Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012ISSN: 1735-6865

Received 7 March 2011; Revised 1 July 2011; Accepted 10 July 2011

*Corresponding author E-mail: hkaksoy@ogu.edu.tr

323

Structural Equation Model for Environmentally Conscious Purchasing Behavior

Arslan, T., Yilmaz, V. and Aksoy, H. K.*

Department of Statistics, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, 26480 Turkey

ABSTRACT: In this study, the effect of environmental concern, attitudes and behaviors of the universitystudents on the environmentally conscious purchasing behavior was investigated with the help of StructuralEquation Model (SEM). SEM is an effective data analysis tool that expresses the complicated causativerelations between the latent variables. In this study, we collected the data from 400 university students bymeans of a survey. The results of this research showed that environmental attitudes, environmental behaviorand green product awareness have a positive effect on environmentally conscious purchasing behavior. Thedeveloped model showed that, environmental concern explains 48% of the variation in the environmentalattitudes and 28% of the product recovery awareness; environmental attitudes and product recovery awarenessexplain 55% of green product awareness; environmental attitudes explains 44% of the variation in theenvironmental behavior; environmental attitudes, green product awareness and environmental behavior explain74% of the variation in the environmentally conscious purchasing behavior.

Key words: Structural Equation Model, Latent variable, Environmental consciousness, Green product, Product recovery, Consumers’ behavior

INTRODUCTIONPublic consciousness on environmental issues and

recent more strict environmental legislations have beencompelling manufacturers from various industries andconsumers to produce and dispose of used productsin an environmentally conscious manner. The rapidexhaustion of raw materials and growing amount ofsolid waste also fuel this trend. Gungor and Gupta (1999)reviewed the literature and emphasized the two majorobjectives of the environmentally consciousmanufacturing and product recovery. These objectivesare environmentally friendly product generation anddevelopment of product recovery and wastemanagement technologies. The objective of productrecovery management, as stated by Thierry et al. (1995),is ‘to recover as much of the economic (and ecological)value as reasonably as possible, thereby reducing theultimate quantities of waste’. In a subsequent paper,Ilgin and Gupta (2010) expand the environmentallyconscious manufacturing and product recoveryliterature and examined it under four major categories;environmentally conscious product design, reverse andclosed-loop supply chains, remanufacturing, anddisassembly. Environmental problems and theaccelerating changes in living conditions have becomea fundamental part of the world in general andmetropolises in particular. Earlier, environmental

problems have been considered as technical andeconomic problems; while in the recent decades thesocial dimensions of environmental problems such aspublic attention and people’s attitudes towardsenvironment have became one of the areas ofenvironmental sociology and environmentalpsychology (Kalantari and Asadi, 2010).

Environmentally conscious manufacturing andproduct recovery efforts are directly related with theconsumer’s awareness and involvement into thisprocess. Taking different factors into consideration,the researchers develop many environmental attitudeand environmental behavior models. Hini et al. (1995)examine the relationship between environmentalattitudes and behaviours. Environmental behaviorincludes actions which contr ibute towardsenvironmental preservation and/or conservation (forinstance, energy conservation, water conservation,consumerism, etc). On the other hand the object ofone’s environmental attitude is either the naturalenvironment itself or conservation behavior (Axelrodand Lehman (1993), Kaiser et al. (1999) and (2007)).

The literature in the area of environmental attitudeand behavior involves various models which arearising from the perspective of the researchers towardsthe issue. Some of the researchers used environmental

324

Arslan, T. et al.

attitude as the estimator of the environmental behavior(Chan, 1999; Kaiser et al., 1999; Fraj and Martinez, 2007;Steg and Vlek, 2009). Alternatively, both environmentalattitude and environmental behavior are alsoconsidered simultaneously as the estimator of theenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior(ECPB) (Mostafa, 2007; Tilikidou and Delistavrou,2008).

The roots of environmental problems lie in humanbehavior, so the solution could lie in changing thebehavior of organizations and groups and so incultural and lifestyle changes, i.e., environmentalawareness is needed from the point of view of bothsupply and demand (Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2011).The main focus of this research is individuals’ ECPB,we considered environmental behavior (EB) as anexogenous latent variable of the ECPB. The majorreasons that we have considered the ECPB in the modelas follows;(1) ECPB together with environmentalist behavior canbe seen as significant actions measuring naturefriendliness and protection.(2) Recent consumer’s trend towards green productsmay direct the enterprises to change their entire wayof production process in an environmentally friendlymanner.3) Companies which fail to put into serviceenvironmentally responsible operation procedures willencounter a loss of competitiveness or loose marketshare. Hereby consumers accompanied by producers/manufacturers will have more effective roles inprotecting the environment.

In this study, we developed an analytical model toexamine the effect of environmental concern, attitudeand behavior of the consumers on theirenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior(ECPB). We employed the Structural Equation Model(SEM) to investigate the complex correspondence ofabovementioned factors. SEM describes thecomplicated causative relations between the latentvariables. For this purpose, firstly, environmentalconcern and environmental attitude of the students asthe estimator of the environmental behavior were used.Secondly, environmental concern, environmentalattitude and product recovery awareness were usedas the estimator of the green product awareness.Finally, consumer ’s environmental attitude,environmental behavior and green product awarenesswere used as the estimator of the environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior of the universitystudents.

In the literature, the relationship amongenvironmental concern, environmental attitude,

environmental behavior and environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior were analyzedseparately. On the other hand, the most significantdistinction of this work is SEM comprehensivelycomprises all of the factors in the model, viz.environmental concern, environmental attitude,product recovery awareness, green product awareness,environmental behavior and environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior of individuals’simultaneously.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2presents mainly relevant literature in the area. Section3 briefly presents Structural Equation Model (SEM)and its’ analysis. Section 4 presents the results of theanalysis. Finally, Section 5 provides conclusion andSection 6 discusses the findings of this study.

Kaiser and Shimoda (1999) indicated thatenvironmental concern could be used as the estimatorsof the environmental behaviors. Kaiser et al. (1999)indicated that environmental attitudes could be usedas the estimator of the environmental behavior.Nordlund and Garvill (2002) determined that personalnorm mediated the effects from general values,environmental values and problem awareness onproenvironmental behavior.

Mannetti et al. (2004), searched the attitudes ofthe Italians towards recycling efforts by means of theSEM. Authors found that, personal judgments have asignificant effect on explaining the product recoveryawareness. Bolaane (2006) determined that educationalstatus considerably affects the contribution to productrecovery efforts. Sidique et al. (2010) pointed out thatdemographic factors like age, educational status,income and number of the individuals in a householdhave an influence on the recycling efforts. Tilikidouand Delistavrou (2006) found that there is a negativecorrelation between the environmental behavior andenvironmental insensitivities among Greek consumers.Also, authors emphasized that females with highereducation contribute the environmental activities more.Mostafa (2007) determined that environmental anxietiesare effective on the attitudes of the people on theconsumption of green products and he found that thereis a weak relationship between the consumers’ greenproduct awareness and their actual green productconsumption behavior. Fraj and Martinez (2007)depicted that environmental attitudes are the estimatorsof the environmental behavior. Tilikidou (2007) foundthat while environmentally concerned consumption hasa positive correlation with environmental awareness;it has a negative correlation with environmentalunconcern. Tilikidou and Delistavrou (2008) determinedthat the consumers, who behave in accordance with

Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012

325

environment and who are interested in productrecovery and participate in environment-priorityactivities, are high-educated people. Birgelen et al.(2009) found that env-friendly purchase and disposaldecisions for beverages are related to theenvironmental awareness of consumer and their env-friendly attitude.

Dono et al. (2009) found that there is a significantrelationship between environmental attitudes andenvironmental behaviors. Steg and Vlek (2009)indicated that when the environmental behaviors ofindividuals are to be explained, environmental attitudesrelated to them shall primarily be examined and in casethose environmental attitudes are to be changed, thiswould be reflected on the behavior, as well.

MATERIALS & METHODSThe following notation is used through the paper;

AGFI Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index

CFI Comparative Fit Index EA Environmental Attitude

EB Environmental Behavior EC Environmental Concern ECPB Environmentally Conscious Purchasing

Behavior GFI Goodness of F it Index GPA Green Product Awareness NFI Normed Fit Index NNFI Non-Normed Fit Index PRA Product Recovery Awareness RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation RMR Root Mean Square Error SECPBM Students’ Environmentally Conscious

Purchasing Behavior Model SEM Structural Equation Model

Structural Equation ModelingSEM is a comprehensive statistical method used

in testing hypotheses about causal relationshipsamong observed and unobserved (latent) variables hasproved to be useful in solving problems and informulating theoretical constructions (Reisinger andTurner, 1999). SEM also can expand the explanatoryability and statistical efficiency for model testing witha single comprehensive method (Pang, 1996).Steenkamp and Baumgartner (2000) reflect on the roleof SEM in marketing modeling and managerial decisionmaking, and discuss some of its benefits. Authorsunderlined that although SEM has potential fordecision support modeling, it is probably most usefulfor theory testing, which is a key phase in developingmodels. Applied to data on attitudes, perceptions,

stated behavioral intentions, and actual behavior, SEMcan be used to specify and test alternative causalhypotheses (for SEM and LISREL see Byrne, 1998;Cheng, 2001; Cudeck et al. 2000; Hayduk, 1987;Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2001).

MeasurementThe measurement tool used in this study was

adapted from Kaiser and Wilson (2000), Fraj andMartinez (2007), Tilikidou and Delistavrou (2008). Inthe measurement tool, the items of attitude andbehavior were measured by 5 point likert scale. Theattitudinal questions were labeled either stronglydisagree to strongly agree. The behavioral questionswere labeled never to always. There are 26 items in themeasurement tool that include various attitudes andbehaviors (fifteen of them are measures attitude andeleven of them are measures behavior). The values ofCronbach Alpha (α), which is the reliability criteriarelated to the factors in the model, are given in Table 1.The Cronbach Alpha (α) value between 0.50 and 0.60means a “close to reliability” and that they are between0.60 and 0.80 means that it is “reliable”. Table 1 showsthat, five of the calculated Cronbach Alpha (α) valuesare between 0.60 and 0.80; one of them is between 0.50and 0.60.

Data collectionIn this research, since the general proportion of

the attitude and behavior expressions within the frameof research was not known, we couldn’t prepared theresearch frame by means of the contingent samplingtechnique. However, to determine the sample size weutilized the acceptable error level method under thenormality assumption for the sample statistic. Thesample size was calculated as 384; on 0.05 relevancelevel, z=1.96 d (sensitivity) =0.05 or p and q values,being 0.5 (for the details of sample size calculationplease see; Kish, 1965).

The survey was applied by talking face to face to400 students, who were chosen randomly within theuniversity campus. Fourty-seven of the appliedsurveys were soon realized that erroneous andinconsistent and they were not included within theanalyses.

Theoretical FrameworkThe theoretical premise of this study is based on

the theory of planned behavior. The theory of plannedbehavior was formulated by Ajzen (1985) after thedevelopment of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzenand Fishbein, 1980). According to the theory of plannedbehavior, human behavior is under the influence ofcertain factors with certain underlying causes, andexhibits itself in a planned manner. Initially, an

326

Structural Model for Environmentally Conscious Behavior

Tabl

e1. I

tem

s with

in th

e Fac

tors

and

thei

r Mea

nsFa

ctor

s / C

ronb

ach

Alp

ha(α

) / It

ems

M

ale

Fem

ale

Envi

ronm

enta

l Con

cern

(EC

)/ C

ronb

ach

Alp

ha(α

)= 0

.75

a1

. Th

e id

ea th

at h

uman

, as

the

mas

ter

of t

he e

arth

, ha

s th

e rig

ht t

o di

strib

ute

the

natu

ral s

ourc

es i

n w

hate

ver

way

she

/he

wis

hes

to,

frustr

ates

me.

4.

21

4.06

4.

31

a2. T

he fa

ct th

at fa

ctor

ies p

erfo

rm p

rodu

ctio

n w

ithou

t che

ckin

g w

heth

er it

is h

arm

ful t

o na

ture

or n

ot, s

care

me.

4.

37

4.03

4.

58

a3. T

he id

ea o

f not

leav

ing

a cl

ean

wor

ld to

nex

t gen

erat

ions

wor

ries m

e.

4.35

4.

05

4.53

a4

. The

fact

that

peo

ple

hunt

ani

mal

s fo

r the

ir fu

rs a

ggra

vate

s m

e.

4.02

3.

76

4.29

a5

a . I d

on’t

thin

k th

at th

e pr

oble

m o

f env

ironm

enta

l pol

lutio

n is

exa

gger

ated

. 3.

99

3.79

4.

12

Envi

ronm

enta

l Atti

tude

(EA)

/ C

ronb

ach

Alp

ha(α

)= 0

.53

b1

. If

it pr

ovid

ed a

n ad

vant

age

for

the

envi

ronm

ent,

the

prod

ucts

whi

ch a

re p

rodu

ced,

pro

cess

ed a

nd p

acka

ged

in a

frie

ndly

way

to

envi

ronm

ent,

coul

d be

pai

d m

ore.

3.

53

3.26

3.

70

b2. I

f the

re is

to b

e a

choi

ce b

etw

een

two

prod

ucts,

the

prod

uct t

hat c

ause

s th

e le

ast h

arm

to p

eopl

e an

d en

viro

nmen

t sha

ll be

pur

chas

ed.

3.98

3.

80

4.09

b3. P

rodu

cts,

who

se b

asin

s an

d bo

xes c

ould

be

used

for o

ther

pur

pose

s sh

all b

e pr

efer

red.

. 3.

73

3.56

3.

83

b4. R

eact

iona

l act

iviti

es, p

erfo

rmed

in b

ehal

f of p

rote

ctin

g th

e env

ironm

ent,

prov

ide

bene

fit fo

r the

envi

ronm

ent.

2.83

2.

68

2.92

Pr

oduc

t Rec

over

y A

war

enes

s (PR

A) /

Cro

nbac

h A

lpha

(α)=

0.7

7

d1. T

he c

ontri

butio

n, a

cqui

red

as a

resu

lt of

pro

duct

reco

very

, gai

ns fa

vor f

or th

e so

ciet

y.

4.08

3.

84

4.23

d2

. Pro

duct

reco

very

hel

ps to

pro

tect

the

natu

ral s

ourc

es.

4.21

4.

03

4.33

d3

. The

pac

kage

of t

he p

urch

ased

pro

duct

sha

ll be

mad

e of r

ecyc

labl

e m

ater

ial.

4.

16

3.97

4.

27

Gre

en P

rodu

ct A

ware

ness

(GPA

) / C

ronb

ach

Alph

a(α)

= 0.

65

c1

. I b

elie

ve th

at co

nsum

ing

gree

n pr

oduc

ts is

bet

ter f

or h

uman

hea

lth.

3.97

3.

85

4.04

c2

. I th

ink

that

gre

en p

rodu

cts a

re c

ompl

etel

y fr

iend

ly to

nat

ure.

3.

45

3.27

3.

60

c3. T

he w

aste

s of g

reen

pro

duct

s are

har

mle

ss, s

ince

they

can

be

anni

hila

ted

durin

g th

e nat

ural

pro

cess

. 3.

69

3.56

3.

77

Envi

ronm

enta

l Beh

avio

r(E

B) /

Cro

nbac

h A

lpha

(α)=

0.7

4

e1. I

dis

cuss

abo

ut th

e en

viro

nmen

tal p

robl

ems

durin

g th

e fe

llow

con

vers

atio

ns.

2.76

2.

62

2.84

e2

. I th

row

the

was

tes b

y se

para

ting.

3.

20

2.94

3.

37

e3. I

do

not p

urch

ase

the

prod

ucts

of th

e fir

ms t

hat d

amag

e th

e en

viro

nmen

t. 2.

90

2.74

3.

01

e4. I

try

to c

onvi

nce

my

fam

ily m

embe

rs a

nd fr

iend

s no

t to

buy

the

prod

ucts

that

dam

age

the

envi

ronm

ent.

3.

10

2.85

3.

25

e5. I

hav

e ch

ange

d m

y lif

esty

le in

beh

alf o

f pro

tect

ing

the n

atur

e.

2.47

2.

37

2.53

e6

. I d

ecre

ase t

he c

onsu

mpt

ion

of e

lect

ricity

, wat

er a

nd fu

el in

ord

er to

pro

tect

the

natu

re.

3.31

3.

12

3.42

e7

. I d

o at

tend

to p

lant

ing

tree.

3.

05

3.08

3.

03

Envi

ronm

enta

lly C

onsc

ious

Pur

chas

ing

Beh

avio

r (E

CPB

) / C

ronb

ach

Alp

ha(α

)= 0

.77

f1

. Con

side

ring

thei

r dam

ages

, I e

xcha

nge

the

prod

ucts

I ow

n, w

ith e

colo

gica

l pro

duct

s.

2.59

2.

56

2.61

f2

. Whi

le p

urch

asin

g a

prod

uct,

I loo

k w

heth

er th

ere

is a

n ec

olog

ical

pro

duct

labe

l on

the

pack

age

or n

ot.

2.81

2.

58

2.95

f3

. I p

refe

r eco

logi

cal p

rodu

cts s

ince

they

do

not d

istu

rb th

e na

tura

l bal

ance

. 3.

52

3.27

3.

68

f4. I

pur

chas

e eco

logi

cal p

rodu

cts a

lthou

gh th

ey a

re m

ore

expe

nsiv

e th

an th

e si

mila

r pro

duct

s.

2.98

2.

65

3.18

a I

nver

ted

item

s.

327

Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012

“Intention” has to be developed in order that a personperforms the behaviour. Factors affecting “Intention”can be listed as “Attitude towards the Behavior”,“Subjective Norm”, and “Perceived BehavioralControl”. According to the planned behavior theory,“Behavior” is directly under the influence of“Intention” (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 2005; Ajzen andFishbein, 2000). This paper is based on Ajzen’s (1985)theory of planned behavior and Kaiser et al.’s (1999)environmental attitude and ecological behaviour model.

Research model and hypothesesIn this research model, environmental concern was

used as the estimator of the environmental attitudeand product recovery awareness. Environmentalattitude and product recovery awareness were usedas the estimator of the green product awareness.Environmental attitude, environmental behavior andgreen products awareness were used as the estimatorof the environmentally conscious purchasing behavior(Fig. 1).

Here, we explained the research hypothesis andtheir foundations. These hypotheses are depicted inTable 2. Individuals, who encounter with environmentalproblems, are expected to react to the problem thataffects her/him. This expected reaction constitutes theconcept of concern about environmental problems.Kaiser and Shimoda (1999) indicated that as theconcern of individuals about the environmentincreases, their environmental attitudes increases inparallel to it. In order to investigate the relationshipbetween environmental concern and environmentalattitude, an H1 hypothesis was developed.

Fig. 1. Research Model

Product recovery is being used as an effectiveway in protecting the environment. Environmentallyconcerned enterprises shape their productionprocesses in an environmentally conscious manner.Bolaane (2006), Sidique et al. (2010) stated thatconsumers with environmental concern preferrecyclable products. In order to search the relationshipbetween environmental concern and product recoveryawareness, H2 hypothesis was introduced.

Green products are known to be the products thatplay an effective role in protecting the environment. Itcould be assumed that, product recovery awarenessmay affect green product awareness. Both factors arealso having a positive affect on protecting theenvironment. In order to investigate the relationshipbetween product recovery awareness, which is effectivein protecting the nature, and green products awareness,H4 hypothesis was developed. On the other hand,environmental concern was used as the estimator ofproduct recovery awareness and product recoveryawareness was used as the estimator of green productawareness. H2 and H4 hypothesis, which examine theserelationships, were adapted from Mannetti et al. (2004),Bolaane (2006) and Sidique et al. (2010).

In order to reveal the existence of the relationshipbetween environmental attitude and behavior, H3hypothesis was introduced. It was assumed thatindividuals with environmental attitudes would havegreen product awareness by converting this awarenessinto environmental behavior. Environmental attitudesand behaviors, on the other hand, would turn intoenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior. Inorder to determine the existence of the relationship of

328

Arslan, T. et al.

environmental attitude and environmental behaviorwith green product awareness and environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior, H5, H6 ve H7hypothesis were developed respectively. With theassumption that environmentally consciouspurchasing behavior would develop by converting thegreen product awareness, H8 hypothesis wasintroduced. The relationship between environmentalconcern and environmental attitudes was investigatedby Kaiser and Shimoda (1999). The relationshipbetween the green product awareness andenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior wasexamined in the studies of Mostafa (2007) and Tilikidouand Delistavrou (2008).

H1, H3, H5, H6, H7 and H8 hypothesis, whichwere examined in this study, were adapted from ofKaiser and Shimoda (1999), Mostafa (2007) andTilikidou and Delistavrou (2008) and Fraj and Martinez(2007). Kaiser and Shimoda (1999) examined therelationship between environmental concern andenvironmental attitude; Tilikidou and Delistavrou(2006) examined the relationship betweenenvironmental concern and environmental behavior;Kaiser et al. (1999); Fraj and Martinez (2007) examinedthe relationship between environmental attitude and

Table 2. Research Hypothesis

H yp ot hesis

H 1 As the environme ntal c once rn incr eases, e nvironmenta l attitude incre ase s, as well.

H 2 As the environme ntal c once rn incr eases, product recovery a wa reness incr eases, a s well.

H 3 As the environme ntal a ttitude increases, environmental behavior incre ases, a s we ll.

H 4 As the produc t recovery awar eness incre ase s, gree n pr oduct aware ne ss increa se, as we ll.

H 5 As the envir onm ental attitude inc reases, envir onme ntally conscious purchasing behavior inc reases, as

well.

H 6 As the e nvironm enta l beha vior incre ase s, environm entally consc ious purc ha sing behavior inc reases,

a s we ll.

H 7 As the environme ntal a ttitude increases, green produc ts a wa reness incr ease, as well.

H 8 As the green pr oducts aware ne ss incre ase s, e nvironmenta lly c onscious purchasing behavior incr eases,

a s we ll.

environmental behavior. In this research, in additionto the existing literature a much more comprehensivemodel was developed and hypotheses were tested.The hypotheses, examined within the research, arepresented in Table 2.

RESULTS & DISCUSSIONDescriptive statistics

The analysis and averages related to the scale thatwas used in the studied items within the factors aregiven in Table 1. Examination of the items within thefactors show that the statement “The fact that factoriesperform production without checking whether it isharmful to nature or not, scares me.” within the “EC”factor, has the highest average (4.37). The statementof “If there is to be a choice between two products, theproduct that causes the least harm to people andenvironment shall be purchased.” within the “EA”factor, has the highest average (3.98). The statementof “Recycling helps to protect the natural sources.”within the “PRA” factor, has the highest average (4.21).The statement of “I believe that consuming ecologicalproducts is better for human health.” within the “GPA”factor, has the highest average (3.97). The statementof “I decrease the consumption of electricity, water

Table 3. T-test Results for the Comparison of Males and Females with Respect to theFactors Considered in the Study

Factors t s ig . M e an D if fere nce EC -5 .072 p< 0.001 -0 .422 EA -4 .069 p< 0.001 -0 .312

PR A 2 .039 0 .043 -0 .136 G PA -2 .821 0 .005 -0 .236 EB -3 .41 0 .001 -0 .275

ECP B -4 .423 p< 0.001 -0 .437

329

Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012

and fuel in order to protect the nature.” within the “EB”factor, has the highest average (3.31). The statement of“I prefer ecological products since they do not disturbthe natural balance.” within the “ECPB” factor, has thehighest average (3.52). Checking the averages relatedto factors, it is seen that the highest average belongsto the “EC” (4.19) factor, which is respectively followedby “PRA” (4.15), “GPA” (3.70), “EA” (3.51), “EB” (2.97)and “ECPB” (2.97).

Examining the green product awareness, it is seenthat females is more concerned about this subject andconsequently, their positive attitudes are higher.Besides, the frequency of environmentally consciouspurchasing behavior is higher in females, being parallelto green product awareness. Examining the study ingeneral, it could be said that females are more concernedand conscious about the issues of environmentalattitude and behavior than males (Table 3).

Structural model resultsThere are more than one goodness of fit index for

Structural Equation Model. When the literature issearched, the most commonly used test statistics inSEM are likelihood ratio chi-square statistics (χ2), rootmean square error of approximation(RMSEA), goodnessof fit index statistics (GFI) and adjusted goodness offit index (AGFI). If the value of {χ2 /d.f.} is less than 3 itmeans that there is an acceptable fit. If the RMSEA isless than 0.05 it shows the perfect fit, 0,05< RMSEA 0,1 means poor fit.GFI is used similar to the statistics of coefficient ofdetermination (R2) in Regression Analysis. AGFI isused similar to the statistics of adjusted coefficient ofdetermination in Regression Analysis. AGFI and GFIhave value between 0 and 1 and generally having thevalue of close to 1 means that the model fits well.(Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006).

LISREL 8.74 program was used in the analysis ofthe data. The goodness-of-fit indexes of the model are

calculated as; 2χ = 487.77; df. =291; 2χ / df. =1.68;

RMSEA=0.047; NFI=0.92; NNFI=0.97; CFI=0.97;RMR=0.068; GFI=0.89; AGFI=0.87. The goodness-of-fit indexes show that the model is within acceptablelimits. Goodness-of-fit indexes acceptable limits arepresented in Table 4 (for more information aboutgoodness-of-fit indexes, see Schermelleh-Engel et al.(2003); Byrne (1998); Hayduk (1987); Jöreskog andSörbom (2001)).

Structural equations, the results related tohypothesis and standardized parameter estimationvalues are given in Table 5. Looking at the Table 5; it isseen that an increase of one unit in the factor of“environmental concern (EC)” causes an increase of0.69 units in “environmental attitude (EA)” and anincrease of 0.53 units in “product recovery awareness(PRA)”. Besides, while an increase of one unit in thefactor of “environmental attitude (EA)” causes anincrease of 0.67 units in “environmental behavior (EB)”and an increase of 0.64 unit in “green productawareness (GPA)”, it could be said that an increase ofone unit in the factor of “product recovery awareness(PRA)” causes an increase of 0.21 unit in “greenproduct awareness (GPA)”. Additionally, it is revealedthat an increase of one unit in the factor of “greenproduct awareness (GPA)” causes an increase of 0.24unit in “environmentally conscious purchasingbehavior (ECPB)” and an increase of one unit in thefactor of “environmental behavior (EB)” causes anincrease of 0.70 unit in “environmentally consciouspurchasing behavior (ECPB)” (Table 5). Besides, sincethe relationship of “EA” “ECPB” was notstatistically found significant, H5 could not beconfirmed. R2 value, related to the “Model of Students’Environmentally Conscious Purchasing Behavior(SECPBM)”, was found as 0.74. This R2 value showsthat the factors explain 74% of the change within “EPB”and 26% of it could be explained through the factors,which do not exist within the model.

It could be said that the increase of environmentalconcern and environmental attitudes of universitystudents display an amplifier effect on their

Table3. T-test Results for the Comparison of Males and Females with Respect to theFactors Considered in the Study

Fact or s t sig. Mean Differe nce

EC -5.072 p

330

Table 5. Standardized parameter estimation values, t values and hypothesis

Hypothesis Path Std. parameter estimation values t -value Result

H1 (EC) (EA) 0.69 6.82 Confirmed

H2 (EC) (PRA) 0.53 6.91 Confirmed H3 (EA) (EB) 0.67 5.52 Confirmed

H5 (EA) (ECPB) 0.02 0.16 Not Confirmed

H7 (EA) (GPA) 0,64 5.38 Confirmed

H4 (PRA (GPA) 0.21 2.66 Confirmed H8 (GPA) (ECPB) 0.24 2.15 Confirmed

H6 (EB) (ECPB) 0.70 5.62 Confirmed

Structural Equations

EA = 0.69*EC R2=0.48 PRA = 0.53*EC R2=0.28

GPA = 0.64*EA + 0.21*PRA R2=0.55

EB = 0.67*EA R2=0.44

ECPB = 0.02*EA + 0.24*GPA + 0.70*EB R2=0.74

EA PRA GPA EB ECPB EC EA 1.00 PRA 0.36 1.00 GPA 0.71 0.44 1.00 EB 0.67 0.24 0.48 1.00 ECPB 0.66 0.28 0.59 0.83 1.00 EC 0.69 0.53 0.55 0.46 0.47 1.00

Table 6. Correlation matrix related to the factors

Table 4. Goodness-of-Fit Indexes Acceptable Limits

Fit Measures Good Fit Acceptable Fit Developed Model

RMSEA 0

331

Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012

Fig. 2. Students’ Environmentally Conscious Purchasing Behavior Model (SECPBM) LISREL 8.74 Output

332

Arslan, T. et al.

environmental behaviors. Besides, in the developedstructural equation model, it was seen thatenvironmental concern, environmental attitude andproduct recovery awareness play an amplifier role forthe student’s green products awareness. Finally, it wasrevealed that environmental attitudes, environmentalbehavior and green products awareness display apositive effect on environmentally consciouspurchasing behaviors. Additionally correlation matrix,related to the factors is given in Table 6.

Fig. 2 shows a structural equation model forstudents’ environmentally conscious purchasingbehavior. While environmental concern explains 48%of the change in the environmental attitude and 28%of the product recovery awareness, environmentalattitudes and product recovery awareness explain 55%of the green product awareness. While environmentalattitudes explain 44% of the change in theenvironmental behavior; environmental attitudes,green product awareness and environmental behaviorexplain 74% of the change in the environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior (Fig. 2).

CONCLUSIONThe results of the study revealed that environmental

attitudes could be used as the estimator of theenvironmental behavior (EA EB). This findingcoincides with the findings, acquired through the studieswhich were performed in different cultures in theliterature (Kaiser and Shimoda, 1999; Dono et al. 2009).Considering the fact that the study was conducted withthe university students, it is seen that it has similaritieswith the results of the study conducted by Kaiser andWilson (2000) with the students in California, as well.Besides, the significant relationship betweenenvironmental attitude and environmental behavior(EA EB), which is obtained from the study, depicts asimilarity with the findings of the study done by Donoet al. (2009). No statistically significant relationship wasfound between environmental attitude andenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior(EA ECPB) in this study. Mostafa (2007) determinedthe existence of a weak relationship between the interestof the individuals in green consumption and their realconsumption behaviors. The fact that no statisticallysignificant relationship between environmental attitudeand environmentally conscious purchasing behavior(EA ECPB) could be found in the structural equationmodel, which was developed in this study, confirms thefindings in the study of Mostafa (2007). In addition tothe findings of Mannetti et al. (2004), Bolaane (2006)and Sidique et al. (2010), who investigated the productrecovery awareness, it was seen in the findings of thisstudy that environmental concern effects the productrecovery awareness (EC PRA) positively.

While Bolaane (2006) and Sidique et al. (2010) claimthat educational status influences the product recoveryawareness in their studies, it was additionally determinedthat gender, as well, has also a significant effect onproduct recovery awareness in this study. This resultcould be seen in the result of the t test (Table 3).

The findings of this study show that compared tomales, females have much more environmental concernand attitudes and they also support the view of Tilikidouand Delistavrou (2006), which claims that female withhigh education take more participation in environmentallyactivities than others. As a result of this study, it wasrevealed that there is a statistically significant differencebetween the environmental attitudes of female and maleuniversity students (Table 4).As a result of the study,two situations were emerged to be discussed. The firstof them is the indirect relationship of“EA” ”EB” ”ECPB” ( 46.0=β ) statisticallysignificant, whereas no direct cause-and-effectrelationship was found between environmental attitudeand environmentally conscious purchasing behavior(“EA” ”ECPB”, 02.0=β ). From the structure ofthis relationship (“EA” ”EB” ”ECPB”), it isunderstood that among the ones who developedenvironmental attitude, only the ones who convertedthese attitudes into environmental behavior, displayenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior. In thesecond situation, while the relationship of“EA” ”ECPB” ( 02.0=β ) was not foundstatistically significant, the indirect relationship of“EA” ”GPA” ”ECPB” ( 15.0=β ) was foundsignificant. From the structure of this relationship(“EA” ”GPA” ”ECPB”), it is understood that amongthe ones who developed environmental attitude, onlythe ones who supported these attitudes by greenproduct awareness, directed towards environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior. Considering the firstsituation, it might be conceived that there is theconditional dependence structure between greenproduct awareness and environmentally consciouspurchasing behavior, upon realising the environmentalbehavior. In the second situation, on the other hand, itis conceived that there might be the conditionaldependence structure between environmental attitudeand environmentally conscious purchasing behavior,upon realising the green product awareness.

The following could be said for these twosituations; there are actually conditional relationshipsbetween latent structures. On condition that theindividual displays environmental behavior, theremight be a cause-and-effect relationship betweenenvironmental attitude and environmentally conscious

333

Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012

purchasing behavior. In order to reveal theseconditional dependence structures, an additional studyis being planned with the help of graphical models. Inthe future studies, the research of(“EA” ”EB” ”ECPB”) and(“EA” ”EPA” ”ECPB”) conditioned dependencestructures and results of their conditional dependencecoefficients are being planned.According to thedescriptive results of the study (Table 1 and Table 3),it could be said that females are more environmentalistcompared to males. Many psychological reasons couldbe depicted among the reasons of this condition;however, probably one of the most important of thesereasons might be the sense of protection, which comesfrom maternal instinct of females.

As a brief summary; in the literature environmentalconcern, environmental attitude, environmentalbehavior, product recovery awareness, green productawareness and environmentally conscious purchasingbehavior concepts analyzed independently from eachother. Whereas these mentioned concepts arecorrelated and in this research we consider their jointeffect by means of the SEM. This research can beextended to evaluate the effect of cultural differenceson the environmentally conscious purchasingbehavior. Although the developed model is statisticallysuggestible for intercultural assessments, still it shouldbe examined with larger samples and different culturesfor the validation purpose.

REFERENCESAjzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudesand predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,Prentice-Hall.

Ajzen, I . (1985). From intention to actions: A theory ofplanned behavior. In J. Kuhl and J. Beckman (eds), Action-control: From cognition to behavior, 11-39. Heidelberg:Springer.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic process. In W.Stroebe and M. Hewstone (eds), Europen Review of SocialPsychology, 11, 1-33. Chichester: Wiley.

Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior. NewYork: Open University Press.

Axelrod, L. J. and Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding toenvironmental concern: what factors guide individual action?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 149-159.

Birgelen, M. V., Semeijin, J. and Keicher, M. (2009).Packaging and pro-environmental consumption behavior.Environment and Behavior, 41 (1), 125-146.

Bolaane, B. (2006). Constraints to promoting peoplecentered approaches in recycling. Habitat International, 30,731–740.

Byrne, M. B. (1998) Structural equation modeling withLISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts,applications, and programming. New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum.

Chan, R. Y. (1999). Environmental attitudes and behavior ofconsumers in China. Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, 11 (4), 25-52.

Cheng, E. W. L. (2001). SEM being more effective thanmultiple regression in parsimonious model testing formanagement development research. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 20 (7), 650-667.

Cudeck, R., Toit, D. S. and Sörbom, D. (2000). Structuralequation modeling: Present and future. Chicago: ScientificSoftware International Inc.

Dono, J., Webb, J. and Richardson, B. (2010). Therelationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behavior and social identity. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 30 (2), 178-186.

Fraj, E. and Martinez, E. (2007). Ecological consumerbehavior: An emprical analysis. International Journal ofConsumer Studies, 31, 26-33.

Gungor, A. and Gupta, S. M. (1999). Issues inenvironmentally conscious manufacturing and productrecovery: A survey. Computers and Industrial Engineering,36, 811-853.

Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling withLISREL: Essentials and Advances. Baltimore: John Hopkins.Hini, D., Gendall, P. and Kearns Z. (1995). The link betweenenvironmental attitudes and behavior. Marketing Bulletin,6, 22-31.

Ilgin, M. A. and Gupta, S. M. (2010). Environmentallyconscious manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO):A review of the state of the art. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 91 (3), 563-591.

Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’sreference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software InternationalInc.

Kaiser, F. G. and Shimoda, T. A. (1999). Responsibility as apredictor of ecological behavior. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 19, 243-253.

Kaiser, F. G., Wölfing, S. and Fuhrer, U. (1999).Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 19, 1-19.

Kaiser, F. G. and Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing people’sgeneral ecological behavior: A cross-cultural measure. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 30 (5), 952-978.

Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B. and Bogner, B. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrumentfor adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27,2442-251.

334

Kalantari, Kh. and Asadi, A. (2010). Designing a structuralmodel for explaining environmental attitude and behaviourof urban residents (Case of Tehran). International Journal ofEnvironmental Research, 4 (2), 309-320.

Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: John Wiley &Sons Inc.

Loudon, D. L. and Della Bitta, A. J. (1993). Consumerbehavior: Concept and applications (4th edition). McGrawHill: Auckland.

Mannetti, L., Pierro, A. and Livi, S. (2004). Recycling:Planned and self-expressive behavior. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 24, 227–236.

Mondéjar-Jiménez, J . A., Cordente-Rodriguéz, M.,Meseguer-Santamaría, M. L., and Gázquez-Abad, J. C.(2011). Environmental behavior and water saving in Spanishhousing. International Journal of Environmental Research,5 (1), 1-10.

Mostafa, M. M. (2007). A hierarchical analysis of the greenconsciousness of the Egyptian consumer. Psychology &Marketing, 24 (5), 445-473.

Nordlund, A. M. and Garvill, J. (2002). Value structuresbehind pro-environmental behavior. Environment andBehavior, 34 (6), 740-757.

Pang, N. S. K. (1996). School values and teachers’ feelings:a LISREL model. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(2), 64-83.

Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course instructural equation modeling. London: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L. (1999). Structural equationmodeling with LISREL: Application in tourism. TourismManagement, 20, 71-88.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. and Müller, H.(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Testsof significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures.Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2), 23-74.

Sidique, S. F., Lupi, F. and Joshi, S. V. (2010). The effects ofbehavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities.Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 163–170.

Steenkamp, B. E. M. and Baumgartner, H. (2000). On theuse of structural equation models for marketing modelling.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17, 195-202.

Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmentalbehavior: An integrative review and research agenda . Journalof Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317.

Thierry, M., Salomon, M., van Nunen, J. and vanWassenhove, L. (1995). Strategic issues in product recoverymanagement, California Management Review, 37 (2), 114–135.

Tilikidou, I. and Delistavrou, A. (2006). Consumers’ecological activities and their correlates. Retrieved July11,2009, from http://www.ctw-congress.de/ifsam/download/track_9/pap00169.pdf

Tilikidou, I. (2007). The effects of knowledge and attitudesupon Greeks’ pro-environmental purchasing behavior.Corporate Social Responsibility and EnvironmentalManagement, 14, 121–134.

Tilikidou, I. and Delistavrou, A. (2008). Types and influentialfactors of consumers’ non-purchasing ecological behaviors.Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 61-76.

Structural Model for Environmentally Conscious Behavior