Skip to main content
Download PDF

The public’s intention to vote for continued use of woody biomass for energy in Denmark: a cognitive hierarchy perspective

Energy, Sustainability and Society volume 13, Article number: 45 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To be socially robust, renewable energy policies aiming at achieving a low-carbon society require public support. Woody biomass is an important renewable energy source. It accounts for a large share of the renewable energy consumption in several EU countries. However, its sustainability credentials are contested. Little is known as yet about how the public perceives woody biomass. This paper aims to examine the public’s intention to vote for continued use of woody biomass, and to find out whether this voting intention can be explained using the cognitive hierarchy model. This model posits that values, attitudes and beliefs predict higher order cognitions like intention. We extend the model by including an additional variable (perceived benefit). Although the model is widely used in connection with natural resource management issues, it has not yet been applied to the case of increasingly contested energy sources like woody biomass. We use Denmark as a case study given that woody biomass makes up the largest share of the renewable energy mix in the country.

Results

Results of a nationwide questionnaire-based survey of the general public show that a large proportion of Danes are undecided about their attitudes towards, and their intention to vote for, woody biomass. Structural equation modeling results show that belief in the mitigation potential of woody biomass has a significant positive effect on both attitudes and voting intention. Altruistic and egoistic values have a significant positive effect on attitudes, which in turn have a significant positive influence on voting intention. We also confirm the mediating role of attitudes.

Conclusions

Understanding public opinion-making processes can help to promote environmental decision-making that takes due account of public perceptions of the ways in which energy transitions come about. The cognitive hierarchy model is an apt framework with which to predict voting intention in the context of contested energy sources.

Background

There are less than four years left to break the rising CO2 curve if the temperature rise on the planet is to be limited to 1.5 °C [1]. One of the initiatives to overcome our reliance on non-renewable energy sources is using bioenergy derived from woody biomass. Although it is often assumed that woody biomass energy is carbon neutral, its mitigation potential and the timescales over which that mitigation can be realized have been questioned (e.g., [2, 3]). Moreover, the energy crisis we are currently facing as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has accentuated concerns about increased consumption of woody biomass [4, 5].

Woody biomass perception studies have focused largely on a limited number of stakeholders and less so on civil society (exceptions include [6, 7]). This is surprising given that public attitudes influence policy decisions and can direct change in democratic countries [8], and given that lack of public support has at times been an obstacle to the effective implementation of environmental policies [9].

Tackling climate change calls for a sound understanding of the psychological processes at play in human behavior [10, 11]. Hence, this study aims to provide a better understanding of the cognitive and socio-psychological factors influencing the formation of public views on woody biomass. Public acceptance of the use of woody biomass for energy needs to be examined by investigating not just attitudes towards it but also potential behavior. In the study reported here, the most likely (albeit hypothetical) type of behavior of relevance is assumed to be a referendum, i.e. a direct vote by the electorate on a proposal, law or political issue. Thus we examine voting intentions. Such intentions are distinct from actual voting behavior [12]. It should also be noted that factors such as individuals’ self-interest might play an important role in their voting intentions [13, 14]. Duty motives and social incentives can also be relevant [14].

Specifically, we investigate the voting intentions of the Danish public in a referendum on continued use of woody biomass. Denmark is particularly well suited for this kind of study. Concern about climate change is at the forefront of the Danish public’s consciousness [15], and there is political consensus over highly ambitious climate targets [16]. Woody biomass energy represents the largest share of renewable energy consumption in the country [17, 18]. Its use is expected to be one of the most important factors in Danish climate policy in the coming years [19]. However, because the carbon neutrality of woody biomass cannot be guaranteed, and since this energy source is also scarce, some have called for Denmark’s biomass consumption to be reduced (e.g., [20, 21]).

Theoretical framework

This study draws on the value-attitude-behavior (VAB) cognitive hierarchy model first presented by Homer and Kahle in 1988 (see [22]). Within the VAB framework, values interact with other cognitive factors to constitute a foundation for attitudes, which in turn have an effect on intention and/or behavior [23, 24]. Values are conceptualized as abstract life goals [25]. Eagly and Chaiken (see [26]) define an attitude as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (p.1). Behavioral intention, which can be defined as “a willful state of choice where one makes a self-implicated statement as to a future course of action” (see [27], p. 145), is the most immediate determinant of behavior [28]. Factors outside the originally envisioned VAB model are likely to influence intention either directly or indirectly through their interaction with other variables in the model. In this context, there have been recent calls for the examination of the effect of socio-demographic characteristics in studies using the VAB approach [29, 30].

Figure 1 shows the adapted version of the VAB model used in this study. Public support for policy decisions aiming at reducing emissions is usually depicted as something that is associated with values, attitudes and perceptions [31]. To reflect the perception factor, we added the variable “perceived benefit”—operationalized as belief in the mitigation potential of woody biomass. Beliefs are often defined as cognitions that posit an association between an object and an attribute, or another object [26, 32]. Previous research has pointed out that acceptance of climate and energy policies is associated with perceived policy effectiveness [9, 33]. We aim to explore in detail both the structure of, and the relationships between, the constructs proposed in Fig. 1. The Methods section explains how each of the constructs were operationalized.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual representation of a cognitive hierarchy model of voting intention

Full size image

Socio-psychological models drawing on the VAB theory have been used in theoretical and empirical research into, for example, environmental behavior (e.g., [34,35,36,37]), natural resource management (e.g., [38,39,40]), and conservation (e.g., [41,42,43]). The model has also been applied extensively in studies of attitudes to, and behavior affecting, wildlife (e.g., [44,45,46,47,48,49]). To the best of our knowledge, however, no studies have used a socio-psychological model to assess public support for contested energy policies. More generally, evidenced analysis of the relationship between socio-psychological factors and behaviors in the energy domain has not yet been provided [29]. Our aim is to begin to remedy this shortcoming.

The so-called “attitude-behavior gap”, which arises where behavior fails to reflect attitudes, is well known [50]. Studies in the Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behavior have shown that the correlation between attitudes and behavior is not always strong. This discrepancy has been investigated extensively (e.g., [51,52,53,54,55]), and it has been suggested that the lack of correlation may be influenced by factors such as subjective norms or perceived control over performance of the behavior [56].

To overcome the difficulties here policy interventions may be necessary. In the present context, studies clarifying the impact of factors such as values and beliefs on public perception and intentions could enable policy interventions that are more comprehensive and effective to be developed. However, given the reported discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, the current study aims to evaluate the relationship between attitudes and voting intention as a way of evaluating public support for energy policy.

Aims and hypothesis development

The aim of this study is to assess the Danish public’s views on woody biomass, and the cognitive and socio-psychological factors affecting them, within a cognitive hierarchy framework. The specific objectives of the study are threefold. First, to elucidate voting intention, measured as intention to vote for continued use of woody biomass. Second, to explore value structures and views on woody biomass (namely attitudes towards its use and belief in its mitigation potential) that are relevant to understanding voting intention. Third, to assess the contribution of the independent variables at each level of the cognitive hierarchy model, including the study of voting intention as a function of values, attitudes and perceived benefit. The potential effects of socio-demographic factors (age, gender and education) on the predicted relationships in the model are also examined. We shall now develop a series of hypotheses to explore the contribution of variables at each level of the proposed hierarchy, in line with the third objective.

Hypothesized role of values

Values have been found to predict not only attitudes, but also constructs higher up in the cognitive hierarchy, including intentions [57,58,59,60,61,62]. Previous research has shown that pro-environmental attitudes, behavioral intentions and behaviors are positively predicted by altruistic and/or biospheric values and negatively predicted by egoistic values (e.g., [58, 63,64,65]). Assuming that woody biomass is a “green” energy source—which is the way it is often portrayed in Denmark—then having a positive attitude towards it, and being likely to vote for its continued use, can be seen as “pro-environmental” attitudes and intentions, respectively. We would expect that people caring about the wellbeing of their peers and future generations (those scoring higher on altruistic values) or about the protection of the environment (those scoring higher on biospheric values) will have more positive attitudes towards woody biomass, and therefore a higher likelihood of voting for its continued use. Finally, we would expect that people attaching more importance to themselves (those scoring higher on egoistic values) will tend instead to have a negative attitude towards it, and thus a lower likelihood of voting for it. Based on this, we constructed hypotheses H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H3a and H3b (see Table 1).

Table 1 Hypothesized roles of values, belief (perceived benefit) and attitudes
Full size table

Hypothesized role of perceived benefit

Specific beliefs about an object predict attitudes to that object. In the consumer behavior literature, it is often posited that a consumer’s perception of the benefits of a particular product significantly has an effect on their intention to buy that product [66]. Likewise, an individual’s belief in the positive environmental outcome of an energy source is associated with attitudinal and behavioral intentions regarding this source [66]. For instance, García-Maroto et al. [67] hypothesize that the belief about the potential environmental benefits of biomass has a positive effect on attitudes to it. In our case, we would assume that an individual who believes in the mitigation potential of woody biomass would have a positive attitude towards it and would have a higher likelihood of voting for its continued use. Based on this, hypotheses H4 and H5 were advanced (Table 1).

Hypothesized role of attitudes

Attitude towards a behavior has proven to be a predictor that helps to explain intention [68,69,70]. This also applies to energy-related intentions [71,72,73,74]. García-Maroto et al. [67] hypothesize that attitude has a positive effect on the intention to adopt biomass heating. Similarly, Lee et al. [75] hypothesize that attitudes to energy saving positively predict intention to save energy. Following this, H6 was proposed (Table 1). We also consider the mediating role of attitudes. Although we hypothesize that values predict intention directly (H1b, H2b and H3b), these have been mainly found to indirectly predict intention and/or behavior through attitudes (e.g., [30, 76]). Moreover, as we posit in H4, it is hypothesized that perceived benefit has an effect on attitudes, and since in turn it is also hypothesized that it predicts intention, a mediating role of attitudes in the perceived benefit-intention relationship is also expected. With this in mind, hypotheses H7a to H7d were proposed (Table 1).

Figure 2 summarizes our research model, including the constructs and expected relationships. H7a, H7b, H7c, and H7d (not illustrated in the diagram) are the result of the multiplication of different paths, namely H1a*H6, H2a*H6, H3a*H6, and H4*H6, respectively. Given the ambiguous results as regards the effect of socio-demographic factors, we did not propose any specific hypotheses associated with these, nor include them in Fig. 2, but treated them instead as control variables that were used to examine whether the predicted relationships in the model differed across socio-demographic groups.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Research model proposed for the study of intention to vote for woody biomass for energy. Continuous lines refer to hypothesized direct effects and dotted lines refer to hypothesized indirect effects

Full size image

Methods

Participants and procedure

An online questionnaire was sent in spring 2021 to a sample of the Danish population identified in a panel of 100,000 Danish citizens administered by a survey agency (Voxmeter). Permission to use the questionnaire, the English version of which is available in Additional file 1, was granted by the Research Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences (University of Copenhagen) (Approval No. 514-0191/21-5000).

Participants were recruited using soft quotas for age, gender and geographical region. A final sample size of 1,023 was obtained after excluding respondents who completed the survey in less than seven minutes (the minimum time deemed necessary to complete it) and respondents submitting questionable answer patterns such as straightlining. In all, 37 participants were discarded based on these criteria. A response rate of 20% was achieved (see Table 2).

Table 2 Recruitment process
Full size table

51% of respondents were female and 49% were male. The sample age range was 19 to 83 (mean = 49.42, standard deviation = 15.86) (see Table 3). When comparing our sample with the available Danish population statistics, we found that it overrepresented people with higher education but was reasonably representative in terms of gender and region and only showed slight deviations for age. Before the survey was launched, the questionnaire was pre-tested using a cognitive interview technique [77, 78] with 11 randomly selected Danish respondents. The main purpose was to ensure that the questionnaire was clear and easy to understand. Following changes to improve the wording and clarity, a pilot test with 100 randomly selected Danish citizens was conducted. Both the pre-test and pilot test helped improve the formulation and response options. Further, the pilot test was used to estimate the survey completion time.

Table 3 Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (unweighted) and comparison with the Danish population
Full size table

Measurements

Values

Values were measured using the Brief Inventory of Values (BIV) (see Additional file 2) developed by Stern et al. (see [63]) and validated by previous researchers (e.g., [79, 80]). Each value was composed of three items. Respondents were told that there are a series of items associated with some guiding principles and asked to signal the importance of each of them in their lives on a 5-point Likert scale. The original BIV includes five values directed upon distinctive objects (shown in brackets): altruistic (the welfare of others), biospheric (the environment and the biosphere), egoistic (oneself), traditional (family structure and function) and openness to change (novelty and excitement). We decided to use the first three of these in our model, since previous research had pointed up the importance of these in explaining environmental behavior (e.g., [58, 79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89]).

Attitudes towards and perceived benefit of woody biomass

Attitudes towards woody biomass were measured by asking respondents how they feel about replacing fossil fuels with woody biomass to generate energy. Attitudes were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (very negative to very positive). We assessed respondents’ perceived benefit of woody biomass by asking them to rate their level of agreement with the assumption that using woody biomass for energy emits less GHG emissions than using non-renewable energy sources on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) with an I don’t know off-scale option. Both attitudes and perceived benefit are reported in a previously published paper using the same dataset (see [15]).

Voting intention

Voting intention was measured by presenting respondents with the following question: “Imagine that the government asks in a referendum about whether woody biomass should continue to be used for energy instead of fossil fuels. How likely is it that you would vote Yes for continued use of woody biomass for energy?”. Voting intention (i.e., likelihood of voting for continued use of woody biomass) was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from very unlikely to very likely.

Socio-demographic (control) variables

Previous studies have indicated that age, gender and education are associated with energy and environmental behaviors [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98], including energy conservation behaviors [99,100,101,102,103]. Thus, we included these as control variables. Age is a continuous variable recoded into a categorical variable with three categories (18–34, 35–49 and ≥ 50). For gender and education two binary variables were generated representing the male and female dichotomy and the lower education and higher education dichotomy, respectively.

Data analysis

Data analyses included descriptive analyses and reliability analyses using IBM SPSS Statistics version 28.0 and structural equation modeling (SEM) with bootstrapping estimation using the AMOS 28.0 statistical package. Univariate results for the variables voting intention, attitudes, perceived benefit and values are reported using a weight variable that adjusts respondents’ age, gender and region to the population census. For the BIV, items within each of the value structures were averaged to calculate individual respondents’ scores on each scale. The reliability of the inventory was tested to confirm that the individual items measured their respective constructs consistently [104] using Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability coefficients.

SEM was performed to test the hypothesized structural model (see Fig. 2). We followed the recommendation of Anderson and Gerbing (see [104]) to validate the model using a two-step strategy. We first performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation to assess the psychometric properties of the measurement model as evaluated through model fit indices. Here we also tested whether standardized factor loadings were above 0.4 [105, 106]. Further, we tested the structural validity of the measurement model by assessing its convergent and discriminant validity, and its construct reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was evaluated to assess convergent validity, which was confirmed when AVE ≥ 0.5 [107]. Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which the different dimensions are actually distinct [104]. It is confirmed if the AVE of each latent variable is larger than the square of the correlation estimates among constructs [107, 108]. Finally, construct reliability consists of composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s α, of which acceptable levels are 0.6 [109] and 0.7 [110], respectively. In a second step, the structural model fit was assessed using ML estimation. The goodness-of-fit indices used to evaluate the fit of the measurement and structural models were the ratio of chi-square (χ2) to degrees of freedom (χ2/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker Lewis index (TLI), the normed fit index (NFI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the p of close fit (PCLOSE) [111, 112]. Models with a χ2/df in the range of 2 to 5, RMSEA and SRMR having values close to (or lower than) 0.08 and 0.06, respectively, and CFI, TLI and NFI values close to 0.95 or higher were taken to present an acceptable fit [113,114,115,116]. The mediation role of attitudes was tested using user-defined estimands and bootstrapping at a 95% confidence interval with 5,000 samples [117, 118] and standardized indirect effects, and the confidence interval of the lower and upper bounds and the p values associated with the hypothesized attitude-mediated paths were reported.

Finally, we conducted multigroup SEM analyses to test whether there were significant changes in the measurement parameters and structural paths across socio-demographic groups. We followed the analysis of multigroup invariance proposed by Byrne et al. (see [119]) in which sets of parameters are constrained to be equal across groups of the control variable in a logically ordered and increasingly restrictive manner. Invariance testing involves checking whether the added equality constraints imply a statistically significant decrease in the fit of the model relative to an unconstrained model through χ2 value difference (Δχ2) tests. These invariance tests begin with an evaluation of the equivalence of the measurement model in which the equality of factor loadings is tested across groups. If measurement invariance is observed, factor loadings are constrained to be equal and subsequent tests of the structural parameters are performed requiring the regression coefficients (so-called structural weights) among the different variables to be group-invariant. If significant differences arose, we screened for critical ratio values ≥│1.96│, which indicate the existence of a statistically significantly different path between groups at p < 0.05.

In the SEM analyses, values are latent continuous variables. Perceived benefit is treated as a dichotomous variable where 1 = belief (strongly agree or agree response options to the statement about woody biomass leading to less emissions) and 0 = other (remaining response options). Attitudes and voting intention, although they are ordered categorical variables, were treated as continuous. This was justified by their distribution (i.e., skewness and kurtosis ≤ |2.0|), the fact that they had at least five ordered scale points and the further fact that we wanted to consider their underlying latent continuum [120,121,122].

Results

Perceptions of woody biomass for energy

Intentions to vote for woody biomass

Around 46% of respondents reported that it was neither likely nor unlikely that they would vote in favor of continued use of woody biomass (Table 4). A quarter (25%) said that it was likely that they would do so and around 6% that it was very likely. Around 17% and 6% reported that it was unlikely and very unlikely, respectively.

Table 4 Descriptive statistics (%) for voting intention, attitude and perceived benefit (unweighted n = 1023)
Full size table

Attitude towards and perceived benefit of woody biomass

The highest share (45%) of respondents stated that they were neither positive nor negative in their attitude to woody biomass. While 30% of respondents were positive and 9% were very positive, 12% were negative and 4% were very negative. Turning to respondents’ belief in the mitigation potential of woody biomass, almost two-thirds reported being undecided by answering either I don’t know (32%) or neither agree nor disagree (26%), while 29% and 5% agreed and strongly agreed, respectively. Only around 6% and 2% disagreed and strongly disagreed, respectively.

Results of structural equation analyses

Measurement model results

Model fit

CFA revealed that the measurement model (Fig. 3) had a good fit to the data (χ2/df = 4.251, SRMR = 0.041, RMSEA (CI90%) = 0.056 (0.045–0.068), CFI = 0.971, TLI = 0.957, NFI = 0.963, PCLOSE = 0.163). All the standardized factor loadings (β) of the individual items in relation to their respective latent constructs were above 0.4 and significant at the p < 0.001 level, indicating that the three-factor BIV has acceptable construct validity (Table 5).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Measurement model results (standardized factor loadings). Alt. 1: Social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak; Alt. 2: Equality, equal opportunity for all; Alt. 3: A world of peace, free of war and conflict; Bio. 1: Respecting the earth, harmony with other species; Bio. 2: Protecting the environment, preserving nature; Bio. 3: Unity with nature, fitting into nature; Ego. 1: Social power, control over others, dominance; Ego. 2: Authority, the right to lead or command; Ego. 3: Wealth, material possessions, money (BIV scale developed by [63])

Full size image
Table 5 Internal and convergent reliability of measurement model
Full size table
Construct reliability and validity

Table 6 shows descriptive statistics for the values scales. The altruistic and biospheric values had a higher level of agreement (higher mean) than the egoistic values. The scales presented acceptable levels of skewness and kurtosis, not exceeding the threshold of ± 2 [123, 124]. Further, the CRs of the three value scales were all above 0.6, indicating good reliability. We found good convergent validity for the biospheric scale (AVE > 0.5). The altruistic and egoistic scales had acceptable convergent validities, since their AVEs were relatively close to what is considered a good convergent validity value of ≥ 0.5. The biospheric values scale had adequate reliability (α = 0.827), showing a satisfactory level of internal consistency. The altruistic and egoistic values scales had lower reliabilities, with α coefficients of 0.687 and 0.675, respectively. Further, our results confirmed the discriminant validity of the scales (see further details in Additional file 3). To sum up, the measurement model reliability, validity and CFA results supported using SEM to analyze the data.

Table 6 Descriptive statistics (unweighted n = 1023) and convergent validity and construct reliability results
Full size table

Structural equation model results and overview of the hypothesis tests

The hypothesized structural equation model showed a good fit (χ2/df = 3.391, SRMR = 0.053, RMSEA (CI90%) = 0.048 (0.040–0.057), CFI = 0.970, TLI = 0.956, NFI = 0.958, PCLOSE = 0.610). Figure 4 shows the path diagram of the structural equation model. Values explained 16% of the variance in attitudes (R2 = 0.16). Attitudes and perceived benefit explained 49% of the variance in voting intention (R2 = 0.49). SEM results for the direct and indirect paths are shown in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. Altruistic values had a statistically significant positive effect on attitudes (β = 0.134, p < 0.05), in line with H1a. However, the biospheric values did not predict attitudes at the statistically significant level (β = − 0.089, p > 0.05), thus providing no evidence for acceptance of H2a. The egoistic values had a statistically significant positive effect on attitudes (β = 0.103, p < 0.01). This positive association is not consistent with the directionality of H3a. Believing in the mitigation potential of woody biomass had a significant positive effect on attitudes (β = 0.377, p < 0.001) and voting intention (β = 0.152, p < 0.001), confirming H4 and H5, respectively. Attitudes had a significant positive effect on voting intention (β = 0.630, p < 0.001), in line with H6. We found no evidence for accepting H1b, H2b and H3b owing to a lack of significant paths from values to voting intention. The mediating role of attitudes was found for the paths altruistic → attitude → intention (H7a) (β = 0.144, p < 0.05), egoistic → attitude → intention (H7c) (β = 0.089, p < 0.05) and perceived benefit → attitude → intention (H7d) (β = 0.478, p < 0.001). While the total indirect effect of altruistic values on intention through attitude was statistically significant, the direct effect was not (β = − 0.013, p > 0.05). Therefore, attitude appeared to play a full mediating role in predicting the relationship between altruistic values and intention. The same can be said about the mediating role of attitudes in the path between egoistic values and intention. We did not find an indirect effect in the case of the biospheric → attitude → intention path, and therefore our data were not consistent with H7b.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Structural equation model results (standardized regression coefficients). ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

Full size image
Table 7 Structural equation modelling results (direct paths) and hypothesis testing
Full size table
Table 8 Structural equation modelling results (indirect paths) and hypothesis testing
Full size table

Multigroup analyses

There were no differences in the measurement parameters and structural relationships across age and education. We found a lack of measurement invariance for gender. Nevertheless, additional analyses revealed that the difference lies solely in a factor loading of one of the statements associated with the egoistic values scale, namely “Authority, the right to lead or command” (βfemale = 0.754; βmale = 0.693). When we ran a multigroup model for the variable gender omitting this statement, measurement invariance was confirmed (see Additional file 4 for detailed results).

Discussion

An important finding of the study concerns undecidedness, as reflected in the attitude, perceived benefit and intention constructs employed. The undecidedness in voting intention is in line with previous studies, which have found a weak intention to use renewable energy in general [125, 126], but also in bioenergy, including biomass, in particular [127, 128]. Other authors have, however, found stronger public intention to use renewable energy technologies [129,130,131]. The lack of a strong public voting intention might suggest that woody biomass would neither be widely embraced nor rejected if Danish people were given the chance to decide. Where perceived benefit is concerned, two thirds of our respondents were unsure about the mitigation potential of woody biomass. This could be partly explained by the finding that most Danes have a poor knowledge of woody biomass [15] or suggest that they do not care enough about this particular issue. Lack of clear public support for, or rejection of, energy sources can be a substantial barrier to bringing about a transition to a low-carbon economy [132, 133], posing a challenge for policy makers and industry stakeholders alike. However, people who do not care about the types of renewable energies used might simply accept their use without questioning their adequacy.

We aimed to capture the factors that help to explain voting intention. We found support for the assumption that values predict attitudes, as altruistic and egoistic values have a positive effect on attitudes. However, the strength of the association is often higher in studies focusing on, for example, preference for biofuels or connection to nature [134, 135]. This is probably because these are well-known topics that people find it easier to link to personal values. Unlike some studies (e.g., [62, 136, 137]) we did not find a direct effect of values on intentions. However, this lack of direct effect corroborates socio-psychological and sociological research [29, 59, 138, 139], where results often show that attitudes predict intentions better than values [140, 141].

The effect of altruistic values on attitudes is in keeping with extensive research reporting an association between altruism and pro-environmental behavior [142,143,144,145,146,147,148]. That association is most probably explained by the fact that stronger pro-social views are associated with views on the benefits of addressing environmental issues for society as a whole. The positive association found between egoistic values and attitudes contrasts with results from studies that find a negative association between these values and pro-environmental policies like reducing energy use [149, 150]. It is possible that individuals with stronger egoistic values attach importance to the mitigation effects of woody biomass for one’s own wellbeing [151]. Since the argument that egoistic individuals hold an attitude based on the maximization of their own benefit (in this case, the utility of a natural resource for human purposes) has been brought up elsewhere [152], perhaps the directionality we saw can be explained by utilitarian variables not studied here, or alternatively by value-instantiating beliefs (i.e., determinants of the strength and direction of the value-attitude path) that might be different for different individuals [153]. We found no evidence that biospheric values predict attitudes to woody biomass for energy. This is contrary to previous studies showing a positive association between these values and energy-related behaviors [154,155,156]. However, our results echo those of Groh and Ziegler (see [157]), who found that environmental values—conceptually similar to biospheric values—had no significant effect on household electricity consumption in Germany. It is possible that individuals with strong biospheric values do not draw on these in forming their attitudes, because they do not consider woody biomass to be a sustainable energy source. Moreover, Dietz et al. (see [158]) argued that the strength with which people hold particular values may depend on the specific context. Since decisions that affect the environment are influenced by a broad array of considerations, particular environmental factors may be given little weight [159]. If this were correct, it could be that, where woody biomass is concerned, individuals do not think of the potential negative environmental consequences when reporting their attitude or intention, which could in turn be partly explained by their lack of familiarity with that energy source [15] and therefore their lack of awareness of the potential environmental risks and benefits. The Danish public might draw on altruistic and egoistic values alone because they see the use of woody biomass not so much as an environmental issue, but rather as one involving social and individualistic demands for such things as availability of resources for and the wellbeing of society and/or oneself.

Moving on to the role of attitudes, we found that these positively determined intention. This result is in keeping with studies on pro-environmental behavior (e.g., [69, 159,160,161]) and consumption of renewable energy (e.g., [142, 152, 162]). Moreover, our results fit well with those obtained by García-Maroto et al. [67], who have found that attitudes positively predict intention to purchase biomass heating. Attitude was also the strongest predictor of intentions in our study. Halder et al. (see [127]), likewise, found attitude to be the most influential variable in explaining intentions to use bioenergy. We also found that attitudes are full mediators in the path between altruistic values and intention and between egoistic values and intention, confirming the finding, made in several studies, that the effect of values in the hierarchy is primarily indirect and operates via their effect on higher order cognitions [38, 39, 163,164,165]. Moreover, attitudes mediate the perceived benefit-intention path, so that perceived benefit predicts attitudes directly and voting intention indirectly. But perceived benefit also predicts intention directly. These results are in line with previous studies (e.g., [67, 166, 167]). Socio-demographics did not emerge as moderators, perhaps because these are less influential than psychological factors in opinion-formation [168].

To summarize, then, our results point to public undecidedness. They also confirm the hierarchy of values, attitudes, perceived benefit and intention. The hierarchy confirmed by our results is in keeping with results recently reported by García-Maroto et al. [67], who found that intention to adopt biomass heating in Spain is determined by values, attitudes and perceptions of the benefits of biomass. Our results have a series of implications. First, the factors that proved influential in the formation of intention could assist decision-making over low-carbon energy transitions and energy futures by ensuring that this process is responsive to the motivational needs of the public. Second, we expect our research to offer hints helping with the task of developing an understanding of opinion-formation beyond the particular case of woody biomass for energy.

Limitations of the study include the following. It was cross-sectional, so we cannot be sure that the confirmed hypothesized relationships are indeed causal. Also, external factors, outside the VAB model, may have an effect on intention [169]. Moreover, our sample overrepresented individuals with higher education. This overrepresentation could potentially flaw the study findings. However, additional analyses (not reported in the Results section) showed that educational differences had very limited impact. They had no statistical association with attitudes (rs = 0.001, p = 0.98) and voting intention (rs = 0.023, p = 0.47). Further, in the SEM analyses we found no differences in the measurement parameters and structural relationships across education levels. So, any educational misrepresentation is likely to have been very limited. There were, however, educational differences regarding perceived benefit of woody biomass (χ2 (5, n = 1021) = 16.26, p < 0.01). Hence, further studies might be improved by exploring the relation between educational differences and beliefs about the environmental adequacy of novel renewable energy options. Another limiting factor relates to research into voting intention (not behavioral intention or actual behavior). Although one might anticipate a strong correlation between voting intention and actual voting behavior, our data does not reveal how people would actually vote. Furthermore, voting can be seen as an expressed opinion, and opinion does not necessarily correspond to a behavior. In this context, future research focusing on novel energy policy interventions might benefit from measuring behavioral intentions and/or actual behaviors. Finally, we captured human values on a reduced scale [63] using established categories that may not reflect the more specific values associated with the use of woody biomass for energy. Future studies may therefore benefit from a more granular exploration of the value structures here (e.g., by developing a scale to measure values relating to the utilization versus the preservation of natural resources) to better grasp the role of these in the formation of attitudes and intentions. Moreover, future studies should explore additional situational and psychological factors including awareness of the environmental, social and/or economic consequences of woody biomass, trust in climate targets and governments, and risk perception.

Conclusion

This study examined whether, and in what way, the Danish public’s intention to vote for continued use of woody biomass could reflect its wider cognitive hierarchies. Our results show that the largest share of Danes are undecided about their intention to vote for continued use of woody biomass. They also shed light on how a person's intention to vote for woody biomass can be predicted by more abstract notions, as reflected in a cognitive hierarchy drawing on a VAB model with a novel added variable: perceived benefit. Structural equation modelling results provide evidence for the overall adequacy of the model, demonstrating that a cognitive hierarchy framework is likely to be useful when we are addressing conflicts surrounding renewable energy sources. In our study, the cognitive and the socio-psychological underpinnings of intention formation turned out to be complex. This confirms that questions about how governments can effectively promote the development of less carbon-intensive societies can be challenging, especially when we are relying on contested sources of energy like woody biomass.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. IPCC (2022) Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  2. Booth MS (2022) “Sustainable” biomass: a paper tiger when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. Bull At Sci 78(3):139–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2022.2062938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sterman J, Moomaw W, Rooney-Varga JN, Siegel L (2022) Does wood bioenergy help or harm the climate? Bull At Sci 78(3):128–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2022.2062933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andersen BH, Jespersen T, Lange MK (2022) Forud for EU-topmøde: Drop biomassen. https://noah.dk/nyheder/drop-biomassen. Accessed 4 May 2023

  5. Krogh MA (2022) Vil Udfasningen Af Gas Øge Forbruget Af Den Udskældte Biomasse? Eksperterne Er Ikke Enige. https://www.information.dk/indland/2022/04/udfasningen-gas-oege-forbruget-udskaeldte-biomasse-eksperterne-enige. Accessed 3 Mar 2023

  6. Kraxner F, Yang J, Yamagata Y (2009) Attitudes towards forest, biomass and certification—a case study approach to integrate public opinion in Japan. Bioresour Technol 100(17):4058–4061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rahman A, Khanam T, Pelkonen P (2017) People’s knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards stump harvesting for bioenergy production in Finland. Renew Sust Energ Rev 70:107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Burstein P (2016) The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit Res Q 56(1):29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Drews S, van den Bergh JCJM (2016) What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim Policy 16(7):855–876. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bouman T, Steg L (2020) Motivating climate action. IAAP Bull 2(3):13–16

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clayton S (2020) Psychologists’ involvement in addressing climate change. Appl Psychol Around World 2:10–12. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rinscheid A, Wüstenhagen R (2018) Divesting, fast and slow: affective and cognitive drivers of fading voter support for a nuclear phase-out. Ecol Econ 152:51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rieber S (2001) Vote selling and self-interested voting. Public Aff Q 15(1):35–49

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bali VA, Robison LJ, Winder R (2020) What motivates people to vote? The role of selfishness, duty, and social motives when voting. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020950376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ugarte Lucas P, Gamborg C, Lund TB (2022) Sustainability concerns are key to understanding public attitudes toward woody biomass for energy: a survey of Danish citizens. Renew Energ 194:181–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2022.05.075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. The Danish Climate Act, Act. No 965 of 26 June 2020 (2020) https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/965. Accessed 8 Mar 2023

  17. Danish Energy Agency (2020) Biomass analysis. https://www.danskenergi.dk/files/media/dokumenter/2017-09/IndustryAgreement_Biomass-20160623.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2023

  18. Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities (2023) Facts about bioenergy in Denmark. https://ens.dk/en/our-responsibilities/bioenergy/facts-about-bioenergy-denmark. Accessed 15 Aug 2023

  19. Danish Council on Climate Change (2023) Status Outlook—Denmark’s national climate targets and international obligations. https://klimaraadet.dk/sites/default/files/node/field_file/Status%20Outlook%202023%20-%20english%20policy%20brief.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2023

  20. Danish Council on Climate Change (2018) Biomassens betydning for grøn omstilling. Klimaperspektiver og anbefalinger til regulering af biomasse til energiformål. https://klimaraadet.dk/da/rapporter/biomassens-betydning-groen-omstilling. Accessed 17 Aug 2023

  21. Ibsen C (2021) Biomass is the ‘elephant in the room’ that must be handled urgently. https://concito.dk/english/nyheder/biomass-is-the-elephant-in-the-room-that-must-be-handled-urgently. Accessed 14 Aug 2023

  22. Homer PM, Kahle LR (1988) A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(4):638–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Hum Dimens Wildl 1(2):24–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209609359060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP (1999) A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc Nat Resour 12(6):523–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419299279425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bagozzi RP (1983) A holistic methodology for modeling consumer response to innovation. Oper Res 31:128–176. https://doi.org/10.1287/OPRE.31.1.128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  29. Carrus G, Tiberio L, Mastandrea S, Chokrai P, Fritsche I, Klöckner CA, Masson T, Vesely S, Panno A (2021) Psychological predictors of energy saving behavior: a meta-analytic approach. Front Psychol 12:648221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shin YH, Moon H, Jung SE, Severt K (2017) The effect of environmental values and attitudes on consumer willingness to pay more for organic menus: a value-attitude-behavior approach. J Hosp Tour 33:113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHTM.2017.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fischer A, Peters V, Vávra J, Neebe M, Megyesi B (2011) Energy use, climate change and folk psychology: does sustainability have a chance? Results from a qualitative study in five European countries. Glob Environ Change 21(3):1025–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2011.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  33. Steg L, de Groot JIM (2018) Environmental psychology: an introduction, 2nd edn. Wiley, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Bhattacharyya A, Biswas K, Moyeen A (2020) Determinants of pro-environmental behaviours—a cross country study of would-be managers. Australas Account Bus Finance J 14(2):51–71. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v14i2.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ghazali EM, Mutum DS, Ariswibowo N (2018) Impact of religious values and habit on an extended green purchase behaviour model. Int J Consum Stud 42(6):639–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJCS.12472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Han H, Hwang J, Lee MJ, Kim J (2019) Word-of-mouth, buying, and sacrifice intentions for eco-cruises: exploring the function of norm activation and value-attitude-behavior. Tour Manag 70:430–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2018.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. van Tonder E, Fullerton S, de Beer LT (2020) Cognitive and emotional factors contributing to green customer citizenship behaviours: a moderated mediation model. J Consum Mark 37(6):639–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-06-2019-3268/FULL/PDF

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mcfarlane BL, Boxall PC (2000) Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: the case of the foothills model forest, Alberta, Canada. Soc Nat Resour 13(7):649–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920050121927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McFarlane BL, Boxall PC (2003) The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: an example of the forest sector. J Environ Psychol 23(1):79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00080-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Eriksson L, Klapwijk MJ (2019) Attitudes towards biodiversity conservation and carbon substitution in forestry: a study of stakeholders in Sweden. Forestry 92:219–229. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpz003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Grammatikopoulou I, Eija P, Janne A (2021) Relationship between value orientations, attitudes, and behavioral intentions regarding peatland conservation in Finland: an empirical application of the cognitive hierarchy model. Soc Nat Resour 34(7):943–965. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2021.1905917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mueller JT, Tickamyer AR (2020) Climate change beliefs and support for development: testing a cognitive hierarchy of support for natural resource-related economic development in rural Pennsylvania. J Rural Stud 80:553–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRURSTUD.2020.10.043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sibanda L, Van Der Meer E, Hughes C, Macdonald EA, Hunt JE, Parry RH, Dlodlo B, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ (2020) Exploring perceptions of subsistence farmers in northwestern Zimbabwe towards the African lion (Panthera leo) in the context of local conservation actions. Afr J Wildl Res 50(1):102–118. https://doi.org/10.3957/056.050.0102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cleary M, Joshi O, Fairbanks WS (2021) Factors that determine human acceptance of black bears. J Wildl Manage 85(3):582–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/JWMG.21999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gamborg C, Jensen FS (2016) Wildlife value orientations: a quantitative study of the general public in Denmark. Hum Dimens Wildl 21(1):34–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015.1098753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Manfredo MJ (2008) Who cares about wildlife? In: Manfredo MJ (ed) Who cares about wildlife? Springer, New York, pp 1–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Landon AC, Jacobs MH, Miller CA, Vaske JJ, Williams BD (2020) Cognitive and affective predictors of Illinois residents’ perceived risks from gray wolves. Soc Nat Resour 33(5):574–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1664680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kontsiotis VJ, Triantafyllidis A, Telidis S, Eleftheriadou I, Liordos V (2021) The predictive ability of wildlife value orientations for mammal management varies with species conservation status and provenance. Sustainability 13(20):11335. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU132011335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Watkins CE, Poudyal NC, Jones RE, Muller LI, Hodges DG (2021) Risk perception, trust and support for wildlife reintroduction and conservation. Environ Conserv 48(2):127–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892921000011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. ElHaffar G, Durif F, Dubé L (2020) Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in green consumption: a narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. J Clean Prod 275:122556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kennedy EH, Beckley TM, McFarlane BL, Nadeau S (2009) Why we don’t ”walk the talk”: understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada. Hum Ecol Rev 16(2):151–160

    Google Scholar 

  52. Mohiyeddini C, Pauli R, Bauer S (2009) The role of emotion in bridging the intention-behaviour gap: the case of sports participation. Psychol Sport Exerc 10(2):226–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bhattacherjee A, Sanford C (2009) The intention-behaviour gap in technology usage: the moderating role of attitude strength. Behav Inf Technol 28(4):389–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hassan LM, Shiu E, Shaw D (2016) Who says there is an intention–behaviour gap? Assessing the empirical evidence of an intention–behaviour gap in ethical consumption. J Bus Ethics 136(2):219–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. United Nations Environment Programme (2017) Consuming differently, consuming sustainably: Behavioural insights for policymaking. http://www.ideas42.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/UNEP_consuming_sustainably_Behavioral_Insights.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2023

  56. Montaño DE, Kasprzyk D (2008) Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K (eds) Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 67–96

    Google Scholar 

  57. Arroyo R, Ruiz T, Mars L, Rasouli S, Timmermans H (2020) Influence of values, attitudes towards transport modes and companions on travel behavior. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol 71:8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRF.2020.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2010) Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J Environ Psychol 30(4):368–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2010.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. García J, Mars L, Arroyo R, Casquero D, di Ciommo F, Ruiz T (2019) Personal values, attitudes and travel intentions towards cycling and walking, and actual Behavior. Sustainability 11(13):3574. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Jacobs K, Petersen L, Hörisch J, Battenfeld D (2018) Green thinking but thoughtless buying? An empirical extension of the value-attitude-behaviour hierarchy in sustainable clothing. J Clean Prod 203:1155–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.07.320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Maurer M, Bogner FX (2020) Modelling environmental literacy with environmental knowledge, values and (reported) behaviour. Stud Educ Eval 65:100863. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STUEDUC.2020.100863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Nordlund A, Westin K (2013) Influence of values, beliefs, and age on intention to travel by a new railway line under construction in northern Sweden. Transp Res A: Policy Pract 48:86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2012.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA (1998) A brief inventory of values. Educ Psychol Meas 58(6):984–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058006008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Stern PC, Dietz T (1994) The value basis of environmental concern. J Soc Issues 50(3):65–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-4560.1994.TB02420.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Bhatt Y, Ghuman K (2022) Managerial cognition and environmental behavioral intentions: a behavioral reasoning theory perspective. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29(5):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/CSR.2271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wall WP, Khalid B, Urbá Nski M, Kot M, Popp JHC, Oláh J (2021) Factors influencing consumer’s adoption of renewable energy. Energies. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. García-Maroto I, Muñoz-Leiva F, Higueras-Castillo E, Liébana-Cabanillas F (2020) The main determinants of adopting domestic biomass heating systems: an integrating model. Sustain Account Manag Policy J 11(2):409–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2019-0133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Klöckner CA (2013) A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Change 23(5):1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2013.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Yadav R, Pathak GS (2016) Young consumers’ intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: extending the theory of planned behavior. J Clean Prod 135:732–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.06.120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. DeWaters J, Powers SE (2011) Energy literacy of secondary students in New York State (USA): a measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Policy 39(3):1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2010.12.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. DeWaters J, Powers S (2012) Establishing measurement criteria for an energy literacy questionnaire. J Environ Educ 44(1):38–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2012.711378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Lopes JRN, RdeA K, Rodríguez JLM, Ávila Filho S (2019) A new model for assessing industrial worker behavior regarding energy saving considering the theory of planned behavior, norm activation model and human reliability. Resour Conserv Recycl 145:268–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.02.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Nie H, Vasseur V, Fan Y, Xu J (2019) Exploring reasons behind careful-use, energy-saving behaviours in residential sector based on the theory of planned behaviour: evidence from Changchun, China. J Clean Prod 230:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.05.101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Lee YF, Bao H, Nguyen N, Sung HT (2022) Energy literacy of high school students in Vietnam and determinants of their energy-saving behavior. Environ Educ Res 28(6):907–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2034752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Cheung MFY, To WM (2019) An extended model of value-attitude-behavior to explain Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. J Retail Consum Serv 50:145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRETCONSER.2019.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Collins D (2003) Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 12(3):229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Willis GB (2005) Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Book  Google Scholar 

  79. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2007) Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J Cross Cult Psychol 38(3):318–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107300278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. de Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40(3):330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Nordlund AM, Garvill J (2003) Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J Environ Psychol 23(4):339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00037-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Rahman I, Reynolds D (2017) The influence of values and attitudes on green consumer behavior: a conceptual model of green hotel patronage. Int J Hosp Tour Adm 20(1):47–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1359729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Schultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21:327–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Snelgar RS (2006) Egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric environmental concerns: measurement and structure. J Environ Psychol 26(2):87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2006.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W (2005) Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J Environ Psychol 25(4):415–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25(3):322–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56(3):407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Topal HF, Hunt DVL, Rogers CDF (2021) Exploring urban sustainability understanding and behaviour: a systematic review towards a conceptual framework. Sustainability 13(3):1139. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13031139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Whitley CT, Takahashi B, Zwickle A, Besley JC, Lertpratchya AP (2018) Sustainability behaviors among college students: an application of the VBN theory. Environ Educ Res 24(2):245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1250151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Arcury TA, Scollay SJ, Johnson TP (1987) Sex differences in environmental concern and knowledge: the case of acid rain. Sex Roles 16(9/10):463–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Huang X, Ge J (2019) Electric vehicle development in Beijing: an analysis of consumer purchase intention. J Clean Prod 216:361–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.01.231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Kaiser FG, Gutscher H (2003) The proposition of a general version of the theory of planned behavior: predicting ecological behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 33(3):586–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Luchs MG, Mooradian TA (2012) Sex, personality, and sustainable consumer behaviour: elucidating the gender effect. J Consum Policy 35:127–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9179-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Rauwald KS (2002) Environmental attitudes as predictors of policy support across three countries. Environ Behav 34(6):709–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391602237243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Scannell L, Gifford R (2013) Personally relevant climate change: the role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ Behav 45(1):60–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Vicente-Molina MA, Fernández-Sáinz A, Izagirre-Olaizola J (2013) Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J Clean Prod 61:130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2013.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Xiao CY, Hong D (2010) Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Popul Environ 32(1):88–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Zhang J, Cheng M, Wei X, Gong X, Zhang S (2019) Internet use and the satisfaction with governmental environmental protection: evidence from China. J Clean Prod 212:1025–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.12.100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Al-Shemmeri T, Naylor L (2017) Energy saving in UK FE colleges: the relative importance of the socio-economic groups and environmental attitudes of employees. Renew Sust Energ Rev 68:1130–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Ding Z, Wang G, Liu Z, Long R (2017) Research on differences in the factors influencing the energy-saving behavior of urban and rural residents in China—a case study of Jiangsu Province. Energy Policy 100:252–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2016.10.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Frederiks ER, Stenner K, Hobman EV (2015) The socio-demographic and psychological predictors of residential energy consumption: a comprehensive review. Energies 8(1):573–609. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN8010573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Tang Z, Warkentin M, Wu L (2019) Understanding employees’ energy saving behavior from the perspective of stimulus-organism-responses. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2018.09.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Yang S, Zhang Y, Zhao D (2016) Who exhibits more energy-saving behavior in direct and indirect ways in China? The role of psychological factors and socio-demographics. Energy Policy 93:196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2016.02.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Marquart-Pyatt ST, Qian H, Houser MK, Mccright AM (2019) Climate change views, energy policy preferences, and intended actions across welfare state regimes: evidence from the European social survey. Int J Sociol 49(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2018.1560979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Thøgersen J, Ölander F (2006) To what degree are environmentally beneficial choices reflective of a general conservation stance? Environ Behav 38(4):550–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505283832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Lichtenstein DR, Netemeyer RG, Burton S (1990) Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. J Mark 54(3):54–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16:74–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1992) Multivariate data analysis: with readings, 3rd edn. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  111. Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press, New York City

    Google Scholar 

  112. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a Review. J Educ Res 99(6):323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Carmines EG, McIver JD (1981) Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. In: Bohrnstedt GW, Borgatta EF (eds) Social measurement: current issues. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 65–115

    Google Scholar 

  114. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1998) Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods 3(4):424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Marsh HW, Hocevar D (1985) Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: first- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychol Bull 97(3):562–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Bollen KA, Stine R (1990) Direct and indirect effects: classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociol Methodol 20:115–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/271084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Taylor AB, Mackinnon DP, Tein JY (2008) Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organ Res Methods 11(2):241–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, Muthén B (1989) Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol Bull 105(3):456–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Distefano C, Hess B (2005) Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation: an empirical review. J Psychoeduc Assess 23:225–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Muthén B, Kaplan D (1985) A comparison of some of the methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol 38:171–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ (1995) Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 56–75

    Google Scholar 

  123. Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  124. Gravetter F, Wallnau L (2014) Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences, 8th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  125. Liobikienė G, Dagiliūtė R (2021) Do positive aspects of renewable energy contribute to the willingness to pay more for green energy? Energy 231:120817. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.120817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Martins Gonçalves H, Viegas A (2015) Explaining consumer use of renewable energy: determinants and gender and age moderator effects. J Glob Schol of Mark Science 25(3):198–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2015.1041780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Halder P, Pietarinen J, Havu-Nuutinen S, Pöllänen S, Pelkonen P (2016) The theory of planned behavior model and students’ intentions to use bioenergy: a cross-cultural perspective. Renew Energ 89:627–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.12.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Liobikienė G, Dagiliūtė R, Juknys R (2021) The determinants of renewable energy usage intentions using theory of planned behaviour approach. Renew Energ 170:587–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.01.152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Ali G, Yan N, Hussain J, Xu L, Huang Y, Xu S, Cui S (2019) Quantitative assessment of energy conservation and renewable energy awareness among variant urban communities of Xiamen, China. Renew Sust Energ Rev 109:230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2019.04.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Liu W, Wang C, Mol APJ (2013) Rural public acceptance of renewable energy deployment: the case of Shandong in China. Appl Energy 102:1187–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2012.06.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Park E, Ohm JY (2014) Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Energy Policy 65:198–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2013.10.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Geels FW (2013) The impact of the financial-economic crisis on sustainability transitions: financial investment, governance and public discourse. Environ Innov Soc Transit 6:67–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIST.2012.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Wiseman J, Edwards T, Luckins K (2013) Post carbon pathways: a meta-analysis of 18 large-scale post carbon economy transition strategies. Environ Innov Soc Transit 8:76–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIST.2013.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Khachatryan H, Joireman J, Casavant K (2013) Relating values and consideration of future and immediate consequences to consumer preference for biofuels: a three-dimensional social dilemma analysis. J Environ Psychol 34:97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2013.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Oh RRY, Fielding KS, Nghiem LTP, Chang CC, Carrasco LR, Fuller RA (2021) Connection to nature is predicted by family values, social norms and personal experiences of nature. Glob Ecol Conserv 28:e01632. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GECCO.2021.E01632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Tajeddini K, Gamage TC, Hameed WU, Qumsieh-Mussalam G, Chaijani MH, Rasoolimanesh SM, Kallmuenzer A (2022) How self-gratification and social values shape revisit intention and customer loyalty of Airbnb customers. Int J Hosp Manag 100:103093. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHM.2021.103093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Teng YM, Wu KS, Huang DM (2014) The influence of green restaurant decision formation using the VAB model: the effect of environmental concerns upon intent to visit. Sustainability 6(12):8736–8755. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU6128736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Ateş H (2020) Merging theory of planned behavior and value identity personal norm model to explain pro-environmental behaviors. Sustain Prod Consum 24:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPC.2020.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Lee HH, Liang CH, Liao SY, Chen HS (2019) Analyzing the intention of consumer purchasing behaviors in relation to internet memes using VAB model. Sustainability 11(20):5549. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11205549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Hunecke M, Haustein S, Böhler S, Grischkat S (2010) Attitude-based target groups to reduce the ecological impact of daily mobility behavior. Environ Behav 42(1):3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Pronello C, Camusso C (2011) Travellers’ profiles definition using statistical multivariate analysis of attitudinal variables. J Transp Geogr 19(6):1294–1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTRANGEO.2011.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Ek K (2005) Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy Policy 33(13):1677–1689. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2004.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Milfont TL, Sibley CG, Duckitt J (2010) Testing the moderating role of the components of norm activation on the relationship between values and environmental behavior. J Cross Cult Psychol 41(1):124–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022109350506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Schultz PW, Zelezny LC (1998) Values and proenvironmental behavior: a five-country survey. J Cross Cult Psychol 29(4):540–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198294003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Schultz PW, Zelezny L (1999) Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J Environ Psychol 19(3):255–265. https://doi.org/10.1006/JEVP.1999.0129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Schultz PW, Gouveia VV, Cameron LD, Tankha G, Schmuck P, Franěk M (2005) Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. J Cross Cult Psychol 36(4):457–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Van Vugt M, Van Lange PAM, Meertens RM (1996) Commuting by car or public transportation? A social dilemma analysis of travel mode judgements. Eur J Soc Psychol 26:373–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Van Vugt M, Samuelson CD (1999) The impact of personal metering in the management of a natural resource crisis: a social dilemma analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25(6):735–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Poortinga W, Steg L, Vlek C (2004) Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environ Behav 36:70–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503251466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Steg L, de Groot JIM, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W, Siero F (2011) General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: the role of values, worldviews, and environmental concern. Soc Nat Resour 24(4):349–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903214116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Perlaviciute G, Steg L (2015) The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives. Renew Energ 77:259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2014.12.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Hansla A, Gamble A, Juliusson A, Gärling T (2008) Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy 36(2):768–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2007.10.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Ponizovskiy V, Grigoryan L, Kühnen U, Boehnke K (2019) Social construction of the value-behavior relation. Front Psychol 10:934–561. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2019.00934/BIBTEX

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Abrahamse W, Steg L (2009) How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? J Econ Psychol 30(5):711–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOEP.2009.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Abrahamse W, Steg L (2011) Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: the role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Hum Ecol Rev 18(1):30–40

    Google Scholar 

  156. Schultz PW (2000) Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. J Soc Issues 56(3):391–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Groh ED, Ziegler A (2022) On the relevance of values, norms, and economic preferences for electricity consumption. Ecol Econ 192:107264. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2021.107264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):335–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Klöckner CA, Oppedal IO (2011) General vs. domain specific recycling behaviour—applying a multilevel comprehensive action determination model to recycling in Norwegian student homes. Resour Conserv Recy 55(4):463–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2010.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Onel N, Mukherjee A (2017) Why do consumers recycle? A holistic perspective encompassing moral considerations, affective responses, and self-interest motives. Psychol Mark 34(10):956–971. https://doi.org/10.1002/MAR.21035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Talò C, Mannarini T (2015) Measuring participation: development and validation the participatory behaviors scale. Soc Indic Res 123(3):799–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11205-014-0761-0/TABLES/8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Hartmann P, Apaolaza-Ibáñez V (2012) Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: the roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. J Bus Res 65(9):1254–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2011.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano G, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6(2):81–97

    Google Scholar 

  164. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA (1995) The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environ Behav 27(6):723–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Stern PC, Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA (1995) Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J Appl Soc Psychol 25(18):1611–1636. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1559-1816.1995.TB02636.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. D’Souza C, Taghian M, Lamb P (2006) An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corp Commun 11(2):162–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280610661697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Nyrud AQ, Roos A, Sande JB (2008) Residential bioenergy heating: a study of consumer perceptions of improved woodstoves. Energy Policy 36(8):3169–3176. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2008.04.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Eriksson L (2018) Conventional and new ways of governing forest threats: a study of stakeholder coherence in Sweden. Environ Manage 61(1):103–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00267-017-0951-Z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Turaga RMR, Howarth RB, Borsuk ME (2010) Pro-environmental behavior. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1185(1):211–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1749-6632.2009.05163.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our thanks to the members of the general public who completed the survey. We are also grateful to Paul Robinson for improving the language of the manuscript.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Royal Library, Copenhagen University Library This work was supported by the Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark

    Paula Ugarte Lucas, Thomas Bøker Lund & Christian Gamborg

Authors
  1. Paula Ugarte Lucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Bøker Lund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Gamborg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PUL: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review & editing, visualization, project administration. TBL: conceptualization, writing—review & editing. CG: conceptualization, writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Ugarte Lucas.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Permission to use the questionnaire was granted by the Research Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences (University of Copenhagen) (Approval No. 514-0191/21-5000). To ensure the protection of the respondents, informed consent was a requirement for participation in the questionnaire.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Outline of the questionnaire-based survey used to collect the data.

Additional file 2.

Brief Inventory of Values developed by Stern et al. (1998) and used to measure ‘values’.

Additional file 3.

Additional structural equation analysis results not shown in the main manuscript.

Additional file 4.

Multigroup analysis results not shown in the main manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ugarte Lucas, P., Lund, T.B. & Gamborg, C. The public’s intention to vote for continued use of woody biomass for energy in Denmark: a cognitive hierarchy perspective. Energ Sustain Soc 13, 45 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-023-00427-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-023-00427-y

Keywords

Energy, Sustainability and Society

ISSN: 2192-0567

Contact us