Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Effects of independent variables on the dependent variable
| Relationship | Beta (β) | S.E | CR | p-Value | Hypothesis | Testing Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC → PPB | 0.575 | 0.059 | 12.138 | *** | H1 | Supported |
| EC → MAFC | 0.525 | 0.071 | 9.330 | *** | H2 | Supported |
| EC → WTP | 0.052 | 0.071 | 1.015 | 0.310 | H3 | Not Supported |
| PPB → MAFC | 0.140 | 0.050 | 2.835 | 0.005 | H4 | Supported |
| PPB → WTP | 0.541 | 0.052 | 11.620 | *** | H5 | Supported |
| MAFC → WTP | 0.279 | 0.051 | 6.131 | *** | H6 | Supported |
Reliability and Validity Measures of the Measurement Model
| CR | AVE | MSV | MaxR(H) | Estimates | Construct | COAL | EC | WTP | ENG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.895 | 0.740 | 0.366 | 0.925 | <0.79, 0.95> | MAFC | 0.860* | |||
| 0.870 | 0.691 | 0.366 | 0.882 | <0.77, 0.89> | EC | 0.605 | 0.831* | ||
| 0.920 | 0.792 | 0.482 | 0.922 | <0.87, 0.91> | WTP | 0.550 | 0.532 | 0.890* | |
| 0.914 | 0.781 | 0.482 | 0.916 | <0.86, 0.90> | PPB | 0.442 | 0.575 | 0.694 | 0.883* |
Structure of the research sample
| Frequency | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| male | 265 | 47.8 |
| female | 286 | 51.7 |
| other | 3 | 0.5 |
| Age | ||
| 18-24 years | 76 | 13.7 |
| 25-34 years | 113 | 20.4 |
| 35-44 years | 88 | 15.9 |
| 45-54 years | 101 | 18.2 |
| 55 years or more | 176 | 31.8 |
| Place of residence | ||
| village | 208 | 37.5 |
| small city (up to 20 000 residents) | 72 | 13.0 |
| medium city (from 20 000 to 99 000 residents) | 111 | 20.0 |
| big city (from 100 000 to 500 000 residents | 105 | 19.0 |
| very big city (above 500 000 residents) | 58 | 10.5 |
| monthly net (disposable) income of entire household | ||
| below 1000 PLN | 16 | 2.9 |
| 1001 – 2000 PLN | 36 | 6.5 |
| 2001 – 3000 PLN | 71 | 12.8 |
| 3001 – 4000 PLN | 66 | 11.9 |
| 4001 – 5000 PLN | 60 | 10.8 |
| 5001 – 7500 PLN | 96 | 17.3 |
| 7501 – 10000 PLN | 55 | 9.9 |
| above 10 000 PLN | 43 | 7.8 |
| refusal to answer | 111 | 20.0 |
Fit indices of CFA model
| Measure | Abbr. | Recommended threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Chi-square/df (CMIN/DF) | CMIN/DF | <3.0 |
| Comparative Fit Index | CFI | >0.90 |
| The Normed Fit Index | NFI | >0.90 |
| Goodness of Fit | GFI | >0.90 |
| Adjusted Goodness of Fit | AGFI | >0.80 |
| Root Mean Square Residual | RMR | <0.08 |
| Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation | RMSEA | <0.08 |
Constructs and Items
| Constructs | Items | Loadings | Mean | St. dev. | Cronbach' s alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| environmental concern (EC) | EC1 I am concerned about the condition of the natural environment. | 0.89 | 3.92 | 0.88 | 0.869 |
| EC2. The condition of the natural environment is deteriorating year by year. | 0.83 | ||||
| EC3 I am concerned about future shortages of natural resources. | 0.77 | ||||
| willingness to pay (WTP) | WTP1. I am willing to pay 10% more for my purchases to buy eco-friendly products. | 0.89 | 2.84 | 1.15 | 0.919 |
| WTP2. I am willing to pay 10% more taxes if they were intended to prevent environmental pollution. | 0.91 | ||||
| WTP3. I am willing to pay 10% more for electricity if these additional fees were spent on investing in renewable energy sources. | 0.87 | ||||
| the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC) | MAFC1. Poland should abandon the use of energy generated from coal as quickly as possible. | 0.95 | 3.26 | 1.18 | 0.890 |
| MAFC 2. Poland should accelerate the phase-out of domestic coal mines. | 0.84 | ||||
| MAFC 3. Instead of investing in coal mining, Poland should allocate much more money from the state budget to investments in renewable energy sources. | 0.79 | ||||
| promoting pro-environmental behaviour (PPB) | PPB1. I provide my family/friends with information about environmentally friendly products. | 0.90 | 3.17 | 1.03 | 0.914 |
| PPB2. I convince my family/friends to buy environmentally friendly products. | 0.89 | ||||
| PPB3. I draw attention to my family/friends when I see that they consume products that are harmful to the environment. | 0.86 |