Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Pro-Environmental Behaviours Scale (PEBS)

  • Elisa MenardoEmail author
  • Margherita Brondino
  • Margherita Pasini


Given that human behaviour is a major cause of environmental problems, psychology can play a crucial role in the efforts to deal with environmental issues. Environmentally significant behaviours (EBs) are defined as behaviours that harm the (natural) environment as little as possible or that contribute to its protection. However, psychologists often assess behaviours that are the target of interest without knowing their influence on the ecological system. The Pro-Environmental Behaviours Scale (PEBS; Markle in Hum Ecol 41:905–914, 2013) is, to our knowledge, the only scale based on empirical evidence from environmental scientific studies that covers the principal EBs categories proposed in the literature (private-sphere environmentalist, activism, and nonactivist behaviours in the public sphere). The aim of this paper is to adapt the original PEBS to the Italian context (qualitative phase) and to verify its psychometric properties (e.g. factor structure) (quantitative phase). The original scale was slightly modified following a suggestion obtained in a focus group (n = 17) and in a pilot study (n = 18). On a sample of 765 Italian adults [70% female, mean (SD) age = 41.7 (12.2), 2 missing] results revealed a 4-factor structure (conservation, environmental citizenship, food, and transportation) of the Italian PEBS, like the original version (Markle 2013), maintaining 15 of the 19 original items (CFI = .973; RMSEA = .037: WRMR = 1.047; χ(84)2 = 170.63, p < .001; explained variance = 42%). Other psychometrics properties were “good” or better. Results suggest that the Italian PEBS is a valid and reliable tool for assessing the principal EBs proposed by the literature as having a great impact on the environment.


Pro-Environmental Behaviours Italian adults Confirmatory factor analysis Psychometrics properties Ecological behaviours 


Supplementary material

10668_2019_520_MOESM1_ESM.docx (59 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 58 kb)


  1. American Psychological Association (APA). (2009). Task force on the interface between psychology and global climate change. Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. Retrieved July 23, 2018 from
  2. Armel, K., Yan, K., Todd, A., & Robinson, T. (2011). The stanford climate change behaviour survey (SCCBS): Assessing greenhouse gas emissions-related behaviours in individuals and populations. Climatic Change,109(3–4), 671–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology,27, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berto, R., Barbiero, G., Barbiero, P., & Senes, G. (2008). An individual’s connection to nature can affect perceived restorativeness of natural environments. Some observations about biophilia. Behavioural Science,8(3), 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleys, B., Defloor, B., Ootegem, L., & Verhofstadt, E. (2018). The environmental impact of individual behaviour: Self-assessment versus the ecological footprint. Environment and Behavior,50(2), 187–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bobbio, A., & Manganelli, A. M. (2011). Measuring social desirability responding. A short version of Paulhus’ BIDR 6. Testing, Psychometrics Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18(2), 117–135.Google Scholar
  7. Brick, C., & Lewis, G. J. (2016). Unearthing the “green” personality: Core traits predict environmentally friendly behaviour. Environment and Behavior,48(5), 635–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brower, M., & Leon, W. (1999). The consumer’s guide to effective environmental choices: Practical advice from the union of concerned scientists. New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. Bruni, C., & Schultz, P. (2010). Implicit beliefs about self and nature: Evidence from an IAT game. Journal of Environmental Psychology,30, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne, B. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema,20(4), 872–882.Google Scholar
  12. Byrne, B., Shavelson, R., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement in variance. Psychological Bullettin,105(3), 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chawla, L., & Derr, V. (2012). The Development of conservation behaviours in childhood and youth. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 629–660). Oxford: Oxford Library of Psychology.Google Scholar
  14. Cheung, G., & Rensvold, R. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling,9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiorri, C., Bracco, F., Piccinno, T., Modafferi, C., & Battini, V. (2015). Psychometric properties of a revised version of the ten item personality inventory. European Journal of Psychologial Assessment,31(2), 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clayton, S. D. (2012). Environment and identity. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 208–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clayton, S. D., & Brook, A. (2005). Can psychology help save the world? A model for conservation psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,5, 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clayton, S. D., & Sauders, C. (2012). Introduction: Environmental and conservation psychology. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 23–29). Oxford: Oxford Library of Psychology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., & Laroche, M. (2005). Shades of green: Linking environmental locus of control and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Consumer Marketing,22(4), 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Corral-Verdugo, V., Tapia-Fonllem, C., & Ortiz-Valdez, A. (2015). On the relationship between character strengths and sustainable behaviour. Environment and Behavior,47(8), 877–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, J., Le, B., & Coy, A. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behaviour and willingness to sacrifice. Journal of Environmental Psychology,31, 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Dominicis, S., Schultz, P., & Bonaiuto, M. (2017). Protecting the environment for self-interested reasons: Altruism is not the only pathway to sustainability. Frontiers in Psychology,8, 1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DiStefano, C., Liu, J., Jiang, N., & Shi, D. (2018). Examination of the weighted root mean square residual: Evidence for trustworthiness? Structural Equation Modeling,25, 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dono, J., Webb, J., & Richardson, B. (2010). The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology,30, 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues,56, 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dunn, T., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology,105, 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dutcher, D., Finley, J., Luloff, A., & Johnson, J. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior,39(4), 474–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foley, J. A., Defries, R., Asner, G. P., et al. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science,309, 570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Folz, D. (1991). Recycling program design, management, and participation: A national survey of municipal experience. Public Administration Review,51, 222–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2006). Influence of personality on ecological consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behavior,5, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gardner, G., & Stern, P. (2008). The short list: Most effective actions U.S. households can take to limit climate change. Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,50(5), 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gifford, R. (2008). Psychology’s essential role in alleviating the impacts of climate change. Canadian Psychology,49(4), 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist,66(4), 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence. International Journal of Psychology,65, 141–157.Google Scholar
  35. Giuliani, M., & Scopelliti, M. (2009). Empirical research in environmental psychology: Past, present, and future. Journal of Environmental Psychology,29, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gosling, E., & Williams, K. (2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: Testing connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology,30, 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Green, S., & Yang, Y. (2009). Reliability of summed item scores using structural equation modeling: An alternative to coefficient alpha. Psychometrika,74, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F., & Strumse, E. (2007). Psychological restoration in nature as a source of motivation for ecological behaviour. Environmental Conservation,34(4), 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A. (2001). Psychological restoration in nature as positive motivation for ecological behaviour. Environment and Behavior,33(4), 590–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hilbig, B., Zettler, I., Moshagen, M., & Heydasch, T. (2013). Tracing the path from personality—Via cooperativeness—To conservation. European Journal of Personality,27, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hirsch, J., & Dolderman, D. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences,43, 1583–1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Retrieved November 14, 2019 from
  43. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Retrieved March 3, 2018 from
  44. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved March 3, 2018 from
  45. Iwata, O. (2004). Some psychological correlates of environmentally responsible behaviour. Social Behavior and Personality,32(8), 703–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods,14(1), 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jagers, S., Martinsson, J., & Matti, S. (2016). The environmental psychology of the ecological citizen: Comparing competing models of pro-environmental behaviour. Social Science Quarterly,97(5), 1005–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Joireman, J., Posey, D., Truelove, H., & Parks, C. (2009). The environmentalist who cried drought: Reactions to repeated warnings about depleting resources under conditions of uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Psychology,29, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jorgensen, D. T. (2016). SemTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.4-14. Retrived January 16, 2017 from
  50. Kaiser, F. (1998). A general measure of ecological behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,28, 395–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kaiser, F., & Wilson, M. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behaviour: The specific composition of a general performance. Personality and Individual Difference,36, 1531–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Koger, S., & Scott, B. (2007). Psychology and environmental sustainability: A call for integration. Teaching of Psychology,34(1), 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research,8(3), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee, Y., Kim, S., Kim, M., & Choi, J. (2014). Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Business Research,67, 2097–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Levine, D. S., & Strube, M. J. (2012). Environmental attitudes, knowledge, intentions and behaviours among college students. The Journal of Social Psychology,152(3), 308–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Li, C. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods,48, 936–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Little, R., & Rubin, D. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  58. Maki, A., Burns, R., Ha, L., & Rothman, A. (2016). Paying people to protect the environment: A meta-analysis of financial incentive interventions to promote proenvironmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology,47, 242–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behaviour: Does it matter how it’s measured? Development and validation of the pro-environmental behaviour scale (PEBS). Human Ecology,41, 905–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Markowitz, E. M., Goldber, L. R., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2012). Profiling the “pro-environmental individual”: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality,80(1), 81–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mayer, F., & Frantz, C. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology,24, 503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Milfont, T. (2012). Cultural differences in environmental engagement. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 229–252). Oxford: Oxford Library of Psychology.Google Scholar
  63. Milfont, T., & Sibley, C. (2012). The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology,32, 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Millennium Ecosystems Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends: Findings of the condition and trends working group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  65. Mobley, C., Vagias, W., & DeWard, S. (2010). Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behaviour: The influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior,42(4), 420–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Otto, S., Kaiser, F., & Arnold, O. (2014). The critical challenge of climate change for psychology: Preventing rebound and promoting more individual irrationality. European Psychologist,19(2), 96–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 17–59)., Academic Press CA: San Diego.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Poṧkus, M., & Žukauskiene, R. (2017). Predicting adolescents’ recycling behaviour among different big five personality types. Journal of Environmental Psychology,54, 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Prati, G., Albanese, C., & Pietrantoni, L. (2017). The interplay among environmental attitudes, pro-environmental behaviour, social identity, and pro-environmental institutional climate. A longitudinal study. Environmental Education Research,23(2), 176–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Raykov, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied Psychological Measurement,22, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Raykov, T., & Shrout, P. (2002). Reliability of scales with general structure: Point and interval estimation using structural equation modeling approach. Structural Equation Modelling,9, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software,48, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Saleem, M. A., Eagle, L., & Low, D. (2018). Climate change behaviours related to purchase and use of personal cars: Development and validation of eco-socially conscious consumer behaviour scale. Transportation Research Part D,59, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Saunders, C. (2003). The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review,10(2), 137–149.Google Scholar
  75. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology,30, 290–297.Google Scholar
  76. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research,8(2), 23–74.Google Scholar
  77. Schreiber, J., Nora, A., Stage, F., Barlow, E., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research,99(6), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schultz, P. W., & Kaiser, F. G. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental behaviour. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 661–691). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franěk, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,36(4), 457–475. Scholar
  80. Seebauer, S., Fleiß, J., & Schweighart, M. (2017). A household is not a person: Consistency of pro-environmental behaviour in adult couples and the accuracy of proxy-reports. Environment and Behavior,49(6), 603–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sorbom, D., & Joreskog, K. (1982). The use of structural equation models in evaluation research. In C. Fornell (Ed.), A second generation of multivariate analysis: Vol. 2. Measurement and evaluation (pp. 381–418). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  82. Staats, H. (2012). Restorative environments. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 537–553). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Stanton, J. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Personnel Psychology,51(3), 709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology,29, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stern, P. (1997). Toward a working definition of consumption for environmental research and policy. In P. Stern, T. Dietz, V. Ruttan, R. Socolow, & J. Sweeney (Eds.), Environmentally significant consumption: Research directions (pp. 12–35). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  86. Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues,56(3), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stern, P. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist,66(4), 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Research in Human Ecology,6(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
  89. Stern, P., & Oskamp, S. (1987). Managing scarce environmental resources. In I. Altman & D. Stokols (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 1043–1088). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  90. Swim, J., Stern, P., Doherty, T., Clayton, S. D., Reser, J., Weber, E., et al. (2011). Psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing global climate change. American Psychologist,66(4), 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  92. Tabi, A. (2013). Does pro-environmental behaviour affect carbon emissions? Energy Policy,63, 972–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Takahashi, B., & Selfa, T. (2015). Predictors of pro-environmental behaviour in rural American communities. Environment and Behavior,47(8), 856–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Thompson, L., Surface, E., Martin, D., & Sanders, M. (2003). From paper to pixels: Moving personnel surveys to the Web. Personnel Psychology,42(1), 197–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011). Annual energy review 2011. Retrived November 7, 2017 from (2017).
  96. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,3(1), 4–70. Scholar
  97. Vesely, S., & Klockner, C. (2018). Global social norms and environmental behaviour. Environment and Behavior,50(3), 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (2004). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  99. Wada, Y., Van Beek, L., & Bierkens, M. F. (2011). Modelling global water stress of the recent past: On the relative importance of trends in water demand and climate variability. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,15, 3785–3805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Werner, C., Brown, B., & Gallimore, J. (2010). Light rail use is more likely on “walkable” blocks: Further support for using micro-level environmental audit measures. Journal of Environmental Behavior,30, 206–214.Google Scholar
  101. Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., & Milfont, T. (2018). Exposure to urban nature and tree planting are related to pro-environmental behaviour via connection to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration, and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior,51(7), 1–24.Google Scholar
  102. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., et al. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet,393, 447–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wilson, E. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Wright, K. (2005). Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. J Computer-Mediated Communication. Scholar
  105. Yu, C.-Y. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished dissertation. Retrived November 30, 2014 from
  106. Zafeiroudi, A., & Hatzigeorgiadis, A. (2014). Validation of the greek version of the responsible environmental behaviour scale and relationships with participation in outdoor activities. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation & Tourism,13, 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Zinbarg, R., Yovel, I., Rvelle, W., & McDonald, R. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ω. Applied Psychological Measurement,30(2), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human SciencesUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations