IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v117y2015icp129-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing a conceptual framework for the attitude–intention–behaviour links driving illegal resource extraction in Bardia National Park, Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Thapa Karki, Shova
  • Hubacek, Klaus

Abstract

This research investigates households' attitudes, and the association between attitudes and illegal resource extraction behaviour at Bardia National Park in Nepal. Despite facing a number of problems households held predominantly positive attitudes towards the park and wildlife. Attitudes were influenced by the respondents' values towards conservation rather than incentives received. However, positive attitude and their general agreement with conservation efforts did not stop households' involvement in illegal resource extraction. We found that general factors, such as perception associated with the park and contextual variables, and behaviour-specific factors, such as perception of resource extraction, had an impact on behaviour. Behaviour-specific factors help to understand how individuals frame their behaviour and how this framing constrains or facilitates behavioural change. Similarly, general factor helps to understand why households engage in the behaviour. Therefore, it is important to consider both of these factors to understand actual behaviour. Our research shows that positive attitudes by themselves are not sufficient for changing behaviour. This indicates that interventions need to be directed to all parts of the causal chain from environmental awareness, to attitudes, to intention, and finally to actual behaviour; missing a link in the sequence will interrupt the whole process.

Suggested Citation

  • Thapa Karki, Shova & Hubacek, Klaus, 2015. "Developing a conceptual framework for the attitude–intention–behaviour links driving illegal resource extraction in Bardia National Park, Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 129-139.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:117:y:2015:i:c:p:129-139
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915002852
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    2. Michal Carrington & Benjamin Neville & Gregory Whitwell, 2010. "Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 139-158, November.
    3. Cernea, Michael M. & Schmidt-Soltau, Kai, 2006. "Poverty Risks and National Parks: Policy Issues in Conservation and Resettlement," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1808-1830, October.
    4. Vermeir, Iris & Verbeke, Wim, 2008. "Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 542-553, January.
    5. Vodouhê, Fifanou G. & Coulibaly, Ousmane & Adégbidi, Anselme & Sinsin, Brice, 2010. "Community perception of biodiversity conservation within protected areas in Benin," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(7), pages 505-512, September.
    6. Jennifer K. Sesabo & Hartmut Lang & Richard S.J. Tol, 2006. "Perceived Attitude and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) establishment: Why households’ characteristics matters in Coastal resources conservation initiatives in Tanzania," Working Papers FNU-99, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Mar 2006.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gamel, Johannes & Bauer, Andreas & Decker, Thomas & Menrad, Klaus, 2022. "Financing wind energy projects: An extended theory of planned behavior approach to explain private households’ wind energy investment intentions in Germany," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 592-601.
    2. Adongo, Charles A. & Taale, Francis & Adam, Issahaku, 2018. "Tourists' values and empathic attitude toward sustainable development in tourism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 251-263.
    3. He, Ke & Ye, Lihong & Li, Fanlue & Chang, Huayi & Wang, Anbang & Luo, Sixuan & Zhang, Junbiao, 2022. "Using cognition and risk to explain the intention-behavior gap on bioenergy production: Based on machine learning logistic regression method," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paolo Antonetti & Stan Maklan, 2014. "Feelings that Make a Difference: How Guilt and Pride Convince Consumers of the Effectiveness of Sustainable Consumption Choices," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 117-134, September.
    2. Aistė Čapienė & Aušra Rūtelionė & Krzysztof Krukowski, 2022. "Engaging in Sustainable Consumption: Exploring the Influence of Environmental Attitudes, Values, Personal Norms, and Perceived Responsibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Catherine Janssen & Joëlle Vanhamme, 2015. "Theoretical Lenses for Understanding the CSR–Consumer Paradox," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(4), pages 775-787, September.
    4. Francesco Testa & Silvia Sarti & Marco Frey, 2019. "Are green consumers really green? Exploring the factors behind the actual consumption of organic food products," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 327-338, February.
    5. Carrington, Michal J. & Neville, Benjamin A. & Whitwell, Gregory J., 2014. "Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 2759-2767.
    6. Brahim Chekima & Mohamed Bouteraa & Rudy Ansar & Suddin Lada & Lim Ming Fook & Elhachemi Tamma & Azaze-Azizi Abdul Adis & Khadidja Chekima, 2023. "Determinants of Organic Food Consumption in Narrowing the Green Gap," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Zhengxia He & Yanqing Zhou & Jianming Wang & Cunfang Li & Meiling Wang & Wenbo Li, 2021. "The impact of motivation, intention, and contextual factors on green purchasing behavior: New energy vehicles as an example," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1249-1269, February.
    8. Erifili Papista & Athanasios Krystallis, 2013. "Investigating the Types of Value and Cost of Green Brands: Proposition of a Conceptual Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 75-92, June.
    9. Bettina A. Lorenz & Monika Hartmann & Stefan Hirsch & Olga Kanz & Nina Langen, 2017. "Determinants of Plate Leftovers in One German Catering Company," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, May.
    10. William Sun, 2020. "Toward a theory of ethical consumer intention formation: re-extending the theory of planned behavior," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(3), pages 260-278, December.
    11. Radu Ciobanu & Claudia-Elena Țuclea & Luciana-Floriana Holostencu & Diana-Maria Vrânceanu, 2022. "Decision-Making Factors in the Purchase of Ecologic Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-26, August.
    12. Andreas Falke & Nadine Schröder & Claudia Hofmann, 2022. "The influence of values in sustainable consumption among millennials," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 92(6), pages 899-928, August.
    13. Farida Saleem & Ahmad Adeel & Rizwan Ali & Shabir Hyder, 2018. "Intentions to adopt ecopreneurship: moderating role of collectivism and altruism," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(2), pages 517-537, December.
    14. Hsu, Chia-Lin & Chang, Chi-Ya & Yansritakul, Chutinart, 2017. "Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 145-152.
    15. Lianne Foti & Avis Devine, 2019. "High Involvement and Ethical Consumption: A Study of the Environmentally Certified Home Purchase Decision," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-11, September.
    16. Jana Hojnik & Mitja Ruzzier & Tatiana S. Manolova, 2020. "Sustainable development: Predictors of green consumerism in Slovenia," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1695-1708, July.
    17. Nieves García-de-Frutos & José Manuel Ortega-Egea & Javier Martínez-del-Río, 2018. "Anti-consumption for Environmental Sustainability: Conceptualization, Review, and Multilevel Research Directions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 411-435, March.
    18. Alex Hiller & Tony Woodall, 2019. "Everything Flows: A Pragmatist Perspective of Trade-Offs and Value in Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 893-912, July.
    19. Nguyen, The Ninh & Lobo, Antonio & Greenland, Steven, 2016. "Pro-environmental purchase behaviour: The role of consumers' biospheric values," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 98-108.
    20. Liobikienė, Genovaitė & Mandravickaitė, Justina & Bernatonienė, Jurga, 2016. "Theory of planned behavior approach to understand the green purchasing behavior in the EU: A cross-cultural study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 38-46.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:117:y:2015:i:c:p:129-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.