Submitted:
01 April 2024
Posted:
02 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature review and Methods
2.1. Carbon Inclusive Mechanism
2.2. Theory of Planned Behavior
2.3. Technology Acceptance Model
3. Model Design and Research Hypotheses
3.1. ”Attitude-Intension” Psychological Influence Path: TPB Theory
- Attitude (ATT). It refers to an individual’s assessment of how positive or negative he or she is about implementing green travel behaviors.
- Subjective Norm (SN)/social norm. Residents will choose to adjust their green travel intentions due to social policy propaganda, low-carbon mechanisms, social regulations and the expectations or influences of people around them on their behavior (Fang Xiaoping, 2019)[21].
- Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC). Behavioral subjects perceive the feasibility of green travel due to mechanism constraints. When individuals perceive that green travel is economical, feasible, and recognized by society, they will strengthen their behavioral intention (Behavior Intention, BI) for green travel, have a positive attitude, and produce continuous practice in green travel attitude. Based on this, the following hypotheses are put forward:
3.2. “Habit- Intension” Inertial Influence Path
3.3. The Impact Path of the “Mechanism- Intension” Carbon Inclusive Mechanism: Integrated Application of the Technology Acceptance Model
3.4. Measurement Model and Structural Model
- Measurement model
- Structural model
4. Questionnaires and Inspections
4.1. Questionnaire Design and Data Sources
4.2. Data Collection and Descriptive Statistical Analysis
4.3. Reliability Analysis
4.4. Validity Analysis
4.4.1. KMO Detection and Bartlett Sphere Detection
4.4.2. Convergent Validity Test
4.4.3. Discriminant Validity Analysis
4.5. Model Fitting Analysis
4.5.1. Model Fitting Indicators and Results
4.5.2. Path Hypothesis Testing
4.6. Empirical Results Verification
5. Discussion
5.1. Discussion and Analysis of the Carbon Inclusive Mechanism
5.2. Discussion and Analysis of Urban Residents’ Willingness to Go Green
6. Conclusions
6.1. The Usefulness of Carbon Credits Is One of the Key Indirect Influencing Factors under the Carbon Inclusive Mechanism
6.2. The Usefulness of Carbon Credits Is Greater than the Ease of Use under the Carbon Inclusive Mechanism
6.3. TAM Continues to Complement TPB under the Carbon Inclusive Mechanism
Author Contributions
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pan X H, Huang L Q. Empirical Analysis of Influencing Factors of Carbon Inclusive Policy on Residents’ Green Travel Behavior—Taking Chongqing as an Example[J]. Sustainable Development,2023,13(6):1923-1935.
- SUN X H, WANG F Y. The Intention to Choose Shared Electric Vehicles Considering Psychological Latent Varables[J]. Highway Engineering, 2023,48(5):174-180,191.
- YE Zhangyi. Development Model of Public Transport in the Main Urban Area Under the Cluster Layout [J]. Traffic & Transportation. 2023,39 (04):95-99.
- WANG Y, WANG F, WANG Z. How Carbon Allowance Allocation Rule Affects Manufacturing Remanufacturing Decisions Under the Carbon credits buyback policy[J]. Energy Reports, 2022, 8: 14061-14071.
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991, 50(2): 179-211.
- Davis, F. D. , Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R.. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 1989, 35(8), 982-1003.
- Marangunić, N. , & Granić, A.. Technology Acceptance Model: A Literature Review From 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2015, 14(1), 81–95.
- Yang, M. , Shao, Z., Liu, Q., & Liu, C.. Understanding the Quality factors that Influence the Continuance Intention of Students toward Participation in MOOCs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2017,65(5), 1195-1214.
- Tawafak, R. , Malik, S., Mathew, R., Ashfaque, M., Jabbar, J., AINuaimi, M., & Alfarsi, G.. A combined model for continuous intention to use e-learning system. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 2021,15(03):113–129.
- CHEN Kai;DENG Ting. Research on Environmental Attitudes, Guide Information and Green Commuting Intentions[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2017,31(03):191-196.
- ZHENG Junjun;ZHANG Bing. Group Choice Behavior in Green Travel Based on Scale-free Network[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2019,27(10) :198-208.
- HE Zhanqiong;YIN Xiao. Research on the Impact of Urban Travel Environment on Green Travel Behavior[J]. Ecological Economy, 2021, 37(07):88-96.
- Gimenez-Nadal, J.I.; Molina, J.A. Green Commuting, and Gasoline Taxes in the United States[J]. Energy Policy, 2019,(132) :324-331.
- Sharaby, N. , Shiftan Y. The Impact of Fare Integration on Travel Behavior and Transit Ridership[J]. Transport Policy, 2012,(21) :63-70.
- ZHOU Xian-qing;JIA Da-zhao. Study of Carbon Emission Trading Mechanism for Residents’ Green Traffic in Xiong’an New Area[J]. Highway, 2022, 67(4):271-275.
- Liu Hang. Commonly Benefiting Carbon Institution:Theoretical Analysis,Referential Experience and Framework Design[J]. Studies on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, 2018,(5):86-94,112.
- Yang Jianxun, Liu Yifan. The Challenges and Countermeasures for City-level Low-carbon Transportation Development in the Internet Era[J]. Environmental Protection, 2018,46(11):43-46.
- Liu Biaoyi, Li Dong. Research on Factors Inducing Green Travel among Urban Residents based on Structural Equation Model[J]. Economic Research Guide, 2023,(15):32-35.
- Zhang Yiwen, Li Wenxiang. Ridesplitting Intentions of Online Ride-Hailing Users under Carbon Inclusion Scheme[J]. Transport Research, 2023, 9 (05): 83-96.
- Panter J R, Jones A. Attitudes and the Environment as Determinants of Active Travel in Adults: What Do and Don’t We Know? [J]. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2010, 7(4): 551-561.
- FANG Xiaoping;ZHOU Qianran. The Research of Low-carbon Transportation Mode based on TPB[J]. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2019,16(3):804-811.
- Stern P, C. New Environment Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior [J]. Journal of Social Issues, 2000,56(3): 407-424.
- Unal A B, Steg L, Granskaya J. “To Support or not to Support, That is the Question’’. Testing the VBN Theory in Predicting Support for Car Use Reduction Policies in Russia [J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2019, 119: 73-81.
- Bamberg S, Ajzen I, Schmidt P. Choice of Travel Mode in the Theory of Planned Behavior: The Roles of Past Behavior, Habit, and Reasoned Action [J]. Basic&Applied Social Psychology, 2023,25(3): 175-187.
- Verplanken B, Aarts H, Van Knippenberg A, et al. Habit versus planned behaviour: A field experiment [J]. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1998,37: 111-128.
- ZHANG Y, LI W, LIU X, et al. Ridesplitting Intentions of Online Ride-hailing Users under Carbon Inclusion Scheme[J]. Transport Research, 2023,9(5): 83-96.
- Fornell, C. ,& Larcker, D. F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981,18(1),39-50.
- Hayduk, L. A.. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. Jhu Press. 1987.
- Bagozzi, R. P. , & Yi, Y. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1988, 16(1),74-94.
- Hu, L. T. , & Bentler. P. M.. Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychological Methods, 1998, 3(4),424.


| Latent variable | coding | Questionnaire items | Literature source |
|---|---|---|---|
| SN | SN1 | People around usually choose green and low-carbon travel modes | Stern, 2000[22] |
| SN2 | People around suggest you adopt green and low-carbon travel modes | ||
| SN3 | The concepts of green environmental protection the society advocated, guide you to choose green and low-carbon travel modes | ||
| ATT | ATT1 | Walking or cycling is good for your health? | Unal, 2019[23] |
| ATT2 | Green and low-carbon travel modes is the right choice | ||
| ATT3 | Green and low-carbon travel modes can reduce environmental pollution | ||
| PBC | PBC1 | Green and low-carbon travel modes can meet daily travel needs | Bamberg,Ajzen,Schmidt,2003[24] |
| PBC2 | You have enough time and energy to choose green and low-carbon travel modes | ||
| PBC3 | There are many opportunities to choose green and low-carbon travel modes in your city | ||
| HAB | HAB1 | Green and low-carbon travel modes are part of your life | Verplanken, 1998[25] |
| HAB2 | You often choose green and low-carbon travel modes without thinking | ||
| HAB3 | green and low-carbon travel modes is convenient and comfortable | ||
| PU | PU1 | The value of carbon credits will increase along with environmental protection policies advance, | Zhang,Li,Liu, 2023[26] |
| PU2 | Carbon credits can be redeemed for more products | ||
| PU3 | Carbon credits can be redeemed for cash in the future | ||
| PU4 | Carbon credits should participate in carbon trading | ||
| PEU | PEU1 | You can accept new applications | Sukendro et al.,2020 |
| PEU2 | You have learned about carbon inclusive information | ||
| PEU3 | Using Carbon credits app doesn’t take much effort | ||
| PEU4 | You are willing to spend time and energy to use carbon credits applications if carbon credits are widely used | ||
| CI | CI1 | It is a wise choice to use the Carbon Inclusive Platform App if green and low-carbon travel can earn carbon credits | Zhang,Li,Liu, 2023[26] |
| CI2 | You are willing to continue to use the Carbon Inclusive Platform App if carbon points can generate revenue, | ||
| CI3 | You are willing to recommend the carbon inclusive platform App to people around under the improvement of the carbon inclusive system and reward mechanism | ||
| BI | BI1 | You will choose green travel methods instead of taxis or private cars in daily life | Zhang,Li,Liu, 2023[26] |
| BI2 | you will recommend people around to travel green? | ||
| BI3 | You will choose green travel behaviors when going to work | ||
| BI4 | You will choose green travel behaviors when not at work | ||
| Individual Information | 1. Gender A.Male B.Female | ||
| 2. Age A.<18 B.18-25 C.26-35 D.36-45 E.46-60 F.>=61 | |||
| 3. Education level A.College,high school, technical secondary school and below B.Bachelor degree C.Master degree and above | |||
| 4. Monthly income A.<=3000 B.3001-5000 C.5001-10000 D.>=10001 | |||
| 5. Occupation A.Student B.Office worker C.Retired D.Others | |||
| categories | Items | frequency | Proportion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | male | 180 | 50.80% |
| female | 174 | 49.20% | |
| Age | <18 | 28 | 7.91% |
| 18-25 | 86 | 24.29% | |
| 26-30 | 77 | 21.75% | |
| 31-35 | 71 | 20.90% | |
| 36-45 | 59 | 16.67% | |
| 46-60 | 23 | 6.50% | |
| >60 | 10 | 1.98% | |
| Education | Junior high school and below | 4 | 1.12% |
| High school | 15 | 3.51% | |
| College and below | 83 | 24.14% | |
| Bachelor | 207 | 59.19% | |
| Master and above | 45 | 13.16% | |
| Career | Students | 48 | 13.56% |
| office workers | 242 | 68.36% | |
| Freelance | 33 | 9.32% | |
| Retire | 20 | 5.65% | |
| Other | 11 | 3.11% | |
| Monthly income | <=3000 | 56 | 15.82% |
| 3001—5000 | 116 | 32.77% | |
| 5001—10000 | 125 | 35.31% | |
| 10001—20000 | 39 | 11.02% | |
| 20000-50000 | 15 | 4.24% | |
| >=500001 | 3 | 0.85% | |
| Private car ownership | 0 | 47 | 13.28% |
| 1 | 208 | 58.76% | |
| 2 | 84 | 23.73% |
| Dimensions | Alpha | items |
|---|---|---|
| SN | 0.879 | 3 |
| ATT | 0.900 | 3 |
| PBC | 0.918 | 3 |
| THA | 0.903 | 3 |
| PEU | 0.861 | 4 |
| PU | 0.955 | 4 |
| CI | 0.947 | 3 |
| BI | 0.944 | 4 |
| sum | 0.974 | 27 |
| Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO) | .962 | |
| Bartlett sphericity test | Approximate chi-square | 10538.291 |
| Degrees of freedom | 351 | |
| P-Significance | .000 | |
| Dimension | Items | Significance Estimation | Item reliability | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unstd. | S.E. | Z-value | P | Std. | SMC | CR | AVE | |||
| SN | SN1 | 1.000 | 0.852 | 0.726 | 0.884 | 0.721 | ||||
| SN2 | 1.060 | 0.049 | 21.556 | *** | 0.936 | 0.876 | ||||
| SN3 | 0.842 | 0.051 | 16.457 | *** | 0.749 | 0.561 | ||||
| ATT | ATT1 | 1.000 | 0.802 | 0.643 | 0.902 | 0.755 | ||||
| ATT2 | 1.366 | 0.067 | 20.421 | *** | 0.942 | 0.887 | ||||
| ATT3 | 1.228 | 0.066 | 18.599 | *** | 0.857 | 0.734 | ||||
| PBC | PBC1 | 1.000 | 0.919 | 0.845 | 0.919 | 0.792 | ||||
| PBC2 | 1.045 | 0.041 | 25.712 | *** | 0.885 | 0.783 | ||||
| PBC3 | 0.909 | 0.037 | 24.367 | *** | 0.865 | 0.748 | ||||
| HAB | HAB1 | 1.000 | 0.941 | 0.885 | 0.909 | 0.771 | ||||
| HAB2 | 1.016 | 0.033 | 30.840 | *** | 0.917 | 0.841 | ||||
| HAB3 | 0.699 | 0.035 | 19.837 | *** | 0.767 | 0.588 | ||||
| PU | PU1 | 1.000 | 0.932 | 0.869 | 0.954 | 0.841 | ||||
| PU2 | 1.035 | 0.028 | 37.209 | *** | 0.959 | 0.920 | ||||
| PU3 | 1.011 | 0.039 | 25.839 | *** | 0.859 | 0.738 | ||||
| PU4 | 1.003 | 0.032 | 31.317 | *** | 0.916 | 0.839 | ||||
| PEU | PEU1 | 1.000 | 0.674 | 0.454 | 0.859 | 0.605 | ||||
| PEU2 | 1.255 | 0.098 | 12.870 | *** | 0.767 | 0.588 | ||||
| PEU3 | 1.219 | 0.094 | 12.926 | *** | 0.771 | 0.594 | ||||
| PEU4 | 1.260 | 0.087 | 14.456 | *** | 0.886 | 0.785 | ||||
| CI | CI1 | 1.000 | 0.915 | 0.837 | 0.947 | 0.856 | ||||
| CI2 | 1.000 | 0.034 | 29.619 | *** | 0.922 | 0.850 | ||||
| CI3 | 1.005 | 0.032 | 31.279 | *** | 0.939 | 0.882 | ||||
| BI | BI1 | 1.000 | 0.924 | 0.854 | 0.941 | 0.800 | ||||
| BI2 | 1.029 | 0.034 | 29.849 | *** | 0.916 | 0.839 | ||||
| BI3 | 1.013 | 0.037 | 27.717 | *** | 0.893 | 0.797 | ||||
| BI4 | 0.921 | 0.039 | 23.903 | *** | 0.843 | 0.711 | ||||
| Dimensions | Discriminant validity | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVE | SN | ATT | PBC | TH | PU | PEU | CI | BI | |||
| PEU | 0.605 | 0.778 | |||||||||
| BI | 0.800 | 0.704 | 0.894 | ||||||||
| PU | 0.840 | 0.712 | 0.816 | 0.917 | |||||||
| CI | 0.856 | 0.775 | 0.863 | 0.878 | 0.925 | ||||||
| SN | 0.721 | 0.701 | 0.744 | 0.641 | 0.641 | 0.849 | |||||
| PBC | 0.792 | 0.732 | 0.808 | 0.696 | 0.693 | 0.794 | 0.890 | ||||
| ATT | 0.755 | 0.621 | 0.738 | 0.627 | 0.672 | 0.697 | 0.700 | 0.869 | |||
| THA | 0.771 | 0.768 | 0.792 | 0.709 | 0.685 | 0.775 | 0.853 | 0.660 | 0.878 | ||
| index | model indicator value | recommended standard value | conclusion | standard source | |
| CMID | 1049.573 | The smaller the better | |||
| DF | 309 | The smaller the better | |||
| CMID/DF | 3.397 | <3 Excellent; <5 Acceptable | Acceptable | Hayduck,1987 | |
| GFI | 0.815 | >0.8acceptable; >0.9 good fit | Acceptable | Bagozzi & Yi, 1988 | |
| AGFI | 0.874 | >0.8acceptable; >0.9 good fit | Acceptable | Scott,1994 | |
| CFI | 0.929 | >0.9 | Excellent | Bagozzi & Yi, 1988 | |
| TLI | 0.920 | >0.9 | excellent | ||
| RMSEA | 0.082 | <0.08Excellent;<0.1 Acceptable | acceptable | Bagozzi & Yi, 1988 | |
| SRMR | 0.072 | <0.08 | Excellent | Hu & Bentler,1998 | |
| path | Unstd. | S.E. | C.R. | P | Std.(β) | R2 | result |
| HAB→ATT | 0.436 | 0.033 | 13.24 | *** | 0.696 | 0.485 | Acceptable |
| PU→SN | 0.707 | 0.055 | 12.972 | *** | 0.662 | 0.438 | Acceptable |
| PU→CI | 0.709 | 0.058 | 12.151 | *** | 0.723 | 0.797 | Acceptable |
| PEU→CI | 0.241 | 0.071 | 3.387 | *** | 0.200 | Acceptable | |
| HAB→BI | 0.136 | 0.068 | 2.001 | 0.055 | 0.152 | 0.842 | Rejectable |
| ATT→BI | 0.210 | 0.052 | 4.046 | *** | 0.146 | Acceptable | |
| PBC→BI | 0.259 | 0.038 | 6.801 | ** | 0.299 | Acceptable | |
| SN→BI | 0.094 | 0.032 | 2.934 | * | 0.103 | Acceptable | |
| CI→BI | 0.527 | 0.044 | 11.913 | *** | 0.529 | Acceptable |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).