Social tipping and climate change: The moderating role of social capital in bridging the gap between awareness and action

RESEARCH ARTICLE Social tipping and climate change: The moderating role of social capital in bridging the gap between awareness and action Krisdela Kaçani 1 | Elena Kokthi 2 | Luis Miguel López-Bonilla 1 | Myriam González-Limón 3 1 Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain 2 Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Agriculture University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania 3 Department of Economic Analysis and Political Economy, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain Correspondence Krisdela Kaçani, Department of Business Administration and Marketing, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. Email: [email protected] Abstract Bridging the gap between awareness and action on environmental issues such as climate change often requires understanding the moderating roles of individual trust, institutional trust and civic engagement. This paper explores how social capital, through generalaised trust, trust in institutions and civic engagement, can either strengthen or weaken the agency on climate change on environmental behaviour. Linking climate change awareness to environmental behaviour through the mediation of perceived changes in quality of life is the chosen approach to explore the role of social capital. The results suggest that low levels of trust, whether interpersonal or institutional, reduce an individual's sense of agency by firstly reducing the impact of climate change awareness on quality of life, changing perceptions and consequently reducing environmental behaviour. Greater trust in institutions produces a stronger effect of climate change awareness on willingness to pay. On the other hand, civic engagement shows a significant effect when taxes are considered. The study suggests that the impact of social capital on environmental payments varies Received: 25 October 2023 Revised: 28 March 2024 Accepted: 6 April 2024 DOI: 10.1002/jid.3921 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of International Development published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 2024;36:2537–2556. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jid 2537 according to the type of payment (voluntary vs. mandatory). The mapping of the role of social capital in reducing the agency of climate change awareness in quality-of-life changes should be further explored, as the latter has proven to be a promising way to address climate change in developed and developing countries. KEYWORDS action gap, climate change, mediation, moderation, social capital, trust 1|INTRODUCTION As scientific consensus solidifies around the reality of anthropogenic climate change, societies worldwide are confronted with the need for collective action to mitigate its effects and ensure a sustainable future for generations to come (Anderson & Bows, 2011; Barnett & Adger, 2007; Barr, 2003; Birkmann & Teichman, 2010; Hornsey et al., 2016; Leiserowitz, 2006; Maiella et al., 2020). In this context, societal transformations through social tipping processes are necessary to address critical global challenges, such as climate change mitigation (Winkelmann et al., 2022). Social tipping refers to the phenomenon in which small changes in social behaviour, attitudes or norms can lead to large-scale and often rapid transformations in society (Gaupp et al., 2023; Winkelmann et al., 2022). It involves a critical mass of individuals adopting new behaviours or beliefs that then influence others to follow suit, resulting in a significant shift in the social or environmental landscape (Milkoreit, 2023). However, an important ingredient for the social tipping process to take place is the feeling of agency (Gaupp et al., 2023). The term agency refers to the belief that one can make a difference through one's actions (Wen & Imamizu, 2022). It involves feeling empowered to take meaningful steps to address a problem or achieve a goal. Without a belief in their ability to effect change, people may be less likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviour (Wen & Imamizu, 2022; Winkelmann et al., 2022). A high sense of agency among individuals and communities is often a driving force behind social tipping points (Lawrance et al., 2022). Individuals are more likely to embrace climate-friendly conduct, lobby for policy reforms and act in a collective manner when they believe that their actions can contribute to broader societal change (Gaupp et al., 2023; Jacobson et al., 2020; Westcott, 2019; Winkelmann et al., 2022). This coordinated action, motivated by a collective sense of agency, can stimulate the critical mass essential for social tipping to ensue. In addition, the interconnectedness of awareness of climate change, the sense of agency and social tipping plays a crucial role in driving action and implementing societal change. A person's or community's sense of agency can be influenced by awareness of climate change. When individuals are well-informed about the severity and urgency of climate change, they are more likely to believe that their actions can make a meaningful difference (Gaupp et al., 2023). Jacobson et al. (2020) have demonstrated that heightened awareness can elicit negative emotions leading to a personal tipping point when reducing air travel. Likewise, Westcott (2019) argues that the lack of agency can constrain action, while the discourse surrounding international action on climate change may be a crucial determinant for action. Similarly, the rise of accessible information through various media platforms has facilitated the dissemination of knowledge concerning climate change's global ramifications (Chen et al., 2023). The youth strikes and new wave of climate protests have pushed up the news agenda also due to scientific claims on temperature rise (Stuart et al., 2020). Consequently, a growing number of individuals are developing an awareness of the urgent need to adopt environmental behaviours (EBs) that can collectively contribute to mitigating its effects (Scheuerman, 2022). These actions cover a wide range of behaviours, including conserving energy, reducing waste, making sustainable transportation choices 2538 KAÇANI ET AL. 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License and prioritising policies that promote environmental preservation (Barr, 2003; Liobikienė& Juknys, 2016; Liobikienė& Poˇ skus, 2019; Milfont, 2012; Mills & Schleich, 2012; Pothitou et al., 2016; Sinatra et al., 2012). While awareness is an essential starting point for social tipping, it is only one part of the picture. Action on climate change is currently minimal and there is still a gap between awareness and action (Wong-Parodi & Feygina, 2020), as not all people who understand the seriousness of climate change consistently translate this awareness into EB. The roots of climate denial and reduced climate action are complex and multifaceted, influenced by various psychological (Loy & Spence, 2020; Wong-Parodi & Feygina, 2020), socio-economic (Lübke, 2022) and new media (Samantray & Pin, 2019; Treen et al., 2020) factors just to mention a few of them. Similarly, considering that social tipping for climate change requires a significant stock of social capital, as both play a role in influencing behaviour and driving societal change, an exploration in this direction offers an interesting starting point for understanding the gap between climate awareness and action in developing countries. SC is recognised as an effective force in shaping human behaviour, influencing decision-making processes and fostering collective efforts (Jones et al., 2009; R. Putnam, 2022). It's potential to either strengthen or weaken the association between climate change perceptions and EB raises interesting questions about the interactions between individual beliefs, social capital and climate change mitigation. SC consists of trust, norms and networks, which together form a single unit of capital that can be used in social transformation (Putnam, 2000,2022). This paper aims to contribute to the growing body of research examining the link between climate change awareness (CCA) and EB by examining the moderating role of social capital as an important social tipping driver. We explore how social capital, through generalised trust (GT), trust in institutions and civic engagement (CE), can either strengthen or weaken the agency on climate change on EB. In order to identify the subtle pathways in which social contexts can help or impede the pursuit of a more sustainable future, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of these interactions. The remaining sections of this paper are organised as follows. The first section introduces the topic by stating the aims and objectives. It then critically reviews the literature in order to develop hypotheses. The next section discusses the methodology. The empirical findings are outlined in the following sections. Finally, we interpret the findings and make theoretical recommendations. 2|LITERATURE REVIEW Perceptions of climate change play a crucial role in the formation of attitudes, beliefs and intentions, which in turn have an impact on actual behaviour (Hidalgo & Pisano, 2010;Liobikienė&Juknys,2016; Liobikienė&Po ˇ skus, 2019). Empirical research has demonstrated that individuals who perceive climate change as a significant and urgent issue are more inclined to participate in actions such as energy conservation, waste reduction and support for sustainable policies (Dijkstra & Goedhart, 2012;Dupigny-Giroux,2008; Englander et al., 1986; Hines et al., 1987; Hornsey et al., 2016; Leiserowitz, 2006; Mills & Schleich, 2012; Pothitou et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2021; Zsóka et al., 2013). Also, the role of social capital in influencing EB has gained substantial attention in recent years (Acquier et al., 2019; Alghababsheh & Gallear, 2021; Barbosa Neves et al., 2018; Berggren & Jordahl, 2006; Curtis et al., 2020;Hamarietal.,2016; Irwin & Berigan, 2013; Istiyani & Wijayanto, 2022; Jameaba, 2022; Kang & Na, 2018; Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Pangil & Moi Chan, 2014; Penz et al., 2018; Rudito et al., 2022). Communities rich in social capital tend to exhibit higher levels of collective action and cooperation, enabling the dissemination of pro-environmental norms (Cantele et al., 2020; Curtis et al., 2020; Irwin & Berigan, 2013; Istiyani & Wijayanto, 2022;Kang&Na,2018;Penzetal.,2018). 2.1 |Theoretical framework Social capital positively affects the willingness of individuals to pay for environmental protection (Harring, 2012; Jones et al., 2009). In their study, Jones et al. (2009) analysed the impact of SC on European citizens' willingness to KAÇANI ET AL.2539 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License contribute money to protect the environment. They found a strong link between social capital and willingness to pay (WTP) to protect the environment; individuals with a higher stock of social capital show higher WTP. However, Jin (2013) noted that the components of SC function differently, and each component affects differently depending on the context of the environmental issue. In our conceptual framework, we propose that social capital moderates the relationship between CCA and EB. We suggest that the impact of CCA on EB is not uniform across all individuals and communities. Rather, the level and quality of social capital within a community can be a facilitator or a barrier to this relationship. The higher the level of social capital, the higher the agency-related CCA and consequently the higher the WTP/tax payment. 2.1.1 | EB and SC As previously mentioned, environmental protection behaviour depends on several factors: trust in public authorities and government, individual trust and CE. In the following subsection, we will review the studies on different types of SC, such as institutional trust (IT), CE and GT. We suggest that higher stocks of social capital, through (1) higher trust among individuals, (2) higher trust in institutions and (3) higher associative tissues, will make communities more likely to collectively embrace sustainable behaviours and take personal and collective agency to protect the environment. Individual trust and WTP for environment Trusting others is seen as core to social capital (Putnam, 2000,2022,2007). In a society based on trust, people are more willing to make economic sacrifices for the common good, such as the protection of the environment (Harring, 2012). In addition, more trusting people tend to contribute more to environmental public goods by recycling, conserving water, using public rather than private transport and buying green products (Irwin & Berigan, 2013). According to Jin (2013), when social trust is high, individuals perceive that most community members will abide by the regulations and cooperate to achieve a common goal. This perception is likely to change the behaviour of individuals and make them more willing to pay to protect the environment. In our conceptual framework, we posit that individual trust or GT (trust in others) acts as a facilitator on WTP for environmental initiatives. Trust in others and social networks can enhance an individual's sense of agency. When people trust that they have access to accurate information and that their actions will have a positive impact, they are more likely to feel empowered to take environmentally responsible actions. We propose that higher levels of trust, whether in interpersonal relationships or institutions, can positively influence individuals' perceptions of the credibility and effectiveness of environmental initiatives. This, in turn, can elevate their willingness to financially contribute. We hypothesise that interpersonal trust can increase WTP by fostering a sense of community and shared responsibility. Individuals who trust others within their community may perceive a collective commitment to environmental well-being, leading to increased motivation to support initiatives financially. IT and WTP However, individual concern for the environment also depends on the macro context and in particular on IT. The latter refers to the confidence individuals have in the institutions. The well-functioning political institutions and trust towards them are fundamental indicators that generate cooperative attitudes (Berggren & Jordahl, 2006; Harring, 2012; Irwin & Berigan, 2013; Pangil & Moi Chan, 2014; Penz et al., 2018; Rothstein & Stolle, 2008). When citizens trust political leaders and perceive that they are uncorrupted and properly redistributing taxes and government expenditures, they will resist less public policies (Rothstein & Teorell, 2012 Svallfors, 2013). In countries that are considered to have a high level of trust in government, social trust has a positive effect on the willingness of citizens to pay green taxes (Loaiza-Ramírez et al., 2022). Individuals living in countries with low levels of trust in government institutions will be less willing to pay higher taxes to protect the environment, as they may believe that tax revenues will be misappropriated or even stolen (Davidovic, 2018; Fairbrother, 2016). Similarly, numerous low- 2540 KAÇANI ET AL. 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License carbon energy resources are accessible, but they are not significantly capable of being scaled up due to a lack of political commitment (Gunningham, 2019). In our conceptual framework, we posit that IT serves as an enabler of individuals' WTP for environmental protection. We propose that higher levels of trust in institutions lead to a cascade of positive perceptions and attitudes, culminating in an increased willingness to contribute financially to environmental initiatives. Finally, we also hypothesise that individual trust (GT) and IT will show a different pattern when tax payment is considered versus WTP. The rationale behind is that while the WTP mechanism can help companies understand consumers' WTP for environmentally friendly products, tax payments are related to government institutions, so we assume that IT will moderate the tax payment action, while GT will moderate the WTP action. CE and environmental protection Researches are considering the transformative potential of CE in shaping environmental protection outcomes (Otto et al., 2022; Stuart et al., 2020,2022). Engaged citizens often play a pivotal role in raising awareness about environmental issues, mobilising communities and advocating for policy changes (Jin, 2013; Rudito et al., 2022). Through grassroots movements and collaborative initiatives, citizens exercise their agency to influence environmental agendas, drive policy reforms and hold institutions accountable for sustainable practices (Buettner, 2020; Stuart, 2022). As individuals become more involved in environmental causes, their dedication to protecting the environment intensifies. At the same time, strong CE enhances the durability and efficacy of environmental protection initiatives. This mutual dependence highlights the significance of establishing a participatory environment that empowers citizens to act as caretakers of their environment. 2.1.2 | CCA and EB Several studies show that knowledge and awareness can be used interchangeably (Baldassare & Katz, 1992; Bradley et al., 2020; Dunlap & York, 2008; Fu et al., 2020; Knight, 2016; Lee et al., 2015; Liobikienė& Juknys, 2016; Lübke, 2022; Lujala et al., 2015; Maartensson & Loi, 2022; Milfont, 2012), individuals with equipped with environmental knowledge are more likely to be environmentally aware and deal with the associated problems, causes and possible solutions. Similarly, consumer environmental consciousness is a critical factor in the WTP more to protect the environment (Sinatra et al., 2012). In this study, CCA is distilled from two constructs, environmental awareness and risks linked to environmental deterioration are called climate change perceived risk (CCA). Also, individuals perceiving a high impact of environmental deterioration on their life quality make more economic sacrifices for environmental protection than those who do not (De Marchi et al., 2020; Gura et al., 2021; Hines et al., 1987; Liobikienė& Juknys, 2016; Loaiza-Ramírez et al., 2022; Sinatra et al., 2012). Following Guagnano et al. (1995) and Stern (2000), pro-environmental behaviour depends on a wide range of general and specific factors of individual behaviour. Therefore, a general theory of environmental protection may not be beneficial for changing specific behaviours. Consequently, each targeted behaviour must be explored on a specific path. In the present study, we will go deeper in understanding the mediating role of SC. Following the relationship between CCA, QLF and EB, we suggest testing the following framework and hypotheses: Given the relationship between CCA and EB, a moderation mediation model (see Figure 1) suggests that the relationship between CCA and EB is mediated by environmental quality life changing (QLF), and at the same time, moderated by the three indicators of social capital: GT, IT and CE. The proposed hypotheses to be tested are: •H1: Individuals showing high CCA express higher QLF and consequently are more willing to make economic sacrifices for environmental protection (Tax payment EB 1 /WTP EB 2 ), than those who do not (Figure 1) (pathway a 1 b 1 ). H1:1: Individuals showing high GT will positively moderate the relationship CCA-QLF and CCA-EB (Tax payment EB 1 /WTP EB 2 ). KAÇANI ET AL.2541 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License H1:2: Individuals showing high IT will positively moderate the relationship CCA-QLF and QLF-EB (Tax payment EB 1 /WTP EB 2 ). H1:3: Individuals showing high CE will positively moderate the relationship CCA-QLF and QLF-EB (Tax payment EB 1 /WTP EB 2 ). •H2: Individuals showing high CCA are more willing to make economic sacrifices for environmental protection than those who do not (path c0, and this relationship is conditioned by the three types of SC). H2:1: Individuals showing high GT will positively moderate the relationship CCA-EB (Tax payment EB 1 /WTP EB 2 ). H2:2: Individuals showing high IT will positively moderate the relationship CCA-EB (Tax payment EB 1 /WTP EB 2 ). H2:3: Individuals showing high CE will positively moderate the relationship CCA-EB (Tax payment EB 1 /WTP EB 2 ). 3|METHODOLOGY 3.1 |Survey instrument This study employs a quantitative methodology to thoroughly investigate the correlation between GT, IT, CE and the inclination of individuals to pay for environmental protection via two examined payment mechanisms: tax payment and WTP an additional price for products that are manufactured according to environmental protocols. The survey instrument is developed based on established scales for measuring GT, IT, CE, CCA, QLF and WTP for environmental protection. Items are adapted and validated to suit the specific context of the study. The validity and reliability of the conceptual model have been previously tested. The research is based on a sample of 435 respondents; we have opted for a closed structured questionnaire. The latter was organised into four sections. The first section collects demographic factors such as gender, age, education and income (Table 1). Scale items for each research construct that were adapted from the analysed literature and employed a variation of a 5-point Likert-type scale where anchors included strongly disagree to strongly agree and not important at all to very important. In the second section of the questionnaire are collected data on social capital indicators. GT is measured using the European Social Survey statement and SOCAT 1 : (1) Generally I trust other residents in my community, (2) Do you think that most people should trust you and you should not be too careful. IT is analysed through the following statements: (1) Most politicians are in FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework. Source: Authors' construction. 1 World Bank Social Capital Measurement Tool. 2542 KAÇANI ET AL. 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License politics only for personal gain (related to Political trust). (2) Most of the time you believe the government is doing what is right. (3) State institutions manage tax revenues effectively. CE is examined by the importance scale (1 =strongly disagree,5=strongly agree) of the following statements are considered related to ‘To be a good citizen we should: 1. Monitor government activities, 2. Be active in community affairs, 3. Pay taxes regularly, 4. Help other citizens and 5. Protect the environment through civic participation’. Environmental awareness is analysed through the following questions: Are you aware that chemical fertilisers and pesticides will cause environmental damage? Are you aware of the risks of air pollution? Are you informed about the risks of water pollution? Are you aware of the dangers of insufficient green space? Are you aware of the damage to the degradation of the quality of cultivated land? Are you aware that the risk of emissions from vehicles is harmful to human health? CCA (1 =not at all aware,5=very much aware): There is possibility of extreme weather (snowstorm, freezing, rainstorm, etc.) in my area. There is a high risk of vegetation destruction in my area. There will be a water shortage in your area. There is a geological hazard in your area (landslides, earthquakes, etc.). Quality of life changed due to environmental impact (QLF) (1 =not affected at all,5=very much affected). (1) How much does the quality of the environment affect your life? In your judgement, do you think that environmental problems, for example, pollution, affect your health now. While environment behaviour is analysed through two types of instruments: EB 1 :I would agree to pay an environmental tax if the money were to be used for the environment and EB 2 :I would buy the products at a 20% higher price if the product was produced without polluting the environment. 3.2 |Sampling and data collection Data were collected from December to May 2023 in Tirana, Albania. The questionnaire was distributed online. The participants consisted of 42.1% males and 57.9% females. Out of the total 435 participants, 50% hold a bachelor's degree, while 23.2% hold a master's degree. Table 1displays the characteristics of the sample. TABLE 1 Demographics of the study. Variables Value N% Gender Male 183 42.1 Female 252 57.9 Age 18–24 150 34.5 25–34 92 21.1 35–44 69 15.9 45–54 67 15.4 55–64 57 13.1 Education level High school 117 26.9 Graduate 217 49.9 Postgraduate 101 23.2 Income 30 000–60 000 ALL 148 34.0 60 000–90 000 ALL 84 19.3 90 000–120 000 ALL 78 17.9 120 000–150 000 ALL 50 11.5 150 000–180 000 lek =5 62 14.3 Over 180 000 12 2.8 Source: Authors' construction, N=435. KAÇANI ET AL.2543 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 3.3 |Data analysis This research has integrated mediation and moderation analysis (Hayes & Rockwood, 2020; Igartua & Hayes, 2021). The moderated mediation model (see Figure 1) suggests that the relationship between CCA and EB is mediated by QLF, and, at the same time, is moderated by three indicators of social capital, GT, IT and CE. 3.3.1 | Mediation analysis We can situate the model as follows: CCA (X) affects the mediator first; in this case, QLF (M1) causally influences EB (Y). The moderated mediation process is represented conceptually in Figure 1. The relationships between X (CCA), M (QLF) and Y (EB 1 and EB 2 ) through a simple mediation model take the form of two sub-models (1) and (2) and one full model (3) as follows: QLF¼iMþa1CCAðÞþea 1 ðÞ,ð1Þ YEB Tax ðÞ¼iyþb1QLFðÞþeb 1 ðÞ,ð2Þ YEB Tax ðÞ¼iyþa1CCAðÞþb1QLFðÞþe, ð3Þ YEB Tax ðÞ ¼iyþc0CCA ðÞ þec 0 ðÞ , where i denotes case or observation, i M and i Y are regression constants, and e Mi and e Yi are errors in the estimation of Mi and Yi. Equation (1) quantifies the CCA effect on QLF. At the same time, Equation (2) quantifies the effect of QLF, on EB independent of CCA. At the same time, the c0pathway is the total effect of CCA in EB and is interpreted as the estimated difference in EB between two cases that differ by one unit on CCA. 3.3.2 | Moderation analysis The conditional mediation analyses proposed in this research will test the conditional indirect effect of SC indicators such as GT, IT and CE and on the relationship between CCA and EB in both scenarios Y (EB 1 and EB 2 ). When there is a moderating variable, it changes the magnitude or the direction of the relationship between two variables. A moderation implies an interaction effect which could increase the effect of the CCA on the EB or decrease the effect. In the study, we assume that the relationship between CCA-EB (in both cases, EB 1 =tax payment; EB 2 =WTP the fixed extra price, 20%) will be moderated by the three components of SC, as visualised in Figure 1. The ‘PROCESS’ macro, Model 8 (Hayes, 2013) in SPSS with bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals and bootstrapping was used to test the moderated mediation model. The methodology adopts a robust quantitative approach, integrating established scales to measure various factors influencing EB and WTP for environmental protection. By using a structured questionnaire and collecting data from a significant sample size, the study ensures comprehensive insights into the dynamics of the impact of social capital on environmental commitment. The inclusion of mediation and moderation analyses further enhances the empirical contribution, allowing for a nuanced understanding of how GT, IT and CE interact with CCA to influence environmental action. 2544 KAÇANI ET AL. 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 4|DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Trust in others is a critical factor in building agency around climate change, because when individuals trust that they are part of a supportive and collaborative community, it can reduce feelings of isolation and empower them to overcome challenges and take action. When people trust that those around them are taking action on climate change, they are more likely to follow suit and engage in pro-environmental behaviour themselves (Winkelmann et al., 2022). Indeed, Tam and Chan (2018) shows that the concern–behaviour association was stronger among individuals and countries with higher levels of GT. Similarly, Wu and Shen (2018) show that to foster trust in the sharing economy, practitioners should simultaneously enhance IT, product trust and interpersonal trust. In this study, we found low levels of GT. About 35% of respondents do not trust other community members, a further 31% are neutral and only 32% believe in community members. Also, 67% of people think that most people will try to take advantage of them if they have the chance and only 20.3% think that most people will try to be fair. Similarly, low levels of trust in general may contribute to low levels of trust in institutions. If people are generally sceptical about others, they may project this scepticism onto institutions, assuming that these entities are also untrustworthy. Trust in institutions is also generally low, with 9.4% of people believing that the government does the right thing and 70% believing the opposite. Similarly, 68.3% believe that most politicians are in politics for personal gain, while 15.5% disagree. Regarding the management of tax revenues, 61.3% of respondents believe that the institutions are ineffective, while 11.5% disagree. The findings of low levels of GT among community members and towards institutions in this study underscore a significant challenge to mobilising collective action for climate change and achieving social tipping points necessary for substantial environmental action. This pervasive distrust acts as a dual-edged sword, not only hampering community cohesion and cooperation but also diminishing the perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of policies aimed at combating climate change. In the same vein, Ostrom and Ahn (2009) emphasises that in environments where distrust prevails, the communal fabric necessary for such unified action is weakened, leading to fragmentation and inertia rather than concerted action. Furthermore, Adger (2010) research highlights that trust in both the efficacy and intentions behind climate policies is crucial for the public's willingness to support and comply with these measures. Also, Milinski (2021) highlights the importance of trust in peers and institutions in fostering a culture of cooperation and achieving social tipping points. The data show a high civic commitment of the respondents. The latter believe that being a good citizen means being active in community affairs about 70%, paying taxes regularly (75.2%), helping others (76%) and protecting the environment (79%). However, community and CE remain at low levels in Albania. Other studies show that Albanians do not engage in civil society organisations due to a lack of trust (Gjergji & Gjevori, 2024; Schröder & Neumayr, 2023; Uka, 2019). Low levels of community and CE in Albania, as in many other countries, can pose challenges to social cohesion, democratic governance and sustainable development (Schröder & Neumayr, 2023). However, despite the low level of social capital among the respondents, the results of this study show an increased level of environmental awareness. About 83% of the respondents are aware of the risk of vehicle emissions to human health, and 78.6% are aware of the risk of vehicle emissions to human health. Also, 78.6% believe that chemical fertilisers and pesticides will cause environmental damage. About 80% are informed about water pollution, and almost the same percentage of individuals are informed about the dangers of air pollution on human health. However, environmental awareness–health linkage is not always accompanied by high-risk perceptions. For that purpose, respondents are asked if they perceive risks that are linked to climate change such as extreme weather, geological hazards, vegetation destruction and water shortages. About 53% of respondents believe that there is a high risk for extreme weather conditions, and about 44% of individuals rate their concern as a 3 (1 =not at all concerned, 5=very much concerned) may acknowledge that climate change is a real issue with potential risks and consequences, but they may not view it as an immediate or extremely pressing concern in their daily lives. Similarly, 65.5% believe in potential geological hazards due to climate change, and 62% perceive vegetation destruction. Water shortage is perceived as problematic by 50% of respondents and about 27% acknowledge it as a real problem but not having the risk immediately. In many developing countries, individuals and communities often face pressing daily challenges KAÇANI ET AL.2545 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License function separately, as a simplification for analytical purposes. In reality, these forms of social capital are often interconnected. However, for this research, it was useful to distinguish them to identify their effects. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available from Krisdela corresponding author upon reasonable request. ORCID Krisdela Kaçani https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2726-786X REFERENCES Acquier, A., Carbone, V., & Massé, D. (2019). How to create value(s) in the sharing economy: Business models, scalability, and sustainability. Technology Innovation Management Review,9(2), 5–24. https://timreview.ca/article/1215 Adger, W. N. (2010). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. In M. Voss (Ed.), Der Klimawandel (pp. 327–345). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92258-4_19 Alghababsheh, M., & Gallear, D. (2021). Socially sustainable supply chain management and suppliers' social performance: The role of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics,173(4), 855–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04525-1 Almeida, P., González, L. R., Flores, E. O., Curry, V., & Padilla, A. (2023). The building blocks of community participation in local climate meetings. npj Climate Action,2(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00071-4 Anderson, K., & Bows, A. (2011). Beyond ‘dangerous’climate change: Emission scenarios for a new world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A,369,20–44. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0290 Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior,24(5), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916592245002 Balundė, A., Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2019). The relationship between people’s environmental considerations and proenvironmental behavior in Lithuania. Frontiers in Psychology,10, 2319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02319 Barbosa Neves, B., Fonseca, J. R. S., Amaro, F., & Pasqualotti, A. (2018). Social capital and Internet use in an age-comparative perspective with a focus on later life. PLoS ONE,13(2), e0192119. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192119 Barnett, J., & Adger, W. N. (2007). Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Political Geography,26, 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.03.003 Barr, S. (2003). Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour. Area,35, 227–240. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1475-4762.00172 Berggren, N., & Jordahl, H. (2006). Free to trust: Economic freedom and social capital. Kyklos,59(2), 141–169. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2006.00324.x Birkmann, J., & Teichman, K. (2010). Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Key challenges— Scales, knowledge, and norms. Sustainability Science,5, 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0108-y Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2015). Promoting sustainable consumption: The risks of using financial incentives. In Handbook of research on sustainable consumption (pp. 328–342). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/ downloadpdf/edcoll/9781783471263/9781783471263.00033.pdf Bottazzi, P., Winkler, M. S., & Speranza, C. I. (2019). Flood governance for resilience in cities: The historical policy transformations in Dakar's suburbs. Environmental Science & Policy,93, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.013 Bradley, G. L., Babutsidze, Z., Chai, A., & Reser, J. P. (2020). The role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: A two nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101410 Buettner, A. (2020). ‘Imagine what we could do’—The school strikes for climate and reclaiming citizen empowerment. Continuum,34(6), 828–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2020.1842123 Bush, S. S., & Clayton, A. (2023). Facing change: Gender and climate change attitudes worldwide. American Political Science Review,117(2), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000752 Cantele, S., Moggi, S., & Campedelli, B. (2020). Spreading sustainability innovation through the co-evolution of sustainable business models and partnerships. Sustainability,12(3), 1190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031190 Chandler, T., & Marri, A. R. (2012). Civic engagement about climate change: A case study of three educators and their practice. Journal of Social Studies Research,36(1), 47. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost& scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=0885985X&AN=90651348&h=orX4v3o3coQIdW7BDsD1Emw%2BSG0uaLtI1N %2Bv9eV2HYyAV2dbpvQPBGP4DFoQZ0aF%2FRXfD6Wil03Z0qcKAeue9A%3D%3D&crl=c 2552 KAÇANI ET AL. 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Chen, K., Molder, A. L., Duan, Z., Boulianne, S., Eckart, C., Mallari, P., & Yang, D. (2023). How climate movement actors and news media frame climate change and strike: Evidence from analyzing Twitter and news media discourse from 2018 to 2021. The International Journal of Press/Politics,28(2), 384–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221106405 Connell, S., Fien, J., Lee, J., Sykes, H., & Yencken, D. (1999). ‘If it doesn't directly affect you, you don't think about it’: A qualitative study of young people's environmental attitudes in two Australian cities. Environmental Education Research,5(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050106 Cooper, K. J., & Gibson, R. B. (2022). A novel framework for inner-outer sustainability assessment. Challenges,13(2), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe13020064 Curtis, S. K., Singh, J., Mont, O., & Kessler, A. (2020). Systematic framework to assess social impacts of sharing platforms: Synthesising literature and stakeholder perspectives to arrive at a framework and practice-oriented tool. PLoS ONE, 15(10), e0240373. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240373 Davidovic, J. (2018). Displacement as significant collateral harm in war. Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric,11(1). https://doi.org/10.21248/gjn.11.1.136 De Marchi, E., Pigliafreddo, S., Banterle, A., Parolini, M., & Cavaliere, A. (2020). Plastic packaging goes sustainable: An analysis of consumer preferences for plastic water bottles. Environmental Science & Policy,114, 305–311. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsci.2020.08.014 Dijkstra, E. M., & Goedhart, M. J. (2012). Development and validation of the ACSI: measuring students' science attitudes, pro-environmental behaviour, climate change attitudes and knowledge. Environmental Education Research,18, 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.662213 Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1995). Global concern for the environment: Is affluence a prerequisite? Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01351.x Dunlap, R. E., & York, R. (2008). The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist values explanation: Evidence from four multinational surveys. The Sociological Quarterly,49(3), 529–563. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1533-8525.2008.00127.x Dupigny-Giroux, L. A. L. (2008). Introduction—Climate science literacy: A state of the knowledge review. Physical Geography, 29, 483–486. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3646.29.6.483 Englander, T., Farago, K., Slovic, P., & Fischhoff, B. (1986). A comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and United States. Social Behaviour,1(1), 55–66. Fairbrother, M. (2016). Trust and public support for environmental protection in diverse national contexts. Sociological Science,3, 359–382. https://doi.org/10.15195/v3.a17 Fu, L., Sun, Z., Zha, L., Liu, F., He, L., Sun, X., & Jing, X. (2020). Environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior within China's road freight transportation industry: Moderating role of perceived policy effectiveness. Journal of Cleaner Production,252, 119796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119796 Gaupp, F., Constantino, S., & Pereira, L. (2023). The role of agency in social tipping processes [Preprint]. EGUsphere.https:// doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1533 Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology,49(3), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034 Gjergji, E., & Gjevori, F. (2024). The situation of young people's political participation in Albania. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics,16(2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2023-0015 Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior,27, 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595275005 Gunningham, N. (2019). Averting climate catastrophe: Environmental activism, extinction rebellion and coalitions of Influence. King's Law Journal,30(2), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2019.1645424 Gür, N. (2020). Does social trust promote behaviour aimed at mitigating climate change? Economic Affairs,40(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12384 Gura, K. S., Kokthi, E., & Kelemen‐Erdős, A. (2021). Circular pathways influential factor in Albania through green products approximation. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica,18(11), 229–249. https://doi.org/10.12700/aph.18.11.2021.11.13 Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,67(9), 2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552 Harring, N. (2012). Understanding the effects of corruption and political trust on willingness to make economic sacrifices for environmental protection in a cross-national perspective. Social Science Quarterly,94, 660–671. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00904.x Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. The Guilford Press. Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2020). Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist,64(1), 19–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002764219859633 KAÇANI ET AL.2553 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Hidalgo, M. C., & Pisano, I. (2010). Determinants of risk perception and willingness to tackle climate change. A pilot study. PsyEcology,1(1), 105–112. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible pro-environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education,18,1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482 Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change,6, 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943 Igartua, J.-J., & Hayes, A. F. (2021). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Concepts, computations, and some common confusions. The Spanish Journal of Psychology,24, e49. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2021.46 Irwin, K., & Berigan, N. (2013). Trust, culture, and cooperation: A social dilemma analysis of pro-environmental behaviors. The Sociological Quarterly,54(3), 424–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/tsq.12029 Istiyani, A., & Wijayanto, D. (2022). The role of social capital in the circular economy of water management: A case study. MIMBAR: Jurnal Sosial Dan Pembangunan,38(1), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.29313/mimbar.v0i0.9543 Jacobson, L., Åkerman, J., Giusti, M., & Bhowmik, A. (2020). Tipping to staying on the ground: Internalized knowledge of climate change crucial for transformed air travel behavior. Sustainability,12(5), 1994. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051994 Jameaba, M. (2022). Social capital in development: The crucial of the government. SSRN Electronic Journal.https://doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.4114200 Jin, M. (2013). Does social capital promote pro-environmental behaviors? Implications for collaborative governance. International Journal of Public Administration,36(6), 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2013.773038 Jones, N., Malesios, C., & Botetzagias, I. (2009). The influence of social capital on willingness to pay for the environment among European citizens. European Societies,11(4), 511–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690802624168 Jönsson, E. (2020). The relative relevance of trust. Revisiting the relationship between trust and cooperation for the environment in large-scale collective action dilemmas [Master's Thesis]. Gothenburg University. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/64877 Kang, S., & Na, Y. (2018). The effect of the relationship characteristics and social capital of the sharing economy business on the social network, relationship competitive advantage, and continuance commitment. Sustainability,10(7), 2203. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072203 Karlsson, S., & Lindström, A. (2020). Is knowledge enough?: A qualitative study investigating the knowledge-action gap of environmental science students [Bachelor of Science Thesis]. Linköpings universitet. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/ record.jsf?pid=diva2:1448520 Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis,28(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924. 2008.01010.x Knight, K. W. (2016). Public awareness and perception of climate change: A quantitative cross-national study. Environmental Sociology,2(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2015.1128055 Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to proenvironmental behavior? Environmental Education Research,8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401 Lawrance, E. L., Jennings, N., Kioupi, V., Thompson, R., Diffey, J., & Vercammen, A. (2022). Psychological responses, mental health, and sense of agency for the dual challenges of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic in young people in the UK: An online survey study. The Lancet Planetary Health,6(9), e726–e738. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22) 00172-3 Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C.-Y., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2015). Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change,5(11), 1014–1020. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nclimate2728 Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change,77,45–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9 Liobikienė, G., & Juknys, R. (2016). The role of values, environmental risk perception, awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for environmentally-friendly behaviour: The Lithuanian case. Journal of Cleaner Production,112, 3413–3422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.049 Liobikienė, G., & Poˇ skus, M. S. (2019). The importance of environmental knowledge for private and public sphere proenvironmental behavior: Modifying the value-belief-norm theory. Sustainability,11(12), 3324. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11123324 Loaiza-Ramírez, J. P., Reimer, T., & Moreno-Mantilla, C. E. (2022). Who prefers renewable energy? A moderated mediation model including perceived comfort and consumers' protected values in green energy adoption and willingness to pay a premium. Energy Research & Social Science,91, 102753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102753 Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change,17(3–4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2007.01.004 2554 KAÇANI ET AL. 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Loy, L. S., & Spence, A. (2020). Reducing, and bridging, the psychological distance of climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology,67, 101388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101388 Lübke, C. (2022). Socioeconomic roots of climate change denial and uncertainty among the European population. European Sociological Review,38(1), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcab035 Lujala, P., Lein, H., & Rød, J. K. (2015). Climate change, natural hazards, and risk perception: The role of proximity and personal experience. Local Environment,20(4), 489–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.887666 Maartensson, H., & Loi, N. M. (2022). Exploring the relationships between risk perception, behavioural willingness, and constructive hope in pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research,28(4), 600–613. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13504622.2021.2015295 Maiella, R., La Malva, P., Marchetti, D., Pomarico, E., Di Crosta, A., Palumbo, R., Cetara, L., Di Domenico, A., & Verrocchio, M. C. (2020). The psychological distance and climate change: A systematic review on the mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology,11, 568899. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568899 Maung, R., & Pellow, D. N. (2021). Environmental justice. In B. Schaefer Caniglia, A. Jorgenson, S. A. Malin, L. Peek, D. N. Pellow, & X. Huang (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 35–52). Springer International Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77712-8_3 Milfont, T. L. (2012). The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: A one-year longitudinal study. Risk Analysis,32,1003–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01800.x Milinski, M. (2021). The collective risk social dilemma. In A. Franzen & S. Mader (Eds.), Research handbook on environmental sociology. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800370456.00019 Milkoreit, M. (2023). Governance of earth system tipping points, Global tipping PointsReport 2023. University of Exeter. Mills, B., & Schleich, J. (2012). Residential energy-efficient technology adoption, energy conservation, knowledge, and attitudes: An analysis of European countries. Energy Policy,49, 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.008 Moon, S. (2017). The influence of trust on environmental behavior: Evidence from South Korea. International Review of Public Administration,22(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2017.1315232 Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. K. (2009). The meaning of social capital and its link to collective action. In G. T. Svendsen & G. L. H. Svendsen (Eds.), Handbook of social capital. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848447486.00008 Otto, F. E. L., Minnerop, P., Raju, E., Harrington, L. J., Stuart-Smith, R. F., Boyd, E., James, R., Jones, R., & Lauta, K. C. (2022). Causality and the fate of climate litigation: The role of the social superstructure narrative. Global Policy,13(5), 736–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13113 Pangil, F., & Moi Chan, J. (2014). The mediating effect of knowledge sharing on the relationship between trust and virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management,18(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2013-0341 Pellow, D. N. (2023). Environmental justice. In Handbook on inequality and the environment (pp. 71–85). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781800881136/book-part-9781800881136-14.xml Penz, E., Hartl, B., & Hofmann, E. (2018). Collectively building a sustainable sharing economy based on trust and regulation. Sustainability,10(10), 3754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103754 Pothitou, M., Hanna, R. F., & Chalvatzis, K. J. (2016). Environmental knowledge, pro-environmental behaviour and energy savings in households: An empirical study. Applied Energy,184,1217–1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.017 Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. In L. Crothers & C. Lockhart (Eds.), Culture and politics (pp. 223–234). Palgrave Macmillan. Putnam, R. D. (2022). Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, 2000. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UWMRJ. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century—The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies,30(2), 137–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2008). The state and social capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Comparative Politics,40(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041508x12911362383354 Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2012). Defining and measuring quality of government. Good Government. https://doi.org/10. 4337/9780857934932.00008 Rudito, B., Famiola, M., & Anggahegari, P. (2022). Corporate social responsibility and social capital: Journey of community engagement toward community empowerment program in developing country. Sustainability,15(1), 466. https://doi. org/10.3390/su15010466 Samantray, A., & Pin, P. (2019). Credibility of climate change denial in social media. Palgrave Communications,5(1), 127. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0344-4 Scheuerman, W. E. (2022). Political disobedience and the climate emergency. Philosophy & Social Criticism,48(6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211040566 Schröder, J. M., & Neumayr, M. (2023). How socio-economic inequality affects individuals' civic engagement: A systematic literature review of empirical findings and theoretical explanations. Socio-Economic Review,21(1), 665–694. https://doi. org/10.1093/ser/mwab058 KAÇANI ET AL.2555 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Sinatra, G. M., Kardash, C. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2012). Promoting attitude change and expressed willingness to take action toward climate change in college students. Instructional Science,40,1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11251-011-9166-5 Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues,56, 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175 Stuart, D. (2022). Tensions between individual and system change in the climate movement: An analysis of Extinction Rebellion. New Political Economy,27(5), 806–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2021.2020740 Stuart, D., Gunderson, R., & Petersen, B. (2020). The climate crisis as a catalyst for emancipatory transformation: An examination of the possible. International Sociology,35(4), 433–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580920915067 Stuart, D., Petersen, B., & Gunderson, R. (2022). Shared pretenses for collective inaction: The economic growth imperative, COVID-19, and climate change. Globalizations,19(3), 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2021.1943897 Svallfors, S. (2013). Government quality, egalitarianism, and attitudes to taxes and social spending: a European comparison. European Political Science Review,5(3), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/s175577391200015x Tam, K.-P., & Chan, H.-W. (2018). Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and proenvironmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Global Environmental Change,48, 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2017.12.001 Taniguchi, H., & Marshall, G. A. (2018). Trust, political orientation, and environmental behavior. Environmental Politics,27(3), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1425275 Treen, K. M., Williams, H. T., & O'Neill, S. J. (2020). Online misinformation about climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 11(5), e665. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665 Uka, A. (2019). Youth civic engagement in Albania. Clemson University. Wan, Q., & Du, W. (2022). Social capital, environmental knowledge, and pro‐environmental behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,19(3), 1443. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031443 Wang, W., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., & Zhang, D. (2021). Effects of government subsidies on production and emissions reduction decisions under carbon tax regulation and consumer low-carbon awareness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,18(20), 10959. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010959 Wen, W., & Imamizu, H. (2022). The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human–machine interactions. Nature Reviews Psychology,1(4), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00030-6 Westcott, G. (2019). Attitudes to climate change in some English local authorities: Varying sense of agency in denial and hope. In P. Hoggett (Ed.), Climate psychology (pp. 195–215). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-11741-2_10 Winkelmann, R., Donges, J. F., Smith, E. K., Milkoreit, M., Eder, C., Heitzig, J., Katsanidou, A., Wiedermann, M., Wunderling, N., & Lenton, T. M. (2022). Social tipping processes towards climate action: A conceptual framework. Ecological Economics,192, 107242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107242 Wong-Parodi, G., & Feygina, I. (2020). Understanding and countering the motivated roots of climate change denial. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,42,60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.008 Wu, W., Li, L., Chen, H., Xu, M., & Yuan, Y. (2022). Farmers' preference for participating in rural solid waste management: A case study from Shaanxi Province, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,19(21), 14440. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114440 Wu, X., & Shen, J. (2018). A study on airbnb’s trust mechanism and the effects of cultural values—based on a survey of Chinese consumers. Sustainability,10(9), 3041. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093041 Yildirim, J., Alpaslan, B., & Eker, E. E. (2021). The role of social capital in environmental protection efforts: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Applied Statistics,48(13–15), 2626–2642. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2020.1843609 Xing, C., Shen, W., Gong, B., Li, Y., Yan, L., & Meng, A. (2022). Maternal factors and nodal autoregulation orchestrate nodal gene expression for embryonic mesendoderm induction in the zebrafish. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology,10, 887987. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2022.887987 Zsóka, ´ A., Szerényi, Z. M., Széchy, A., & Kocsis, T. (2013). Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. Journal of Cleaner Production,48, 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.030 How to cite this article: Kaçani, K., Kokthi, E., López-Bonilla, L. M., & González-Limón, M. (2024). Social tipping and climate change: The moderating role of social capital in bridging the gap between awareness and action. Journal of International Development,36(6), 2537–2556. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3921 2556 KAÇANI ET AL. 10991328, 2024, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3921 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License