4.7 Article

Exploring the motivation-behavior gap in urban residents' green travel behavior: A theoretical and empirical study

Journal

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
Volume 125, Issue -, Pages 282-292

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.025

Keywords

Urban resident; Travel behavior; Motivation; Motivation-behavior gap; Exploratory factor analysis; Multinomial logistic regression

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2017XKZD12]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The inconsistency between motivation and environmental behavior has been a critical issue troubling many researchers. From the two-dimensional perspectives of motivation and behavior, this study proposes a theoretical model with three colors (four types) of travel behavior: green, red, forced grey, and susceptible grey travel behavior. Based on 1244 questionnaires, the multinomial logistic regression was used to evaluate the effects of different types of travel behaviors in terms of motivations, government measures, and demographic characteristics. The results indicate that the green environmental motivation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ensuring stable green travel behavior. These motives of economics, convenience, and comfort would adjust, disturb, or even change residents' travel behaviors, resulting in the motivation-behavior gap. The theoretical model is reasonable and effective for distinguishing urban residents' multiple motivations and explaining the motivation-behavior gap. In addition, the effects of gender, age, income, vehicle ownership, travel distance, and government measures show significant differences among different types of travel behavior. This study provides some.countermeasure proposals targeted to specific colors of travel behavior to modify the motivation-kehavior gap and to encourage urban residents to travel in a green way.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available