View of Modelling the Relationship between the Environmental Factors and Environmental Behavioural Intentionamong University Students using a Partial Least Squares–Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM)

(1)

Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.3 (2021), 2644-2652 Research Article

Modelling the Relationship between the Environmental Factors and Environmental

Behavioural Intentionamong University Students using a Partial Least Squares–

Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM)

Nurul Izzah Mat Gheni@Ghani1, Zalina Zahid2, Siti Aida Sheikh Hussin3, Edie EzwanMohdSafian4 1,2,3_{Center of Statistical and Decision Sciences Studies, Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences,} UniversitiTeknologi MARA(UiTM), 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

4

Faculty of Technology Management & Business, UniversitiTun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 BatuPahat, Johor, Malaysia

1_{nana_izzah@yahoo.com,}2_{zalina@tmsk.uitm.edu.my,}3_{sitiaida842@uitm.edu.my,}4_{edie@uthm.edu.my}

Article History: Received: 10 November 2020; Revised: 12 January 2021; Accepted: 27 January 2021; Published online: 05 April 2021

Abstract: Currently, the world is facing an exceptionally alarming scale of environmental problems involving phenomena

such as climate change, ozone layer depletion and global warming. The affected world urgently requires an immediate way out to counter these environmental problems. Evidences show that environmentalproblems occurrencesare mainly due to irresponsible human activities. As part of overcoming these problems, behavioural solutions areneeded to make individuals friendly to the environment. As university students „populationrepresents huge users of large environmental resources, universities can play a major role in endorsing environmentally friendly behavior in society through proper environmental education to their students. However, information on the students‟ pro-environmental behaviour is lacking in local universities such as in UniversitiTeknologi MARA (UiTM). Recent studies have found pro-environmental behavior can be explained by many direct factors, however, indirect factors have received far less attention. This study aims to (1) determine specific Environmental Factors that may affect Environmental Behavioural Intention among UiTM students and to (2) determine the mediation effect of Environmental Attitude on the relationship between Environmental Factors and Environmental Behavioural Intention.These Environmental Factors and mediation factors are analyzed using Partial Least Square - Structural Equations Modelling (PLS-SEM). Self-administered questionnaires were distributed among a sample of 382 UiTM students, selected using Stratified random sampling. The results indicate that two significant factors directly affect Environmental Behavioural Intention i.e. Environmental Knowledge and Social Norms.This implies that students with environmental knowledge and are surrounded by pro-environmental persons tend to have responsible environmental behaviour. Meanwhile, another two other factors i.e. Environmental Concern and Perceived Risk were found to be indirectly influencing Environmental Behavioural Intention through the mediation of Environmental Attitude. The finding indicates that students who are concerned about the environment and aware of the environmental risk related will behave in a responsible environmental manner if and only if the students have a positive attitude. Overall, integrating both types of direct and indirect factors to explain pro-environmental behaviour gives abetter understanding of the student‟s attitude and behaviour towards the environment.

Keywords: Environmental Attitude; Environmental Behavioural Intention; Structural equation modelling (SEM-PLS);

Mediator.

1. Introduction

Ozone layer depletion, climate change and global warming are underlying environmental problemsthatare affecting the world currently (SitiAisyahMohdFadzer, et al., 2017;NurulSyuhadaShaharizan, et al., 2018; Nik Anis Nik Abdullah, et al., 2018). Thecommon causal factors of environmental problems are often found due to rapid industrialization, urbanization, and high population growth. These environmental problems, if not treated, will lead to many events that will bring a negative impact on the economical and societal aspects as well as population health. Serious actions need to be taken to counter these problems as they will affect the nation‟s ability to develop its economy.Mostof these environmental problemsoccur due to irresponsible human behaviour towards the environment (AnisAtiqah Abdul Rais, et al., 2018; SitiAiesyaKamarulzaman, et al., 2019). Lacking personal concern and moral responsibility towards the environments are the kinds of attitudes of some individuals which makes matters worse. One effective way to tackle this epidemics issue is inculcating individuals‟ attitudes aiming to avoid or minimize harm to the natural and built world, which is commonly known as pro-environmental behaviour. However, in reality, it was proven to be very challenging as people tend to have attitudes that do not show in their actions(Brewer & Stern, 2005; Turaga, Howarth&Borsuk, 2010).

Many evidencesindicate that the occurrences of environmental problems are direct consequences of irresponsible human actions and as such in need of behavioural solutions(Halkos & Kit, 2018; Scott, 2017). One strategy to solve these environmental problems includesproviding proper environmental education in moulding pro-environmental behaviour amonguniversity students (Lehman &Geller, 2004). As the population of

(2)

Modelling the Relationship between the Environmental Factors and Environmental Behavioural Intentionamong University Students using a Partial Least Squares–Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM)

students to be environmentally literate as they will soon be the innovators in product and service development and leaders in their professional roles. Therefore, assessing the student‟s attitude and behaviour towards the environment is one of the important aspects that should be observed since these students may later be in leadership positions that will decide on the important decision making for our country in the future.

Over the past years, Malaysian universities have recognized the importance of nurturing pro-environmental behaviour among university students. In UniversitiTeknologi Mara (UiTM), many academic programs thatare linked with environmental science such as Bachelor in Environmental Technology under the Faculty of Applied Sciences have been offered. Environment‟s fundamental elements involving land, air and water are integrated and merged into the program syllabus comprehensively as part of efforts to inculcate responsible and accountable pro-environmental manners among students so that environmental problems such as pollution can be controlled effectively. However, some studies have found that although generally university students display high interest in environmental issues, they were still found to behave negatively towards the environment in their daily activities(Muderrisoğlu&Altanlar; 2011). Some of these negative pro-environmental behaviors include the usage of straws, plastic food containers and non-recyclable plastic bags whichare still widespread among university students and the community as a whole.

Many factors, guided under the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and Theory of Planned Behaviour(Ajzen, 1988),are known to be influencing the environmental behavioural intentions. Presently, many studies have examined the types of factors that directly affect environmental behavioural intention but only a few studies have focused on investigating indirect factors,which could mediate the relationship between environmental factors and environmental behavioural intention.Some direct factors include Environmental Knowledge, Perceived Risk, Environmental Concern and Social Norms (Yu & Yu, 2017; Liang et al., 2018), whereas possible indirect factors may involve environmental attitude (Yu & Yu, 2017; Pihui, Minmin&Chuanfen, 2020).Therefore, working on the gap in the literature, there is a need to study comprehensively on both direct and indirect factors, which may affect environmental behavioural intention among students. Overall, integrating both types of direct and indirect factors in terms of explaining pro-environmental behaviour gives a better understanding of the student‟s attitude and behaviour towards the environment (Steg and Vlek, 2009). The objectives of this study are to determine which Environmental Factors (Environmental Knowledge, Perceived Risk, Environmental Concern and Social Norms) that affect Environmental Behavioural Intention among students and to determine the mediation effect of Environmental Attitude on the relationship between Environmental Factors and Environmental Behavioural Intention. Generally, this study adds value to the literature on how the components of Environmental Factors directly affect Environmental Behavioural Intention by assessing indirect factor, which is Environmental Attitude.

2. Methodology

In this study, the utilized research framework involving four independent variables, one dependent variable and single mediating variableisadapted from Maichum, et.al., (2016)based on Theory of Planned Behaviour (Fishbein&Ajzen, 1975). The interrelationship between thesevariables isshown in Figure 1. Based on the research framework, the dependent variable i.e. the pro-environmental behaviour among students is expected to be predicted based on four independent variables, namely, environmental knowledge, social norm, environmental concern and perceived risk through the mediating variable i.e. environmental attitude.The link between these variables was analyzed using A Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) approachas it can take account of the direct and indirect effects of the two types of variables (Hair, et al., 2011; SitiAiesyaKamarulzamanet al., 2019). Accordingly, four hypotheses were postulated (H1, H2, H3, H4) to

take into account the direct effect of independent variables towards the dependent variable. Meanwhile, another five hypotheses (H5, H6, H7, H8, H9) were constructed to represent the indirect relationship between independent

(3)

Figure 1.Theoretical Model for Testing Environmental Behaviour Intention in UniversitiTeknologi Mara (UiTM)

The target population of this research refers toall UiTM undergraduate students at three UiTM campuses in Selangor, Malaysia. A stratified sampling technique was utilised to get student samples from UiTM faculties based on three different strata,which are grouped under different areas of specialization namely, Science and Technology, Social Science and Humanities and Business and Management.A sample size of 379 students, calculated based on a formula by Lohr (1999) (which takes account of margin error equals 0.05 and 95 percent confidence level) selected from a total population of 27218 registered students. The student respondents are randomly selected based on each stratum presented as in Table 1.

Table1. Number of respondents from each stratum

Strata Total (Nh) Sample Size (nh)

Sample SizeCollected

Science and Technology 16012 223 247

Social Sciences and Humanities 7068 98 87

Business and Management 4138 58 48

Total 27218 379 382

Meanwhile, a7-point Likert scale questionnaire was constructed to evaluate the pro-environmental behaviour of students and its direct and indirect factors affecting it. In all, there are four sections in the questionnaire where the first section covers the student‟s profile and the remaining sections 2, 3 and 4 cover items on environmental factors (i.e. Environmental Knowledge, Perceived Risk, Environmental Concern and Social Norms), the mediating factor (i.e. environmental attitude) and the dependent variable (i.e. pro behavioral intention) respectively. The construction of these items was replicated from several studies (Yu & Yu (2017), Macovei(2015) and Maichumet. Al., (2016)). Some of the items in the questionnaire were adapted based on the validity procedures and reliability tests conducted prior actual data collection process. The relationships between endogenous and exogenous constructs as displayed in the path modelling (Figure 1) and were analysed using SmartPLS 3 software.

3. Results

The following section details the descriptive analysis of the students‟ profiles and presents the results and discussion of the analysis in determining the factors that contribute towards the environmental behavioural intention of UiTM students.

4. Descriptive Analysis

The students‟profiles in terms of their educational background and their level of experience whether they have received any environmental-related education before are shown in Table 2. In general, there are more female students as compared to male students. Majority of them aged between 21 to 23 years old. Meanwhile, most respondents are Malays students who have scored CGPAs ranging from 3.0 to 3.49. Furthermore, the

(4)

Nurul Izzah Mat Gheni@Ghani, Zalina Zahid, Siti Aida Sheikh Hussin, Edie EzwanMohdSafian

Table2. Student‟sDemographic Profile

Description Respondents (n=382) Percentage (%) Gender Male 110 28.8 Female 272 71.2 Age 18 - 20 years 94 24.6 21 – 23 years 278 72.8

23 years and above 10 2.6

Ethnicity Malay 321 84.0 Bumiputera Sabah 50 13.1 Bumiputera Sarawak 11 2.9 CGPA < 3.00 92 24.1 3.00 – 3.49 238 62.3 3.50 – 4.00 52 13.6

Have you ever received any formal environmental related education?

Yes

235 61.5

No ₁₄₇ _38.5

Path Model Estimation

Figure 2 displaysthe structural model which exhibits the inter-relationships between4exogenous constructs (Environmental Concern, Social Norm, Perceived Risk and Environmental Knowledge), mediator construct (Environmental Attitude) and an endogenous construct (Environmental Behavioural Intention).It can be shown that all exogenous constructs explain 62.4% of the total variance in Environmental Behavioural Intention (R2 = 0.624). Meanwhile, only 63.7% (R2 = 0.637) was found to explain the variation in Environmental Attitude. The R2 values of more than 50% indicate that the explanatory power of the exogenous factors is good enough to explain variation in the model (Hair, et al., 2011). Among all endogenous constructs, it can beconcludedthat Perceived Risk has the strongest effect on Environmental Behavioural Intention (0.855).It can be shown that all exogenous constructs explain 62.4% of the total variance in Environmental Behavioural Intention (R2 = 0.624). Meanwhile, only 63.7% (R2 = 0.637) was found to explain the variation in Environmental Attitude. The R2 values of more than 50% indicate that the explanatory power of the exogenous factors is good enough to explain variation in the model (Hair, et al., 2011). Among all endogenous constructs, it can beconcludedthat Perceived Risk has the strongest effect on Environmental Behavioural Intention (0.855).

Figure 2.Path Model Estimation for Environmental Behavioural Intention after Items Deletion

Reflective Model Assessment

Table 3 displays the results of the reflective measurement model assessment based on convergent validity and internal consistency reliability. Based on average variance extracted (AVE)values is 0.7 which are more than the threshold value of 0.5 indicates more than half of the variance in all constructs can be explained by its indicator.

(5)

Meanwhile, as the Cronbach‟s Alpha and Composite Reliability values exceeded the specified criteria i.e. a minimum value of 0.6. This shows that all variables that are used in this study have a high degree of internal consistency reliability (Hair, et al., 2011).

Table 3.Results Summary for Reflective Model Assessment

Reflective Construct

Convergent

Validity Internal Consistency Reliability AVE Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability

>0.50 0.60 – 0.90 >0.60 Environmental Concern 0.829 0.829 0.887 Social Norms 0.725 0.919 0.935 Perceived Risk 0.735 0.891 0.917 Environmental Knowledge 0.825 0.883 0.914 Environmental Attitude 0.783 0.894 0.919 Environmental Behavioural Intention 0.830 0.915 0.931

Model evaluation in terms of its discriminant validity is examined through the Fornell-Larcker criterion by comparing the square root of the AVE values with the latent variable correlations. Discriminant validity is achieved when the square root of each construct‟s AVE is higher than its largest correlation with any other constructs (Hair, et al., 2011).Table 4 below displays the listings of the square root of the reflective constructs‟ AVE on the diagonal section and the correlations between the constructs are placed in the off-diagonal position. Since the square roots of the AVEs for the reflective constructs (i.e. Environmental Attitude (0.862), Environmental Behavioural Intention (0.854), Environmental Concern (0.782), Environmental Knowledge (0.725), Perceived Risk (0.818) and Social Norms (0.722)) are all larger than the correlations of these constructs with other latent variables in the path model. It can be concluded that the constructs explain better the variance in its own indicator than the variance of other latent variables.

Table 4.Fornell-Larcker Criterion value for each latent construct

Environmental Attitude Environmental Behavioral Intention Environmental Concern Environmental Knowledge Perceived Risk Social Norms Environmental Attitude 0.862 Environmental Behavioral Intention 0.701 0.854 Environmental Concern 0.77 0.775 0.782 Environmental Knowledge 0.71 0.722 0.715 0.725 Perceived Risk 0.63 0.694 0.746 0.632 0.818 Social Norms 0.68 0.766 0.743 0.654 0.716 0.722

Structural Model Assessment

The structural model is assessed through examining the collinearity aspects based on several measures including the variance inflation factor (VIF) value, the significance and relevance of the structural model relationships, coefficient of determination (R2), the effect size of the structural model (f2) and the predictive relevance (Q2). A significant correlation between the exogenous and endogenous constructs is indicated if VIF values are larger than 5. Meanwhile, the predictor variable is classified to have a small, medium or large effect on the structural level (Fornell, 1992) based on the effect size of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35. Referring to Table 5, it can be concluded that there is no effect of two constructs i.e. Environmental Concern and Perceived Risk on Environmental Behavioural Intention. However, the rest of the other variables only have a small and medium effect on Environmental Behavioural Intention.It can be shown too that Environmental Concern and Perceived Risk have a medium and large effect on mediating variable i.e. Environmental Attitude. However, the mediator

(6)

Intention. Next, the predictive relevance criteria in ensuring the model is well constructed based on ensuring Q2 value is more than zero (Reinartzet al., 2009). Since all predictive relevance values for all constructs are shown to have values more than 0, it can be concluded that all constructs have achieved the predicted relevance. Furthermore, both endogenous constructs i.e. the Environmental Behavioural Intention (0.556) and Environmental Attitude (0.566) also have Q2 value more than 0, which indicates that clear support for the model‟s predictive relevance.

Table 5.Structural Model Path Coefficient Results

Hypothesis Relationshi p Path t p Values Significance Decision R2 f2 Q² Coefficients Values (p<0.05) H1 EK → BI 0.317 6.976 0.000 YES Supported 0.244 H2 SN → BI -0.218 6.455 0.000 YES Supported 0.651 0.046 0.55 6 H3 EC → BI 0.02 0.601 0.274 NO Not Supported 0.001 H4 PR → BI 0.014 0.482 0.543 NO Not Supported 0.001 H9 EA → BI 0.26 5.88 0.000 YES Supported - 0.161 - H5 EK → EA 0.854 37.785 0.000 YES Supported 0.434 H6 SN → EA 0.236 6.08 0.000 YES Supported 0.635 0.119 0.56 6 H7 EC → EA 0.44 1.755 0.000 YES Supported 0.334 H8 PR → EA 0.924 25.904 0.000 YES Supported 0.446 Mediator Analysis

Here, mediation analysis is required to examine the relationship between four constructs and Environmental Behavioural Intention through Environmental Attitude to answer the second objective of this research. Table 6 shows the comparison of significance testing of the three models where the first model tested the direct relationship towards Environmental Attitude only, while the second model is tested towards the Environmental Behavioural Intention only. The full structural model with the mediator is tested as the third model as shown in Table 6. The coefficients values decrease in Model 3 as compared to Model 2 without the Mediator. This shows that the mediation effect exists in the model. The types of mediation were later discussed in the next section.

Table6.Summary of Results for Significance Testing Comparison

Construct

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Direct Effect towards Environmental

Attitude Only

Direct Effect towards Environmental Behavioural Intention

Only

Direct Effect towards Environmental Behavioural Intention With Mediator Path Coefficient (Sig P-Value) Path Coefficient (Sig P-Value) Path Coefficient (Sig P-Value) Environmental Concern 0.41 (0.000) 0.108 (0.000) 0.02 (0.414) Social Norms 0.236 (0.000) -0.215 (0.000) -0.218 (0.000) Perceived Risk 0.921 (0.000) 0.112 (0.000) 0.014 (0.453) Environmental Knowledge 0.901 (0.000) 0.415 (0.000) 0.317 (0.000) Environmental Attitude 0.26 (0.000)

Types of Mediation Model

Table 7 summarizes three types of models, whichhave been generated from this mediation analyses. First, a significant direct effect of Environmental Concern was found towards EnvironmentalBehaviouralIntention. Table 7 shows that Environmental Concern has a weak positive direct relationship with Environmental Behavioural Intention. The next step is to examine the indirect effect of Environmental Concern on Environmental Behavioural Intention through Environmental Attitude as the mediating variable as shown in Table 7.Since the direct effect of Environmental Concern on Environmental Behavioural Intentionis not significant but after the mediator enters the model, the indirect effect becomes significant, then it can be concluded that Environmental Attitude acts as a complete mediation on the relationship between Environmental Concern and Environmental Behavioural Intention.

(7)

Table 7.Summary of Results for Mediation Model

Construct Path Construct Coefficient P-Value Result Types of

Mediation Environmental Concern → Environmental Behavioural Intention 0.02 0.414 Not Significant Environmental Concern → Environmental Attitude 0.44 0.000 Significant Complete Mediation Environmental Attitude → Environmental

Behavioural Intention 0.26 0.000 Significant

Social Norms → Environmental

Behavioural Intention -0.218 0.000 Significant

Social Norms → Environmental

Attitude 0.236 0.000 Significant Partial Mediation Environmental Attitude → Environmental

Behavioural Intention 0.26 0.000 Significant Perceived Risk → Environmental

Behavioural Intention 0.014 0.453

Not Significant Perceived Risk → Environmental

Attitude 0.924 0.000 Significant Complete Mediation Environmental Attitude → Environmental

Behavioural Intention 0.26 0.000 Significant Environmental

Knowledge

→ Environmental

Behavioural Intention 0.317 0.000 Significant Environmental Knowledge → Environmental Attitude 0.854 0.000 Significant Partial Mediation Table 7 also shows the significant direct effect of Social Norms (Y2) towards Environmental Behavioural

Intention. The next mediation model to be analysed is the indirect effect of through the mediator variable, Environmental Attitude. Since Environmental Attitude is significant, it can be concluded that Environmental Attitude is the mediator in the relationship between Social Norms and Environmental Behavioural Intention. When both direct and indirect effects are significant, the type of mediation can be differentiated through the product of the direct and indirect effects. Since the product of the direct effect is negative and the indirect effect is positive, it can be concluded that there is a competitive mediation which explains that Environmental Attitude acts as a partial mediation on the relationship. The direct effect of Social Norms on Environmental Behavioural Intention is also significant after the mediator enters the model. Therefore, it can be concluded that Environmental Attitude acts as a competitive partial mediation on the relationship between Social Norms and Environmental Behavioural Intention.

Table 7 summarises the results under the variation of mediation models. First, it is found that the direct effect of Environmental Concern on Environmental Behavioural Intention is not significant but after the mediator enters the model, the indirect effect becomes significant, therefore it can be concluded that Environmental Attitude acts as a complete mediation on the relationship between Environmental Concern and Environmental Behavioural Intention. Next, a significant direct effect of Social Norms towards Environmental Behavioural Intention and significant indirect effect of social Norm through the mediator variable, Environmental Attitude towards Environmental Behavioural Intention are detected. In conclusion, Environmental Attitude is functioning as the mediator in the relationship between Social Norms and Environmental Behavioural Intention. When both direct and indirect effects are significant, the type of mediation can be differentiated through the product of the direct and indirect effects. Since the product of the direct effect is negative and the indirect effect is positive, it can be concluded that there is a competitive mediation which explains that Environmental Attitude acts as a partial mediation on the relationship. Meanwhile, the direct effect of Social Norms on Environmental Behavioural Intention is also significant after the mediator enters the model. Therefore, it can be concluded that Environmental Attitude acts as a competitive partial mediation on the relationship between Social Norms and Environmental Behavioural Intention.

5. Conclusions

The purpose of this research is to determine the significant factors affecting environmental behavioural intention among UiTM students. The research design is targeted to provide insights on how some components

(8)

environmental behavioral intention among UiTM students which are Social Norms and Environmental Knowledge. As a matter of fact, Social Norms was also found to be significant by Yu and Yu (2017) and Maichum (2016). It should be emphasized that necessary measures should be implemented to support the effort in creating environmentally literate graduates. Hence, UiTM may formulate a strategy to enhance the students‟ behavior towards the environment through organizing social programmes such as “No Plastic Campaign. This type of programmecan be introduced to nurture an environmentally friendly lifestyle among the students. Meanwhile, the importance of Environmental Knowledge in influencing environmental behavioral intention among students isalso supported by Maichum (2016). Specifically, this study concluded that students with sufficient knowledge about the environment are more likely to have positive attitude and behavior towards the environment. Therefore, proper guidance to students through educational paths needs to be reinforced so that environmentally literate students are being developed properly which ultimately has a bearing on future giving.

Although Environmental Concern and Perceived Risk have no direct effect on Environmental Behavioral Intention, using Environmental Attitude as a mediating variable proved that it can affect the students‟ behavior towards the environment. Fang (2015) and Macovei (2015) found that students‟ concern towards the environment and how they perceived the risk related to the environment were linked to a specific level of environmental attitude variable that leads to a specific behavior.When the mediation effects were observed, it was seen that Environmental Attitude fully mediated the relationship between Environmental Concern and Perceived Risk on Environmental Behavioral Intention. This emphasizes that student who has concerns about the environment and aware of the risk related to the environment might behave in a responsible environmental manner if and only if the students have positive attitude. On the other hand, Environmental Attitude partially mediated the relationship between Social Norms and Environmental Knowledge on Environmental Behavioral Intention. Here, it shows that if students are surrounded byenvironmentally friendly mannered persons and have environmental knowledge, they will have a proper attitude towards the environment and hence will behave in environmentally friendly manners. As both Social Norms and Environmental Knowledge are also positively associated with Environmental Attitude, then students with positive attitude will also behave in environmentally friendly manners. Taking into account all of these, the university management should develop specific strategies to develop its students to become pro-environmental behaved individuals.

6. Acknowledgement

The authors would like to extend their gratitude and appreciation to the Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, UniversitiTeknologi MARA Shah Alam for the financial support to enable this paper to be published.

References

1. AnisAtiqah Abdul Rais, SitiShalizaMohdKhairi, Zalina Zahid &Siti Aida Sheikh Husin (2018). Efficiency Analysis Towards Exogenous variables: Fishery production in Malaysia, An International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology, 7(11), 2904-2908.

2. Ajzen, I., (1988). Attitudes, Personality and Behavior. Open University Press -211, Milton Keynes, England.

3. Brewer, G.D. & Stern. P.C. (2005). Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. National Academy Press.Washington, DC.

4. Fang, S. (2015). A Risk Perception Model of Climate Change for University Students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(3), 339–351.

5. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

6. Halkos, G., &Kitsos, C. (2018). Uncertainty in environmental economics : The problem of entropy and model choice.

7. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM, Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theoryand Practice, 19(2): 139–51.

8. Lehman, P. H., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Behavior Analysis and Environmental Protection: Accomplishments and Potential for More. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 13-32.

9. Lohr, S.H., (1999). “Sampling: Design and analysis.” Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

10. Liang, S.W., Fang, W.T., Yeh, S.C., Liu, S.Y., Tsai, H.M., Chou, J.Y., & Ng, E. (2018). A Nationwide Survey Evaluating the Environmental Literacy of Undergraduate Students in Taiwan. Sustainability, 10(6), 1730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061730.

11. Macovei, O., (2015). Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Pro-environmental Behaviour : The Case of Energy Conservation, 11(4), 15–32.

(9)

12. Maichum, K., Parichatnon, S., & Peng, K. (2016). Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model to Investigate Purchase Intention of Green Products among Thai Consumers, 1– 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101077.

13. Müderrisoglu, H., &Altanla, A. (2011). Attitudes and behaviors of undergraduate students toward environmental issues. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 8 (1), 159-168.

14. Nik AnisNik Abdullah, ZalinaZahid, Siti Aida, Sheikh Husin, SitiShalizaMohdKhairi, (2018). Determination of Perception And Adaptive Capacity Towards Climate Change Among Paddy Farmers In State Of Kelantan, Malaysia, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol 7(4), 118-123.

15. NurulSyuhadaShaharizan, ZalinaZahid, &Siti Aida Sheikh Husin. (2018). Spatial Flood Vulnerability Assessment Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Journal of Technology and Business. Vol 5 (1), 51-57.

16. Pihui, L., Minmin, T. &Chuanfen, H. (2020). How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviours: The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Science of Total Environment, 728, 1-14.

17. SitiAiesyaKamarulzaman, ZalinaZahid, HaryaniHaron, AdzharMohdRambly&Nabilah Abdullah (2019). Modelling the Relationship between University Brand and Alumni Loyalty Using a partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) Approach. Journal of Social Sciences Research, 6, 657-663.

18. SitiAisyahMohdFadzer, Zalina Zahid, &Siti Aida Sheikh Husin (2017). Flood Vulnerability Assessment. Discovering Mathematics, 39(1), 1-7.

19. Scott, E. (2017). Solution-oriented global environmental assessments : Opportunities and challenges, 77(August), 187–192.

20. Steg, L. &Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317.

21. Turaga, R. M. R., Howarth, R. B., & Borsuk, M. E. (2010). Pro-environmental behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185(1), 211-224.

22. Yu, T.Y., & Yu, T.K. (2017). The Moderating Effects of Students‟ Personality Traits on Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions in Response to Climate Change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1472. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121472.