1. Introduction
The rapid and substantial changes in the earth’s climate have a considerable effect, as witnessed by problems such as poverty, infectious diseases, forced migrations, and conflicts spreading through globalized systems, as highlighted by the latest 2022 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [1]. A broad scientific consensus (refer to COP27) has provided an extensive overview of the factors possibly associated with the proactive involvement of human societies and individuals in modifying their behaviors to alleviate the ecological footprint of their lifestyles [1,2]. A series of individual efforts identified as potentially advantageous in addressing these negative outcomes include pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) [3]. Pro-environmental behaviors are characterized as actions directed towards mitigating adverse ramifications (e.g., employing energy-efficient lighting) and amplifying beneficial consequences (e.g., tree planting) on our planet [4,5].
According to Stern [6], PEBs include actions ranging from energy and natural resource conservation to waste management and sustainable consumption. These actions can be classified into private behaviors (e.g., reducing domestic energy consumption) and public behaviors (such as supporting environmental policies and participating in advocacy activities) [6,7].
Several studies have categorized PEBs into areas such as energy conservation, sustainable transportation use, waste reduction, and the adoption of environmentally friendly food practices [8]. Recent research has highlighted that these behaviors are linked to demographic, cultural, and even gender-related variables [9].
Although people’s values, attitudes, awareness of consequences, and personal norms are all important factors contributing to our understanding of why some individuals tend to exhibit pro-environmental behaviors [10], it is observed that if we consider trust as the basis of cooperation for environmental protection, it becomes our main predictor of environmental behavior [11]. Trust and cooperation are central elements in promoting pro-environmental behaviors. According to Harring and Jagers [10], trust in institutions plays a crucial role in supporting environmental policies. Specifically, individuals who place greater trust in their governments or other institutions are more inclined to cooperate and accept measures that may involve personal sacrifices, such as increasing environmental taxes or regulating natural resources. For example, a large study conducted in Europe found that trust in government institutions is closely linked to support for environmental policies and formal pro-environmental behaviors, such as recycling or participating in conservation activities [12]. Another example can be found in the United States, where studies have shown that people who have greater trust in the government are more willing to accept strict environmental regulations, such as those aimed at reducing carbon emissions [11]. Despite this, it is found that people tend to place greater trust in scientists and environmental groups on climate change issues than in the government or industry [13], political actors are still crucial. Political actors remain crucial because they play a key role in shaping public policies and institutional frameworks that either encourage or discourage pro-environmental behaviors. Moreover, political actors influence public discourse and shape societal values regarding environmental issues, directly affecting citizens’ perceptions of the urgency and importance of adopting sustainable behaviors [12]. In contexts where political leaders adopt a skeptical stance on climate change, they may downplay environmental concerns, reduce support for green policies, and ultimately diminish citizens’ engagement in pro-environmental actions. In fact, individuals in countries with higher average trust in institutions and government are more willing to sacrifice for the environment and are also more likely to engage in formal behaviors [11]. In particular, people’s beliefs, concerns, and normative opinions on environmental matters are more likely to translate into support for environmental policies in countries with high-quality governmental institutions [12,14]. Trust in the government is generally defined as the belief that political leaders and public institutions will act fairly, transparently, and in line with the interests of the community. Harring and Jagers [10] refer to trust as a fundamental component of cooperation, as citizens are more likely to accept environmental policies and modify their behaviors if they perceive that government institutions operate with integrity and competence. Similarly, Kulin and Johansson Sevä [12] argue that the quality of public institutions significantly influences pro-environmental behaviors, highlighting that greater trust in institutions leads to increased citizen engagement in eco-friendly actions. Consequently, environmental behavior should depend on the trust people have in the government [12]. In reference to this, several studies show that, for example, trust in government positively influences the acceptance of public recycling policies [15] and actual recycling behaviors [16]. Moreover, the more trust people have in politicians, the more likely they are to accept pro-environmental tax increases [10]. These studies have examined citizens’ trust in institutions without considering the value and ideological connotations of these institutions. Currently, we do not know whether trust in an environmentally skeptical government promotes or inhibits PEBs. However, this would be a factor to consider, given that greater trust in conservative and right-wing political ideologies is typically associated with less trust in climate change [17], less concern for the environment [18], and fewer pro-environmental behaviors [19].
Furthermore, democratic innovations, which encompass new approaches to collaborative governance and public participation, play a crucial role in addressing global challenges such as climate change. In particular, citizens’ trust in institutions is fundamental to ensuring the success of these innovations [20,21]. In contexts where the government adopts a skeptical stance on climate change, as in the case of the current Italian government [22], the relationship between trust and PEBs may become more complex. Fundamentally, a skeptical government, with respect to moderate and pro-environmental governments, refers to a government that expresses doubts or resists certain established scientific or policy frameworks, often regarding issues like climate change [23]. Skepticism can lead to delays or rollbacks in environmental regulations and policies, which can have significant negative impacts on environmental protection efforts, such as increased emissions or less investment in green technologies [24,25]. These attitudes often prioritize short-term economic interests over long-term environmental sustainability, which can significantly hinder progress in global climate efforts [25].
According to a survey conducted by the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) in collaboration with the Laboratory for Political and Social Analyses at the University of Siena, political orientation significantly influences the perceptions of climate issues. Voters from center-left parties, such as the Democratic Party, prioritize the fight against climate change more than right-wing voters, such as those of Fratelli d’Italia, who place greater emphasis on economic growth over environmental concerns [22].
This study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the dynamics between trust, gender, and PEBs, offering a unique perspective on the impact of trust in a climate-skeptical government and how such insights can be reflected in democratic innovations. This allows us to reflect on how citizens’ participation, a key element of democratic innovation, can be negatively influenced by misplaced trust.
2. The Gender Component of PEBs
In the existing literature, trust in the government has been shown to be a crucial factor in promoting PEBs among citizens, especially when institutions are perceived as transparent and accountable in their environmental actions. However, not all citizens respond to trust dynamics in the same way. Several studies have highlighted that gender differences play a significant role in the adoption of PEBs, suggesting that women and men may react differently depending on the level of trust they place in the government [26].
Several studies indicate that gender might significantly impact pro-environmental behavior [26,27,28,29], emphasizing the existence of a gender eco-gap [27]. Indeed, some studies highlighted that women tend to engage more in PEBs compared to men [27].
Despite different results being found regarding, for example, water saving [30,31], some researchers described gender differences in consumption as not uniformly widespread, but mainly linked to culture. The gender gap in PEBs is confirmed only for specific behaviors, such as those aimed at energy saving [32].
We know that PEBs can be divided into private behaviors, which are those that directly impact the environment (e.g., recycling), and public behaviors, which are those that indirectly affect the environment through processes mediated at political and social levels (e.g., signing a petition) [7]. The literature suggests that women appear to engage more in private PEBs than men. For example, women are more inclined towards water and energy conservation and recycling [33]. Additionally, women are more oriented towards sustainable eating habits. Some studies highlighted that women are more likely to follow diets based on the consumption and purchasing of fruits and vegetables, especially seasonal ones, foods characterized by the absence of chemicals, and organic produce [34,35], with less food waste [36] and lower meat consumption compared to men [37]. Scholars justified this gender difference in various ways. Firstly, this gap between men and women in implementing private PEBs can be explained by cultural and social environments. Several studies have shown how, in some contexts, gender role stereotypes (e.g., women seen as “family caregivers”) are associated with women’s behaviors aimed at household care, leading them to engage more in private PEBs [27,28]. Furthermore, the implementation of private PEBs seems to be related to their social position within the family unit, employment status, marriage, and children [38]. More specifically, unemployed women seemed to behave more pro-environmentally than those who work, although the latter still seem to engage more in PEBs than men [38]. Regarding public PEBs, it seems that women engage in public PEBs more than men, especially when driven by social expectations [39]. In several studies, it is confirmed that women are more likely to sign environmental petitions with a stronger willingness to contribute to its welfare than men [40,41]. Furthermore, women are more inclined to adapt their lifestyles to environmental policies and have greater confidence in citizens’ ability to propose environmental protection policies [42], and also seem to have greater concern for environmental issues [43]. Finally, if we refer to PEBs related to transportation, there is evidence of women’s greater propensity towards using public transport [9,41,44,45,46], covering shorter distances [47,48], owning fewer cars [36], using cars less frequently [49], and being more than twice as likely to carpool as men [41].
3. Aim of the Study and Hypotheses Development
This study aims to expand the understanding of the relationship between citizens’ trust in the government (in our case, a climate-skeptical government like the Italian one) and PEBs. The literature already indicates that higher trust in institutions leads to a greater implementation of PEBs [11], but in countries where people have more trust in conservative political ideologies, they are less likely to believe in climate change [17] and have less concern for the environment [18]. Additionally, in terms of gender, various studies reveal that women are more likely to engage in PEBs compared to men [27]. Based on this, we might expect that:
If citizens’ trust is placed in a government highly skeptical of climate change (where weather-related disasters are labeled as mere “bad weather” and climate change as “unpredictable weather”), there will be less implementation of PEBs.
On average, women engage in PEBs more than men.
Subsequently, we investigated whether the association between trust in the government and the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors might exhibit different trajectories based on gender.
4. Method
4.1. Participants and Procedure
Participants for this research were gathered through the distribution of an anonymous online survey, created using the Google Forms platform, in accordance with the privacy laws of Italy (Law Decree DL-101/2018) and EU regulations (2016/679). The survey was promoted through online posts on popular social networking sites, primarily Facebook and Instagram. Data collection took place between 25 March 2023 and 6 May 2024 (Prime Minister Meloni took office on 22 October 2022) through a non-probabilistic sample. Consequently, individuals who took part can be considered volunteers. The study sample consisted of 501 Italian citizens (65.1% cisgender women and 34.9% cisgender men), with an average age of 27.69 years and a range from 14 to 77 years (standard deviation of 10.54 years). In total, 46.7% of the sample holds a high school diploma, and 36.1% have a university degree. More than half of the sample are students (63.3%), while 16.6% have permanent employment and 11% have temporary employment. Just over half of the sample (55.3%) has an annual income below EUR 10,000, while 35.7% have an income between EUR 10,000 and EUR 40,000.
4.2. Measures
The Pro-Environmental Behavior (PEB) Scale is used to measure the degree to which people engage in environmentally meaningful behaviors [8]. This scale consists of 19 items that capture four factors: Conservation (e.g., “How often do you turn off the lights when leaving a room?”), Environmental Citizenship (e.g., “Are you currently a member of any environmental, conservation, or wildlife protection group?”), Food (“During the past year have you decreased the amount of beef you consume?”), and Transportation (“During the past year how often have you car-pooled?”). The items have a different response mode. Items 1–6 use a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Always. Item 7 has a response mode ranging from 1 = Very High to 3 = Low. Items 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 16 are dichotomous, with 1 = Yes and 5 = No. Item 10 and 11 use a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Never to 5 = Constantly. Item 13 uses a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = 24 or Less to 5 = 40 or More. Item 17, 18, and 19 use a three-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Never to 3 = Frequently. The minimum scale score for the Conservation dimension is 7, and the maximum is 33; the minimum scale score for the Environmental Citizenship dimension is 6, and the maximum is 30; the minimum scale score for the Food dimension is 3, and the maximum is 15; the minimum scale score for the Transportation dimension is 3, and the maximum is 9. The total score ranges from a minimum of 19 to a maximum of 87. Moreover, a higher score on the scale implies greater enactment of pro-environmental behaviors. The scale showed good reliability in the four subscales, given Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.74 for the subscale of Conservation, 0.65 for the subscale of Environmental Citizenship, 0.66 for the subscale of Food, and 0.62 for the subscale of Transportation. The Cronbach’s alpha for the full 19-item scale was 0.76 [8].
Citizens’ trust in a climate-skeptical government (specifically the Italian Government of Prime Minster Giorgia Meloni) was measured with the Citizen’s Trust Scale [50]. This scale consists of 7 items capturing 3 factors: Competence (e.g., “...is open and honest with the public...”), Integrity (e.g., “...intends to act with fairness”), and Value Similarity (e.g., “The values of this organization are... (similar/different)”). Participants were instructed to respond to the statements regarding the current Italian government, expressing their level of trust from 1—No trust to 4—High trust. Items 1 and 2 related to the Competence dimension, and items 3–6 related to the Integrity dimension, using a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “no trust” to 4 = “high trust”. Item 7 uses a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “very different from my values” to “very similar to my values”. The minimum score for the Competence dimension is 2 and the maximum is 8; for the Integrity dimension, the minimum score is 4 and the maximum is 16; for the Value Similarity dimension, the minimum score is 1 and the maximum is 4. This results in a total score ranging from a minimum of 7 to a maximum of 28. Moreover, a higher score on the scale implies greater trust and support for policies implemented by the government. All of the scales used in this study were translated into Italian using a back-translation process.
The gender variable, which is fundamental to our study, was collected through a closed question in the questionnaire, in which participants were asked to identify themselves as cisgender men, cisgender women, transgender male, transgender female, or non-binary. Those who did not identify themselves in the categories described or were unwilling to disclose this information were given the option to not specify. The item reported the definition of the various gender identifications, specifying that cisgender is defined as a person who identifies with the gender assigned to them at birth. A person born biologically male and who identifies as such is cisgender. Transgender people are individuals who have a gender identity and/or expression that differs from their sex assigned at birth. Identifying in the non-binary gender means not recognizing oneself in the binary distinctions of man and woman. In the data analysis, only cisgender individuals were considered, since the number of observations for other gender identities were not enough for the conduction of proper statistical analyses.
5. Data Analysis
As an initial step, we conducted an evaluation of potential anomalous response patterns using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Visually, the responses were inspected for irregularities, and we applied functions designed to detect systematic patterns such as straight-lining or zig-zagging. No suspicious patterns were identified during these assessments, and therefore no data were removed or treated specifically for anomalous behavior.
We then conducted descriptive analyses of the collected variables, also assessing their normality through skewness and kurtosis values. All data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0 (IBM Inc., New York, NY, USA). Subsequently, to evaluate the association between citizens’ trust in government and the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors, we employed either Pearson’s r or Spearman’s rho, depending on the satisfaction of statistical assumptions. A univariate ANOVA or the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to assess potential gender differences. Finally, the exploration of whether the association between trust in the government and the enactment of pro-environmental behaviors might exhibit different trajectories based on gender was conducted through an analysis of variance. This involved discretizing the total trust score into quartiles and comparing the pro-environmental behavior scores of cisgender men and women within each of the four trust clusters.
6. Results
Descriptive statistics for the collected metric variables are presented in Table 1. As observed in the table, only the variable related to pro-environmental dietary behaviors appears to violate the assumption of normality, exhibiting kurtosis exceeding the range from −1 to +1.
Based on this observation, we proceeded to analyze the linear association between trust in government scores and pro-environmental behavior scores using Pearson’s r coefficient, with the exception of the ’Food’ dimension, which, as previously indicated, does not follow a normal distribution. In this specific case, the associations concerning this dimension were evaluated using Spearman’s rho.
As evidenced in Table 2, each dimension of citizens’ trust in government consistently shows a negative association with each type of pro-environmental behavior considered. The effect size is typically around 0.20, which aligns with the conventional interpretation of correlation coefficients in the social sciences [51].
Subsequently, we tested our second hypothesis concerning potential gender differences in relation to pro-environmental behaviors. As shown in Table 3, with the exception of Environmental Citizenship behaviors, women generally engage in each other type of PEB more frequently on average. However, based on the established practice of interpreting effect sizes, we note that only the difference in sustainable dietary behaviors (i.e., the Food dimension) demonstrates a ’moderate’ difference, while the other two identified differences are relatively small [52].
In conclusion, we examined whether there were differences between cisgender men and women for each PEB considered within each level of trust in the government. We generated Figure 1 to illustrate the different trajectories observed.
As can be seen in Figure 1, on the one hand, as already observed in Table 2, trust in the government decreases adherence to pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) in both cisgender men and women. However, with the exception of the environmental citizenship dimension, which, as shown in the analyses reported in Table 3, did not support a gender difference, we observe similar but distinct trends between cisgender men and women in other cases. In these instances, such as the Food dimension, the difference, although with relatively low statistical power, is recorded for 3 of the 4 levels (tlow trust(55.63) = −2.89, p = 0.005; tmiddle-high trust(69.71) = −3.62, p = 0.001; thigh trust(53.34) = −2.75, p = 0.008). In other cases, like Transportation (tmiddle-low trust(110.54) = −2.23, p = 0.028) and Conservation (thigh trust(48.11) = −3.11, p = 0.003) behaviors, the difference between cisgender women and men is statistically significant just on one trust level. On the other hand, Figure 1 highlights situations where the joint effect of gender and trust becomes particularly evident despite statistical non-significance. For example, in terms of conservation PEBs, cisgender men with low trust in the government, who are among the highest in behavioral adherence among cisgender men, do not differ from cisgender women with high trust in the government, who represent one of the lowest levels of behavioral adherence within the cluster of cisgender women.
7. Discussion
As emphasized by both the IPCC and COP27, the climate emergency, in line with forecasts, is steadily progressing, resulting in progressively severe and conspicuous impacts on global natural and human systems [1,2]. Overall, the extant literature indicates that PEBs and climate change transcend mere scientific discourse, often becoming intertwined with political ideologies. That is why we can observe numerous scientific studies indicating a positive correlation between PEBs and trust in societal institutions. Indeed, individuals with high trust in institutions and government are more willing to sacrifice for the environment, such as accepting tax hikes for environmental causes [10]. The results of this study offer new perspectives on the relationship between trust in the government and the adoption of PEBs, highlighting that, contrary to what has been documented in contexts with progressive governments favorable to environmental policies, greater trust in a skeptical government, such as the current one in Italy, may act as a barrier to the adoption of eco-friendly behaviors. Indeed, consistent with our hypothesis (H1), individuals with higher confidence in the current Meloni administration exhibited less frequent engagement in PEB across dimensions such as Conservation, Transportation, Food, and Environmental Citizenship. This result is in line with the existing literature, which emphasizes that political orientation plays a significant role in shaping attitudes toward climate issues. Voters on the center-left tend to prioritize climate action, while those on the right often emphasize economic growth over environmental concerns [22]. This pattern is thought to reflect the belief systems tied to political ideologies, which, according to the Theory of Reasoned Action, subsequently influence behavioral changes [53]. The literature, as outlined, suggests that gender has a significant effect on pro-environmental behaviors [26,27,28,29]. The results of our study are in line with existing research confirming a gender disparity in PEB, with women generally showing higher levels of PEB than men [27], thus confirming our hypothesis (H2). Specifically, gender differences were discernible in three out of four dimensions (Conservation, Food, and Transportation), although these discrepancies appear minor in terms of effect size except for the Food dimension. This observation echoes findings from the literature, which suggest that women tend to adopt more sustainable dietary habits [34,35], characterized by reduced meat consumption [37], decreased food waste [36], and increased consumption of seasonal fruits and vegetables [37]. To adopt a more gender-sensitive approach, our study aimed to investigate how the connection between citizen trust and pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) might vary based on gender. Except for the PEB Environmental Citizenship, a clear distinction between men and women was evident, particularly noticeable in PEBs related to food. Our analysis reveals distinct trajectories for men and women, suggesting that, for cisgender men, trust in the current government tends to hinder pro-environmental behaviors, especially considering that men generally exhibit lower levels of PEBs. In fact, in the cases of Conservation- and Food-related PEBs, women with high trust levels exhibit PEB levels similar to men with low trust in the government (see Figure 1). Consequently, our findings indicate that trust in the government does not necessarily foster an increase in PEBs; instead, it may even act as an inhibiting factor, depending on the values endorsed by the government.
8. Implications
Citizen engagement requires trust in Public Authority (PA). However, our study reveals that trust does not always correlate positively with citizens’ pro-environmental engagement. In certain circumstances, high levels of trust in PAs can actually have a counterproductive effect. This insight is particularly significant for democratic innovations, where intrinsic social influences can lead to unintended consequences, such as the erosion of support for pro-environmental actions [20,21]. Open participation scenarios [54,55], which involve a large number of participants, need careful management due to the voluntary nature of such involvement. In regions where the PAs disseminate a skeptical narrative about climate change, open participation methods should be avoided. Instead, approaches that employ moderators or randomization processes can mitigate the paradoxical effect where higher trust in the PAs results in adverse outcomes. Specifically, mini-publics [56] represent an optimal tool as they rely on random participant selection and encourage inclusive discussions among a diverse group of individuals. This method not only spans different political ideologies, but also addresses psychosocial dimensions, thereby preventing the drift towards skepticism that might be inadvertently promoted by trust in PAs.
9. Limits
The present study, of course, has its limitations. Foremost among them is the non-probabilistic recruitment method, primarily conducted, although not exclusively, through online channels, which inevitably limits the generalizability of the results. Additionally, potential response biases cannot be ruled out. While efforts were made to identify and address anomalous response patterns (e.g., straightlining), the possibility remains that some individuals may have completed the questionnaire multiple times, as no precautions were taken to ensure the integrity of responses to preserve full anonymity. The self-reported data used in this study provide direct insights into participants’ perceptions, but are subject to potential biases such as social desirability and recall errors. To mitigate these risks, we ensured anonymity and used clear and specific questions. Despite the rigor of the back-translation procedure used for the scales, the possibility of measurement bias due to less-than-perfect linguistic adaptation cannot be entirely ruled out. While our findings show significant correlations between the variables, it is important to note that they do not establish causal relationships. Another limitation is regarding age, which was not specifically analyzed as a possible moderating factor in this study, and further research is needed to determine its potential influence on the results.
Another limitation is that we did not directly measure the participants’ belief systems, nor do we have information about their political orientation.
An additional limitation of the present study concerns the measurement of trust. This study focused on trust in a specific government rather than governments in general. It is plausible that the same participants might have provided different responses if the current government had been one that acknowledged climate change caused by human activity. A hypothetical comparison of responses to the same question posed under the current climate-skeptical government and a hypothetical government committed to addressing human-induced climate change could provide valuable insights in future studies.
10. Future Perspectives
Based on what emerged from our study, in the future, it might be useful to extend the research to PEBs that were not considered, for example, behaviors inherent in fast fashion, in order to have a greater understanding of the different types of PEBs that can be enacted. In addition, it might be desirable to expand the sex-sensitive analysis to also include transgender people, non-binary people, and people who do not necessarily identify with the male/female gender. Also, in future research, it would be valuable to explore whether women’s pro-environmental behaviors, particularly regarding food consumption, are influenced by esthetic care motivations. Studies have shown that environmental esthetics and emotional regulation significantly impact eco-friendly behaviors [57], and esthetic sensitivity might drive personal care choices linked to sustainability [58]. Although direct evidence in this specific domain is limited, investigating this connection could provide further insights into the motivations behind gender-specific pro-environmental actions and expand our model towards incorporating other already known drivers of pro-environmental behaviors.
11. Conclusions
In essence, this study delves into the trust that citizens place in the government and its relationship with Pro-Environmental Behaviors (PEBs). Focusing on this relationship, it was shown that greater trust in a climate-skeptical government has an association with less implemented PEBs. Furthermore, a differentiation in terms of gender is made, confirming that, although there is a decrease in PEBs among both women and men, the effect of trust in a skeptical government has less impact on women compared to men. In fact, the difference in terms of PEBs implemented between women who trust a skeptical government and men who do not trust it is almost negligible, confirming that women generally engage in more PEBs than men. This insight is especially important for democratic innovations, as inherent social influences can reduce support for pro-environmental actions.
Conceptualization, M.D., F.P.S., N.L., L.P. and A.G.; Data curation, M.D. and A.G.; Formal analysis, M.D. and A.G.; Investigation, G.N. and N.L.; Methodology, M.D., M.F., N.L. and A.G.; Supervision, M.D. and A.G.; Writing—original draft, M.D., F.P.S., G.N., M.F., N.L., L.P. and A.G.; Writing—review & editing, M.D., F.P.S., G.N., M.F., N.L., L.P. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was approved by the Comissão de Ética do Centro de Estudos Sociais (CE-CES) (Uni-versity of Coimbra; date: 24 October 2022; protocol number: 02319461).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Pairwise comparison between cisgender women and men for each PEB considered within each level of trust in government. Note: red circles indicate where the pair-wise comparison between cisgender women and men is statistically significant.
Descriptive statistics.
| Variable | Min | Max | Mean (s.d.) | Skew. | Kurt. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEB: Conservation | 16 | 35 | 27.91 (3.60) | −0.57 | 0.33 |
| PEB: | 6 | 26 | 13.42 (3.91) | 0.45 | 0.21 |
| PEB: Food | 3 | 15 | 10.19 (4.90) | −0.43 | −1.42 |
| PEB: Transportation | 3 | 15 | 11.48 (2.80) | −0.55 | −0.19 |
| CT: Competence | 1 | 7 | 3.22 (1.24) | 0.66 | −0.22 |
| CT: Integrity | 3 | 13 | 6.35 (2.31) | 0.67 | −0.41 |
| CT: Value Similarity | 1 | 4 | 1.63 | 0.67 | −0.04 |
Correlation matrix regarding PEBs and CT dimensions.
| Variable | PEB: Conservation | PEB: | PEB: | PEB: |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT: Competence | −0.15 *** | −0.21 *** | −0.16 *** | −0.18 *** |
| CT: Integrity | −0.17 *** | −0.17 *** | −0.19 *** | −0.18 *** |
| CT: Value Similarity | −0.18 *** | −0.18 *** | −0.19 *** | −0.17 *** |
Note: *** = p < 0.001; ◆ = the correlation with this variable was assessed using Spearman’s rho.
Analysis of the differences in PEBs between cisgender women and men.
| Variable | Cisgender Men Mean (s.d.) | Cisgender Women Mean (s.d.) | F(1; 482) | η2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEB: Conservation | 27.01 (4.01) | 28.35 (3.35) | 15.11 *** | 0.03 |
| PEB: | 13.16 (4.04) | 13.53 (3.82) | 0.95 | n.c. |
| PEB: Food ◆ | 8.57 (5.14) | 11.05 (4.55) | 24.23 *** | 0.05 |
| PEB: Transportation | 11.01 (3.02) | 11.75 (2.64) | 7.64 ** | 0.02 |
Note: ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001; ◆ = the analysis with this variable was assessed using a Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA, and the effect size was converted to η2.
References
1. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.C.; Tignor, M.M.B.; Poloczanska, E.S.; Mintenbeck, K.; Alegría, A.; Craig, M.; Langsdorf, S.; Löschke, S.; Möller, V. et al. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022.
2. Atwoli, L.; Erhabor, G.E.; Gbakima, A.A.; Haileamlak, A.; Ntumba, J.-M.K.; Kigera, J.; Laybourn-Langton, L.; Mash, R.; Muhia, J.; Mulaudzi, F.M. et al. COP27 Climate Change Conference: Urgent Action Needed for Africa and the World. Lancet Oncol.; 2022; 23, pp. 1486-1488. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00645-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36272420]
3. Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Afroz, R.; Al-Amin, A.Q.; Kari, F.B. Pro-Environmental Behavior and Public Understanding of Climate Change. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change; 2015; 20, pp. 591-600. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9509-4]
4. Axelrod, L. Balancing Personal Needs with Environmental Preservation: Identifying the Values That Guide Decisions in Ecological Dilemmas. J. Soc. Issues; 1994; 50, pp. 85-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02421.x]
5. Pruneau, D.; Doyon, A.; Langis, J.; Vasseur, L.; Ouellet, E.; McLaughlin, E.; Boudreau, G.; Martin, G. When Teachers Adopt Environmental Behaviors in the Aim of Protecting the Climate. J. Environ. Educ.; 2006; 37, pp. 3-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.37.3.3-12]
6. Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues; 2000; 56, pp. 407-424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175]
7. Hansmann, R.; Binder, C.R. Determinants of Different Types of Positive Environmental Behaviors: An Analysis of Public and Private Sphere Actions. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8547. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12208547]
8. Markle, G.L. Pro-Environmental Behavior: Does It Matter How It’s Measured? Development and Validation of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS). Hum. Ecol.; 2013; 41, pp. 905-914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8]
9. Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sainz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Does Gender Make a Difference in Pro-Environmental Behavior? The Case of the Basque Country University Students. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 176, pp. 89-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.079]
10. Harring, N.; Jagers, S.C. Should We Trust in Values? Explaining Public Support for Pro-Environmental Taxes. Sustainability; 2013; 5, pp. 210-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su5010210]
11. Taniguchi, H.; Marshall, G.A. Trust, Political Orientation, and Environmental Behavior. Environ. Politics; 2018; 27, pp. 385-410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1425275]
12. Kulin, J.; Johansson Sevä, I. Quality of Government and the Relationship between Environmental Concern and Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Cross-National Study. Environ. Politics; 2021; 30, pp. 727-752. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1809160]
13. Hajjar, R.; Kozak, R.A. Exploring Public Perceptions of Forest Adaptation Strategies in Western Canada: Implications for Policy-Makers. For. Policy Econ.; 2015; 61, pp. 59-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.004]
14. Davidovic, D.; Harring, N.; Jagers, S.C. The Contingent Effects of Environmental Concern and Ideology: Institutional Context and People’s Willingness to Pay Environmental Taxes. Environ. Politics; 2020; 29, pp. 674-696. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1606882]
15. Bruno, J.M.; Bianchi, E.C.; Sánchez, C. Determinants of Household Recycling Intention: The Acceptance of Public Policy Moderated by Habits, Social Influence, and Perceived Time Risk. Environ. Sci. Policy; 2022; 136, pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.010]
16. Sautkina, E.; Agissova, F.; Ivanova, A.; Ivande, K.; Kabanova, V.; Patrakova, N. Political, Environmental and Social Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behaviour In Russia 2021. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3995972 (accessed on 28 January 2025).
17. Stanley, S.K.; Wilson, M.S.; Milfont, T.L. Exploring Short-Term Longitudinal Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on Environmentalism. Personal. Individ. Differ.; 2017; 108, pp. 174-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.059]
18. Skalski, S.B.; Loichen, T.; Toussaint, L.L.; Uram, P.; Kwiatkowska, A.; Surzykiewicz, J. Relationships between Spirituality, Religious Fundamentalism and Environmentalism: The Mediating Role of Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 13242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013242]
19. Hidalgo-Crespo, J.; Coello-Pisco, S.; Reyes-Venegas, H.; Bermeo-Garay, M.; Amaya, J.L.; Soto, M.; Hidalgo-Crespo, A. Understanding Citizens’ Environmental Concern and Their pro-Environmental Behaviours and Attitudes and Their Influence on Energy Use. Energy Rep.; 2022; 8, pp. 103-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.01.116]
20. Chwialkowska, A.; Bhatti, W.A.; Glowik, M. The Influence of Cultural Values on Pro-Environmental Behavior. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 268, 122305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122305]
21. Estrada, M.; Schultz, P.W.; Silva-Send, N.; Boudrias, M.A. The Role of Social Influences on Pro-Environment Behaviors in the San Diego Region. J. Urban Health; 2017; 94, pp. 170-179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0139-0]
22. Margherita Bianchi, G.G. G20, COP26 and the Climate Emergency: Insights from Italian Public Opinion. Available online: https://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/g20-cop26-and-climate-emergency-insights-italian-public-opinion (accessed on 12 October 2024).
23. Fang, S.; Stone, R.W. International Organizations as Policy Advisors. Int. Organ.; 2012; 66, pp. 537-569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020818312000276]
24. Sarathchandra, D.; Haltinner, K. Climate Change Skeptics’ Environmental Concerns and Support for Clean Energy Policy: A Case Study of the US Pacific Northwest. Climate; 2023; 11, 221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cli11110221]
25. Gök, A.; Sodhi, N. The Environmental Impact of Governance: A System-Generalized Method of Moments Analysis. Env. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2021; 28, pp. 32995-33008. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12903-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33634407]
26. Swim, J.K.; Gillis, A.; Hamaty, K.J. Gender Bending and Gender Conformity: The Social Consequences of Engaging in Feminine and Masculine Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Sex Roles; 2020; 82, pp. 363-385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01061-9]
27. Jilg, M. The Man-Environment Nexus in Morocco: A Qualitative Study of Hegemonic Masculinity Norms and Attitudes Towards Pro-Environmental Behavior amongst Male University Students in Rabat, Morocco. 2023; Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1804969&dswid=6731 (accessed on 28 January 2025).
28. Teixeira, A.; Gabriel, R.; Martinho, J.; Santos, M.; Faria, A.; Oliveira, I.; Moreira, H. Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Relationship with Nature Visits, Connectedness to Nature and Physical Activity. Am. J. Health Promot.; 2023; 37, pp. 12-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08901171221119089] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35953073]
29. Wut, T.M.; Ng, P.; Hing-Ki, M.K.; Chui, S.F. Does Gender Matter? Attitude towards Waste Charging Policy and pro-Environmental Behaviours. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2020; 17, pp. 1100-1115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-03-2020-0102]
30. Granda, L.; Moya-Fernández, P.J.; Soriano-Miras, R.M.; González-Gómez, F. Pro-Environmental Behaviour in Household Water Use. A Gender Perspective. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag.; 2024; 10, 49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40899-023-01027-6]
31. De Simone, M.; Callea, L.; Fajilla, G. Surveys and Inferential Statistics to Analyze Contextual and Personal Factors Influencing Domestic Hot Water Systems and Usage Profiles in Residential Buildings of Southern Italy. Energy Build.; 2022; 255, 111660. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111660]
32. Rainisio, N.; Boffi, M.; Pola, L.; Inghilleri, P.; Sergi, I.; Liberatori, M. The Role of Gender and Self-Efficacy in Domestic Energy Saving Behaviors: A Case Study in Lombardy, Italy. Energy Policy; 2022; 160, 112696. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112696]
33. Bloodhart, B.; Swim, J.K. Sustainability and Consumption: What’s Gender Got to Do with It?. J. Soc. Issues; 2020; 76, pp. 101-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.12370]
34. Loureiro, M.L.; Mccluskey, J.J.; Mittelhammer, R.C. Will Consumers Pay a Premium for Eco-Labeled Apples?. J. Consum. Aff.; 2002; 36, pp. 203-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2002.tb00430.x]
35. Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude—Behavioral Intention” Gap. J. Agric. Env. Ethics; 2006; 19, pp. 169-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3]
36. Zhao, Z.; Gong, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, L.; Sun, Y. Gender-Related Beliefs, Norms, and the Link with Green Consumption. Front. Psychol.; 2021; 12, 710239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710239] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34955947]
37. Figueiredo, C.; Azeiteiro, U.M.; García-Vinuesa, A.; Carvalho, S.C. Campus Decarbonization: Students’ Perceptions for Reducing Meat Consumption in a Portuguese University. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 6048. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13116048]
38. Agovino, M.; Cerciello, M.; Musella, G. Economic Cycle, Labour Market and pro-Environmental Behaviours. The Case of Separate Waste Collection in Italy. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.; 2023; 102, 107207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107207]
39. Trelohan, M. Do Women Engage in Pro-Environmental Behaviours in the Public Sphere Due to Social Expectations? The Effects of Social Norm-Based Persuasive Messages. Voluntas; 2022; 33, pp. 134-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00303-9]
40. Torgler, B.; Garcia-Valiñas, M.A.; Macintyre, A. Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect; Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM): Milano, Italy, 2008.
41. Briscoe, M.D.; Givens, J.E.; Hazboun, S.O.; Krannich, R.S. At Home, in Public, and in between: Gender Differences in Public, Private and Transportation pro-Environmental Behaviors in the US Intermountain West. Environ. Sociol.; 2019; 5, pp. 374-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2019.1628333]
42. Tien, Y.-H.; Huang, J. Gender Differences in Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions, Environmental Values, Tolerance of Environmental Protection Cost, and Confidence in Citizen Participation in Environmental Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Taiwan. Pol. J. Environ. Stud.; 2023; 32, pp. 4813-4823. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/168851]
43. Xiao, C.; McCright, A.M. Gender Differences in Environmental Concern: Revisiting the Institutional Trust Hypothesis in the USA. Environ. Behav.; 2015; 47, pp. 17-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916513491571]
44. Hamilton, K.; Jenkins, L. A Gender Audit for Public Transport: A New Policy Tool in the Tackling of Social Exclusion. Urban. Stud.; 2000; 37, pp. 1793-1800. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980020080411]
45. Polk, M. Are Women Potentially More Accommodating than Men to a Sustainable Transportation System in Sweden?. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2003; 8, pp. 75-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(02)00034-2]
46. Rosenbloom, S. Understanding Women’s and Men’s Travel Patterns: The Research Challenge. Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings; Transportation Research Forum: Austin, TX, USA, 2006.
47. Moser, S.; Kleinhückelkotten, S. Good Intents, but Low Impacts: Diverging Importance of Motivational and Socioeconomic Determinants Explaining Pro-Environmental Behavior, Energy Use, and Carbon Footprint. Environ. Behav.; 2018; 50, pp. 626-656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916517710685]
48. Polk, M. Swedish Men and Women’s Mobility Patterns: Issues of Social Equity and Ecological Sustainability; American Psychological Association (APA): Worcester, MA, USA, 1998.
49. Johnsson-Latham, G. A Study on Gender Equality as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Development; A Report to the Environmental Advisory Council The Environment Advisory Council Ministry of the Environment: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007.
50. Kitt, S.; Axsen, J.; Long, Z.; Rhodes, E. The Role of Trust in Citizen Acceptance of Climate Policy: Comparing Perceptions of Government Competence, Integrity and Value Similarity. Ecol. Econ.; 2021; 183, 106958. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106958]
51. Gignac, G.E.; Szodorai, E.T. Effect Size Guidelines for Individual Differences Researchers. Personal. Individ. Differ.; 2016; 102, pp. 74-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069]
52. Richardson, J. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, USA, 1986; ISBN 978-0-313-23529-0
53. Fishbein, M. A Theory of Reasoned Action: Some Applications and Implications. Neb. Symp. Motiv.; 1979; 27, pp. 65-116.
54. Ruesch, M.A.; Basedow, S.; Korte, J.-H. From E to O. Proceedings of the Advancing Democracy, Government and Governance; Kő, A.; Leitner, C.; Leitold, H.; Prosser, A. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012; pp. 254-263.
55. Belmondo, C.; Sargis-Roussel, C. The Political Dynamics of Opening Participation in Strategy: The Role of Strategy Specialists’ Legitimacy and Disposition to Openness. Organ. Stud.; 2023; 44, pp. 613-635. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01708406221080123]
56. Setälä, M. Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process; ECPR Press: Colchester, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-1-907301-32-2
57. Li, H.; You, C.; Li, J.; Li, M.; Tan, M.; Zhang, G.; Zhong, Y. Influence of Environmental Aesthetic Value and Anticipated Emotion on Pro-Environmental Behavior: An ERP Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 5714. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095714]
58. Wang, P.-C.; Yu, C.-Y. Aesthetic Experience as an Essential Factor to Trigger Positive Environmental Consciousness. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 1098. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10041098]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Severino, Franca Paola 1 ; Neri, Gabriele 1 ; Fiorenza, Maria 1
; Lindemann, Norma 1 ; Puddu, Luisa 1 ; Guazzini, Andrea 2
1 Department of Education, Literatures, Intercultural Studies, Languages and Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy
2 Department of Education, Literatures, Intercultural Studies, Languages and Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy