Environmental Institutional Determinants of Climate Behavior in Taiwan's Public Officials

1. Introduction

Climate change Climate change is among the defining challenges of the twenty-first century, with far-reaching environmental, social, and economic consequences [1,2,3,4]. Meeting this challenge requires not only technological innovation and robust policy frameworks but also the active engagement of public officials, who translate statutory visions into administrative practice [5,6]. International initiatives such as the European Green Deal (EGD) demonstrate how comprehensive governance frameworks can accelerate renewable energy adoption, mainstream circular economy policies, and enhance regional leadership [7,8]. These experiences highlight administrative capacity as central to achieving carbon neutrality. In Taiwan, the Climate Change Response Act similarly emphasizes the need for institutional readiness and governance capacity to realize long-term climate objectives [9,10].

1.1. Climate Change Literacy and the Knowledge-Behavior Gap

Individual responses to climate change shape both mitigation and adaptation efforts, with broader implications for sustainable development and human well-being.[11,12]. Research shows these responses are influenced by socioeconomic conditions, psychological dispositions, cultural orientations, and institutional contexts [13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Among these factors, climate change literacy (CCL) is widely recognized as a multidimensional construct that offers both the conceptual foundation and practical tools for understanding climate change, enabling informed decision-making and pro-environmental behavior [20,21]. Higher climate literacy has been linked to greater risk perception, more substantial concern, and higher policy support [22,23,24]. Yet, findings are inconsistent: knowledge alone often proves insufficient—and at times counterproductive—for motivating behavior, as information can reinforce existing beliefs rather than prompt action. This suggests that literacy operates indirectly through affective factors such as concern and self-efficacy, or with institutional supports [25]. In Taiwan, while citizens and students report high awareness and concern, their actual participation in climate action remains limited, revealing a persistent “knowledge–behavior gap” [26,27]. This underscores the need to investigate how institutional and organizational conditions facilitate or constrain the translation of literacy into action.

1.2. Policy Vision to Administrative Practice: The Critical Role of Public Officials

Translating statutory climate targets into outcomes depends heavily on civil servants, who coordinate cross-agency planning, manage budgets and regulations, and facilitate collaboration with stakeholders [28,29]. Comparative governance research emphasizes the need for governments to build capacity, establish clear mandates, and enhance administrative systems to deliver climate action at the required pace and scale [30,31].

Taiwan’s Climate Change Literacy (CCL) survey initially focused on the general public and students, but was later expanded to officials. Enhancing workplace engagement and embedding climate literacy into routine administrative practice across central and local agencies has become increasingly critical [32,33,34]. This progression—from policy vision capacity building and everyday implementation—positions officials’ CCL as a pivotal mechanism for accelerating mitigation and adaptation, advancing sustainable procurement reforms, and strengthening place-based resilience planning [26].

1.3. Behavior Differences Across Governance Contexts

Research on organizational behavior consistently shows that leadership support, resource provision, and organizational culture strongly shape employees’ willingness to adopt innovative or sustainability-oriented practices [35,36,37,38]. In the public sector, supportive supervisors and environmentally oriented organizational climates are linked to stronger pro-environmental engagement, suggesting mechanisms through which knowledge and affection translate into action [39,40].

At the same time, institutional arrangements define the opportunities and constraints for implementing climate policy. Scholarship highlights how leadership clarity, mandate design, resource availability, and intergovernmental coordination condition the mainstreaming of climate policy at subnational levels [41,42,43]. Local governments often operate with tighter capacity constraints and more immediate stakeholder pressures than central agencies, producing different behavioral responses even under the same statutory frameworks [44,45,46]. Cross-level comparisons between central and local governments are therefore essential for identifying institutional heterogeneity and understanding how different incentive structures and governance contexts mediate the relationship between knowledge, affection, and behavior.

Central agencies are typically responsible for policy design and inter-ministerial coordination, while local governments focus on implementation, community outreach, and disaster response [41,47]. Understanding how supervisory support, departmental involvement, and cross-level dynamics influence officials’ ability to translate their knowledge and affection into action is crucial for assessing implementation readiness and identifying capacity gaps that may hinder Taiwan’s broader climate governance objectives.

1.4. Research Objectives

Against this backdrop, this study systematically evaluates the climate change literacy (CCL) of Taiwanese public officials, focusing on the interplay between knowledge, affection, and behavior. Beyond providing a baseline assessment of literacy levels, the research highlights the institutional contexts that shape whether climate awareness translates into action. Specifically, it examines how supervisory support and departmental involvement influence the relationship between CCL and behavioral practices. By comparing behaviors across various institutional and organizational settings, this study extends the application of CCL frameworks to the field of public administration. In doing so, it addresses a key gap in the climate governance research and offers practical insights for designing capacity-building programs, strengthening administrative readiness, and supporting Taiwan’s long-term goals of carbon neutrality and resilience.

2. Materials and Methods

This study examines the climate change literacy (CCL) of Taiwanese public officials, focusing on the knowledge, affective, and behavioral domains, as well as the institutional factors that shape their engagement in climate policy. Understanding how officials perceive, internalize, and respond to climate change information is crucial for implementing effective mitigation and adaptation policies [48,49]. The methodological framework is built upon established national CCL surveys in Taiwan and incorporates organizational perspectives from public administration studies [50].

2.1. Data Sources and Sampling Procedures

Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey of Taiwanese public officials in 2024. The process of questionnaire construction and survey implementation is illustrated in Figure 1. A stratified quota sampling strategy was used to ensure representativeness across three dimensions: (a) government levels (central vs. local), (b) policy domains, and (c) administrative ranks. This design aligns with best practices in governance research, as stratified sampling minimizes selection bias and improves coverage of diverse populations [51].

The questionnaire (full version in Appendix A) was distributed primarily online through official channels, with Fax and mail options for agencies with limited internet access. Telephone follow-ups were conducted to confirm delivery and encourage participation, thereby reducing missing data.

Before launch, the survey was cognitively pre-tested with 56 public officials to ensure clarity and contextual appropriateness. The pre-test assessed response time, item distributions, and reliability. The final dataset included 1,940 valid responses after excluding incomplete or invalid cases.. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and only active government employees aged 20 or older were eligible.

2.2. Measurement of Climate Change Literacy

The CCL framework builds upon the National Environmental Literacy Survey [26,50,52]. It conceptualizes CCL as a multi-dimensional construct with three domains—knowledge, affect, and behavior—representing understanding, emotional response, and participation in climate issues. Each domain was operationalized through sub-dimensions and measured with items designed to reflect both individual and institutional contexts. Figure 2 illustrates the framework.

Knowledge Domain. The dimension assessed officials’ understanding of the scientific, contextual, and strategic aspects of climate change, through three sub-domains: (a) content knowledge –fundamental concepts such as the greenhouse effect, anthropogenic impacts, and global emissions trends; (b) issue knowledge –the broader context, including natural variability, the human–climate relationship, and evolving policy frameworks; and (c) strategy knowledge – knowledge of mitigation and adaptation strategies at national and international levels. Items were multiple-choice or true-false, scored dichotomously and aggregated into a composite score of knowledge literacy.

Affective Domain. This dimension assessed officials’ values, attitudes, and motivation for climate action, with five sub-domains: (a) sensitivity – perceiving climate impacts and their extent; (b) values – recognizing of stakeholder responsibilities and the need for cross-sector cooperation; (c) self-efficacy – believing in one’s own ability to adapt, communicate, and cooperate on climate issues; (d) sense of hope – a positive psychological state involving persistence, support from others, and knowledge of strategies; and (e) environmental identity – seeing that environmental protection/environmental problem-solving is important to individuals and even part of one’s self-image. Constructs were measured with five-point Likert-scale items (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), and mean scores were calculated for each sub-dimension.

Behavioral Domain. This dimension assessed how public officials translate knowledge and attitudes into action. Sub-domains included: (a) individual skills, which include the ability to collect, apply, and plan climate change information and activities, and to build partnerships across sectors; (b) individual behavior, which refers to actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change.; and (c) civic engagement, including generating intention and experience in collective climate action. Items were rated on a five-point frequency scale (1 = never to 5 = always) and averaged to create action scores.

To capture the organizational settings in which knowledge and affection are translated into action, the 2024 survey asked about officials’ duties and support. Specifically, respondents reported: (1) prior involvement in climate-related projects, (2) the extent to which current work relates to climate issues, and (3) perceived supervisor support for integrating climate considerations. These factors were used as institutional variables in regression analyses to test how professional engagement and organizational support shape behavioral outcomes.

2.3. Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using Stata 15.1. To examine mechanisms linking literacy to behavior, hierarchical regression analyses (HRA) were conducted [17]. Independent variables were entered sequentially: knowledge and demographics, then affective domains, then institutional variables. This stepwise approach tested how institutional contexts contribute to explaining behavior and whether administrative structures influence action [54].

Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses were further used to compare central and local officials [20,26,53]. Both dummy variable and split-sample analyses were used to test whether literacy and institutional factors varied significantly across levels of government. This is how institutional culture and administrative roles influence behavior [54,55]. Five hypotheses guided the study:

H1: Higher knowledge literacy predicts stronger behavioral engagement.

H2: Higher affective literacy predicts stronger engagement.

H3: Prior or current involvement in climate tasks predicts higher engagement.

H4: Supervisor support enhances engagement.

H5: Central and local officials differ significantly in behavioral engagement, reflecting institutional heterogeneity.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic and Background Assessment

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the 1,940 valid responses, providing a profile of Taiwan’s administrative workforce. The gender distribution was balanced (54.2% women; 45.8% men). The largest age groups were 30–39 (32.3%) and 40–49 (32.0%), followed by 50–59 (17.7%). Younger officials (<29) accounted for 13.9%, while only 4.1% were 60–69. This pattern indicates that most respondents were mid-career professionals, consistent with the civil service structure.

Educational attainment reflected a highly qualified workforce: 51.4% held a bachelor’s degree, 38.4% a master’s, and 2.1% a doctorate. Only 7.0% reported below-tertiary education, meaning over 93% had tertiary education or higher. This profile positions officials well to address complex governance challenges, such as implementing climate policy.

In terms of tenure, 44.7% had <10 years of service, 33.3% had 10–19 years, 13.6% had 20–29 years, and 8.0% had 30–39 years. Fewer than 1% reported 40 years or more. This suggests a relatively junior workforce, balanced by a notable group of mid- to long-tenured officials contributing institutional knowledge.

Regarding affiliation, 57.0% worked in central government and 43.0% in local government. This split enables analysis of institutional differences: central agencies typically focus on policy design and coordination, while local administrations emphasize implementation, outreach, and frontline adaptation. Together, these characteristics provide context for interpreting how literacy relates to institutional behavior.

Hierarchical regression (Table 2) tested the effects of knowledge, affective, and institutional factors on behavior. In the baseline model, strategy knowledge (SK) was positively associated with behavior (β ≈ 0.04, p < 0.001), while content (CK) and issue knowledge (IK) were not significant. These results partially support H1 and align with prior research emphasizing the importance of solution-oriented knowledge[56,57].

Affective variables showed robust effects, strongly supporting H2. Self-efficacy was the most potent predictor (β ≈ 0.56–0.61, p < 0.001), consistent with social cognitive theory and studies linking efficacy beliefs to pro-environmental action [58]. Environmental identity was also positively associated (β ≈ 0.13–0.14, p < 0.001), confirming that self-perception as an environmentally responsible individual strengthens engagement [59].

Institutional factors also played a role, supporting H3 and H4. Departmental involvement (“related”) and supervisor support (“support”) both showed significant positive effects (β ≈ 0.07, p < 0.001; β ≈ 0.03, p < 0.05). These results underscore the importance of organizational relevance and hierarchical support in enabling action [60,61,62,63,64,65]. These suggest that the organizational context is crucial, alongside individual literacy and attitudes.

Control variables were included in all models. Education was positively associated with behavior (β ≈ 0.02–0.06, p < 0.001), while gender and age showed weak or inconsistent associations. Importantly, model fit improved substantially: R² rose from 0.04 in the baseline to 0.56 in the complete model, showing that affective and institutional variables added significant explanatory power.

Separate OLS models for central (N = 1,106) and local (N = 834) officials (Table 3) provided clear support for H5. Both groups relied heavily on self-efficacy and environmental identity, with consistent magnitudes (central: β = 0.55 and 0.13; local: β = 0.57 and 0.13, all p < 0.001).

Institutional variables diverged. For central officials, departmental relevance was a significant predictor (β = 0.09, p < 0.001), whereas supervisor support and prior task involvement were not. For local officials, by contrast, supervisor support (β = 0.05, p < 0.05) and prior project involvement (β = 0.09, p < 0.05) were significant, while departmental relevance was not. This indicates that local engagement depends less on formal mandates and more on managerial encouragement and hands-on experience, consistent with research on resource-constrained local governments [66].

Interestingly, strategy knowledge (SK) had a small but significant adverse effect among local officials (β = –0.016, p < 0.05). This suggests that awareness of strategies may heighten perceptions of bureaucratic or political constraints. This paradox echoes a prior study, showing that knowledge does not automatically lead to implementation without supportive institutions [67].

4. Discussion

This study examined how officials’ knowledge, affective, and behavior interrelate across mitigation, adaptation, and civic participation. Building on this, it explored how supervisory support strengthens the translation of knowledge and affection into actions, particularly when supervisors endorse integrating climate issues into daily tasks. It also assessed the influence of departmental climate experience, testing whether prior involvement fosters more proactive cultures. Finally, it compared central and local officials to evaluate how institutional contexts such as hierarchy and governance style shape behavioral engagement. Together, the findings offer theoretical and practical insights into the knowledge–behavior gap, psychological dispositions, and organizational contexts in climate governance.

Findings partially supported H1, which states that strategy knowledge predicts behavior, while content and issue knowledge do not. This underscores a key point: factual and contextual knowledge, though necessary, are insufficient for behavioral change without actionable, solution-oriented understanding [68]. Strategy knowledge provides feasible tools that help close part of the knowledge–behavior gap [26].

H2 was strongly supported. Self-efficacy was the most potent predictor (β ≈ 0.56–0.61, p < 0.001), consistent with social cognitive theory and prior findings [69]. Environmental identity also had positive effects (β ≈ 0.13–0.14, p < 0.001), confirming that viewing oneself as an environmentally responsible actor strengthens behavioral consistency [70]. By contrast, sensitivity, values, and hope were nonsignificant, suggesting that action depends less on awareness or moral stance than on capacity and identity alignment.

H3 and H4 were also supported. Departmental involvement and supervisor support both exerted significant positive effects (β ≈ 0.07, p < 0.001; β ≈ 0.03, p < 0.05), highlighting the importance of organizational climate and leadership in facilitating the translation of literacy and affect into behavior. Institutional theory emphasizes that agency is embedded within norms and structures, and our findings confirm that organizational contexts amplify the role of literacy and affective dispositions [71,72].

H5 was clearly supported. Both central and local officials relied heavily on self-efficacy and identity, but institutional pathways diverged. For central officials, departmental relevance was the only significant institutional predictor, suggesting a reliance on mandates but also constraints imposed by bureaucratic awareness. Local officials, by contrast, were shaped by supervisor support and prior involvement, showing that managerial encouragement and practical experience drive frontline engagement.

4.1. Implications

Practically, this study offers guidance for strengthening Taiwan’s climate governance under the Climate Change Response Act. For central agencies, reforms should streamline mandates, clarify responsibilities, and reduce fragmentation, so that knowledge translates into capacity rather than being hindered by institutional constraints. For local governments, policies should prioritize supervisory training, experiential learning, and capacity-building, as these approaches are effective in driving frontline engagement. More broadly, the study contributes to the field of behavioral public administration by highlighting the importance of leadership exemplars, training programs, and internal governance mechanisms in fostering a climate-conscious public sector. Internationally, the findings offer comparative lessons for other multi-level systems, where aligning capacities with institutional supports is essential for effective climate action.

4.2. Strengths and Limitations

A significant strength of this study is its large, nationally representative dataset (N = 1,940), providing robust evidence on officials’ climate literacy across central and local governments. It also integrates multidimensional measures of CCL with institutional factors, providing a comprehensive framework that is rarely applied in prior research. Methodologically, the central–local comparison offers a nuanced view of both individual and institutional determinants, thereby contributing to the intersection between environmental psychology and public administration.

Several limitations should be noted. First, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference; future work should use longitudinal or experimental approaches to capture the dynamic processes linking literacy, institutions, and behavior. Second, reliance on self-reports may introduce social desirability bias, especially on politically salient topics. Third, while distinguishing central and local officials, the study does not fully capture sectoral variation across policy domains. Finally, the Taiwan focus offers valuable insights but may limit generalizability; comparative research across diverse political and institutional settings would extend validation.

5. Conclusions

Institutional factors also conditioned these relationships. Departmental involvement and supervisor support significantly enhanced engagement, underscoring the importance of organizational climates and leadership in enabling knowledge and affection to translate into action. Cross-level comparisons further confirmed divergence: central officials’ behaviors were shaped by departmental mandates and bureaucratic constraints, whereas local officials relied more on supervisory encouragement and experiential involvement. These results validate institutional theory by showing that individual literacy and attitudes are embedded within broader organizational and governance structures.

The study contributes theoretically by bridging environmental psychology with institutional perspectives, showing that effective climate governance requires both individual agency and supportive institutional contexts. Policy implications include strengthening leadership exemplars, investing in training, and reinforcing governance mechanisms to foster a climate-conscious public sector.

Appendix A.1. Taiwanese Public Servants’ Climate Change Literacy Perception Survey - Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions by providing what you believe to be the most appropriate answer (True/False and multiple-choice questions).

Sub-domains

Question

Background Information (3)

Q1. When did you first hear about the term ‘’climate change’’? (1) Just now (I had never heard it before) (2) Within the past year (3) Within the past 1-3 years (4) Within the past 3-5 years (5) Within the past 5-10 years (6) Within the past 10-15 years (7) Within the past 15-20 years (8) More than 20 years ago (9) I have heard of it, but cannot recall when Q2. Before today, have you ever heard of the term “climate change mitigation”? ☐ Yes ☐ No Q3. Before today, have you ever heard of the term “climate change adaptation”? ☐ Yes ☐ No