, measurement and action. J Clean Prod. 2021;278:123765. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123765. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Xie X, Lu Y, Gou Z. Green building pro-environment behaviors: are green users also green buyers? Sustainability. 2017;9(10):1703. doi: 10.3390/su9101703. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Yue B, Sheng G, She S, Xu J. Impact of consumer environmental responsibility on green consumption behavior in China: the role of environmental concern and price sensitivity. Sustainability. 2020;12(5):2074. doi: 10.3390/su12052074. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Zhang L, Wu J, Liu H. Policies to enhance the drivers of green housing development in China. Energy Policy. 2018;121:225–235. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.029. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  110. Zhang L, Fukuda H, Liu Z. Households' willingness to pay for green roof for mitigating heat island effects in Beijing (China) Build Environ. 2019;150:13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Zhang Y, Wang Z, Zhou G. Antecedents of employee electricity saving behavior in organizations: an empirical study based on norm activation model. Energy Policy. 2013;62:1120–1127. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  112. Zhang L, Yang X, Fan Y, Zhang J. Utilizing the theory of planned behavior to predict willingness to pay for urban heat island effect mitigation. Build Environ. 2021;204:108136. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108136. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  113. Zuo J, Zhao ZY. Green building research–current status and future agenda: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;30:271–281. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 21 KB) (21.2KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study submitted as supplementary material.

Articles from Environmental Science and Pollution Research International are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES