| Literature DB >> 34136804 |
Michael Braksiek1, Tim F Thormann2, Pamela Wicker2.
Abstract
Environmentally friendly behavior has become increasingly important in recent years to reduce the speed of climate change and its negative impacts. Individual behavior, including environmentally friendly behavior, is largely formed by behavioral intentions. This study draws on the theory of planned behavior to examine the effects of attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control on intentions of environmentally friendly behavior. It also investigates differences between genders and among sports. The study is based on data from a nationwide online survey of community sports club members in Germany in five team/racket sports (n = 3,036). Existing measures to operationalize the constructs were adapted to the present research context. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The results show that the theoretical assumptions of the theory of planned behavior were largely supported by the data, implying that the antecedents of environmentally friendly behavioral intentions can be applied to club members. Furthermore, gender- and sports-specific differences in the antecedents-intention relationship were detected. This study is among the first to examine environmentally friendly behavioral intentions in community sports clubs. It adds to an increasing body of research investigating environmental sustainability in sports.Entities:
Keywords: behavioral intentions; climate change; environmental attitudes; grassroots sports; sustainability; voluntary sports club
Year: 2021 PMID: 34136804 PMCID: PMC8202975 DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2021.657183
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Sports Act Living ISSN: 2624-9367
Number of respondents by sport and gender.
| Tennis | 213 | 473 | 686 |
| Ice hockey | 71 | 393 | 464 |
| Basketball | 220 | 413 | 633 |
| Handball | 188 | 188 | 376 |
| Football | 297 | 580 | 877 |
| Total | 989 | 2,047 | 3,036 |
Overview of variables.
| att1 | (1 = harmful; 5 = beneficial) | 4.16 | 0.864 |
| att2 | (1 = unpleasant; 5 = pleasant) | 3.76 | 1.138 |
| att3 | (1 = bad; 5 = good) | 3.89 | 1.200 |
| att4 | (1 = worthless; 5 = valuable) | 4.15 | 0.886 |
| att5 | (1 = unenjoyable; 5 = enjoyable) | 3.56 | 1.094 |
| sn1 | Most people who are important to me think believe I should act environmentally friendly | 3.50 | 0.983 |
| sn2 | Presumably my fellow club members expect me to act environmentally friendly | 3.05 | 1.099 |
| sn3 | In my SPORT club, it is appreciated when I act environmentally friendly | 3.16 | 1.077 |
| sn4 | In my SPORT club, people often act environmentally friendly | 3.06 | 0.922 |
| pbc1 | I am convinced that I can act environmentally friendly in my SPORT club when I want to | 3.82 | 0.942 |
| pbc2 | It is in my hands whether or not I act environmentally friendly in my club | 3.80 | 1.068 |
| pbc3 | Environmentally friendly behavior is easily possible in my club | 3.44 | 1.030 |
| int1 | I would like to take every opportunity to act environmentally friendly in the next 2 weeks | 3.70 | 0.959 |
| int2 | It is my goal to take every opportunity to act environmentally friendly in the next 2 weeks | 3.46 | 0.919 |
| int3 | I will definitely try to take every opportunity to act environmentally friendly in the next 2 weeks | 3.55 | 1.060 |
SPORT was replaced by the corresponding type of sports in the sports-specific surveys.
Goodness-of-fit statistics and model comparisons for the multigroup confirmatory factor analyses.
| Configurial | 0.972 | 0.058 | 0.034 | |||
| Metric | 0.971 | −0.001 | 0.055 | −0.003 | 0.036 | −0.002 |
| Scalar | 0.968 | −0.003 | 0.055 | 0.000 | 0.038 | −0.002 |
| Configurial | 0.968 | 0.056 | 0.040 | |||
| Metric | 0.962 | −0.006 | 0.056 | 0.000 | 0.046 | −0.006 |
| Scalar | 0.952 | −0.010 | 0.058 | −0.002 | 0.051 | −0.005 |
CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMS, standardized root mean square residual.
Latent mean differences (factor means) between sports.
| Female | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Male | 0.084 | −0.126 | 0.120 | −0.263 |
| Tennis | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Ice hockey | −0.531 | −0.695 | −0.420 | −0.306 |
| Basketball | −0.102 | −0.445 | −0.349 | −0.116 |
| Handball | −0.392 | −0.709 | −0.424 | −0.428 |
| Football | −1.243 | −0.654 | −0.347 | −0.373 |
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01;
;p < 0.001;
significantly (p < 0.05) different from tennis;
significantly different from ice hockey;
significantly different from basketball;
significantly different from handball;
significantly different from football.
Fit indexes of the estimated structural equation models.
| Full sample | 0.971 | 0.960 | 0.050 | 0.045; 0.054 | 0.527 | 0.035 | 408.661 | 48 | < 0.001 |
| Women | 0.962 | 0.948 | 0.056 | 0.048; 0.065 | 0.094 | 0.040 | 198.784 | 48 | < 0.001 |
| Men | 0.975 | 0.966 | 0.044 | 0.039; 0.050 | 0.948 | 0.034 | 241.954 | 48 | < 0.001 |
| Tennis | 0.966 | 0.953 | 0.046 | 0.036; 0.057 | 0.723 | 0.040 | 117.560 | 48 | < 0.001 |
| Ice hockey | 0.975 | 0.965 | 0.045 | 0.031; 0.059 | 0.710 | 0.041 | 93.199 | 48 | < 0.001 |
| Basketball | 0.976 | 0.967 | 0.037 | 0.025; 0.049 | 0.966 | 0.042 | 89.741 | 48 | < 0.001 |
| Handball | 0.971 | 0.960 | 0.042 | 0.025; 0.058 | 0.789 | 0.047 | 79.481 | 48 | 0.003 |
| Football | 0.981 | 0.974 | 0.043 | 0.034; 0.052 | 0.887 | 0.033 | 126.175 | 48 | < 0.001 |
CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CI, confidence interval; pclose, probability of close fit; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; df, degrees of freedom.
Figure 1Structural equation model for environmentally friendly behavioral intentions (full sample). PBC, perceived behavioral control; ***p < 0.001.
Figure 2Structural equation model for environmentally friendly behavioral intentions of females. PBC, perceived behavioral control; ***p < 0.001.
Figure 3Structural equation model for environmentally friendly behavioral intentions of males. PBC, perceived behavioral control; ***p < 0.001.
Standardized regression coefficients, correlation coefficients, and explained variance for the structural equation models by type of sport.
| Attitude → Intention | 0.098 | 0.135 | 0.194 | 0.024 | −0.005 |
| Subjective norm → Intention | 0.147 | 0.308 | 0.369 | 0.142 | 0.262 |
| PBC → Intention | 0.469 | 0.305 | 0.072 | 0.335 | 0.272 |
| Attitude ↔ Subjective norm | 0.439 | 0.349 | 0.227 | 0.357 | −0.064 |
| Attitude ↔ PBC | 0.324 | 0.374 | 0.271 | 0.374 | 0.018 |
| Subjective norm ↔ PBC | 0.668 | 0.638 | 0.531 | 0.661 | 0.514 |
| 0.386 | 0.386 | 0.247 | 0.204 | 0.216 |
PBC, perceived behavioral control;
p < 0.05;
p < 0.001.
Figure 4Structural equation model for environmentally friendly behavioral intentions of football club members. PBC, perceived behavioral control; ***p < 0.001.