1.

Figure

2. Table

Table 1. Reliability and Validity

Variables No. Items CA DG rho CR AVE

AT 5 0,851 0,865 0,893 0,626

EC 5 0,786 0,804 0,855 0,546

EK 5 0,815 0,826 0,869 0,571

HC 5 0,896 0,899 0,923 0,707

BI 6 0,918 0,928 0,936 0,708

Table 2. Discriminant Validity

Fornell-Larcker Criterion
AT EC EK HC BI

AT 0,791

EC 0,523 0,739

EK 0,612 0,610 0,756

HC 0,568 0,473 0,670 0,841

BI 0,540 0,459 0,671 0,723 0,842

Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio
AT EC EK HC BI

AT

EC 0,618

EK 0,693 0,782

HC 0,633 0,584 0,781

BI 0,570 0,564 0,778 0,792

Table 3. Loadings and Cross-Loading

AT BI EC EK HC

AT1 0,822 0,371 0,355 0,463 0,445

AT2 0,888 0,396 0,427 0,618 0,460

AT3 0,703 0,166 0,258 0,337 0,304

AT4 0,760 0,393 0,549 0,457 0,482

AT5 0,772 0,695 0,419 0,491 0,506

BI1 0,417 0,852 0,385 0,526 0,597

BI2 0,382 0,755 0,357 0,495 0,511

BI3 0,376 0,825 0,363 0,610 0,591

BI4 0,478 0,868 0,368 0,574 0,682

BI5 0,533 0,899 0,431 0,631 0,622

BI6 0,505 0,843 0,405 0,550 0,633

EC1 0,370 0,419 0,706 0,461 0,391

EC2 0,424 0,351 0,796 0,442 0,528

EC3 0,425 0,212 0,847 0,407 0,209

EC4 0,404 0,304 0,752 0,413 0,173

 AT BI EC EK HC

EC5 0,290 0,473 0,560 0,591 0,509

EK1 0,423 0,602 0,327 0,768 0,567

EK2 0,361 0,515 0,486 0,736 0,523

EK3 0,465 0,445 0,550 0,800 0,400

EK4 0,403 0,494 0,431 0,737 0,512

EK5 0,591 0,491 0,490 0,735 0,531

HC1 0,468 0,652 0,363 0,594 0,826

HC2 0,435 0,585 0,333 0,494 0,796

HC3 0,489 0,593 0,387 0,638 0,899

HC4 0,536 0,660 0,475 0,541 0,826

HC5 0,447 0,534 0,418 0,543 0,851

Table 4. Path Coefficients

Hypo Beta CI - Min CI - Max t p Decision

H1 EC -> AT 0,207 0,004 0,406 1,683 0,046 Accept

H2 EK -> AT 0,271 -0,033 0,598 1,378 0,084 Reject

H3 HC -> AT 0,206 -0,051 0,457 1,296 0,098 Reject

H4 BI -> AT 0,114 -0,193 0,423 0,595 0,276 Accept

B
1. Cronbach’s Alpha : All the variables such as environmental concern, environmental knowledge, health
consciousness, eBike’s infrastructure, and attitude towards eBike are reliable because all of it has already
achieved a value more than 0.7.
1. Dillon-Goldstein’s rho: All of the construct such as environmental concern, environmental
knowledge, health consciousness, eBike’s infrastructure, and attitude towards eBike were
higher than 0.7, so that means those items are reliable.
2. Composite Reliability : All of the construct such as environmental concern, environmental
knowledge, health consciousness, eBike’s infrastructure, and attitude towards eBike are reliable
because for composite reliability itself, the value of the threshold is 0.7. As it is shown on the
table, the composite reliability values are higher than 0.7.
3. Average Variance Extracted : The convergent validity is considered acceptable, because to
achieve convergent validity, the AVE value should be higher than 0.5. As it is in the table,
value of all the AVE constructs were higher than 0.5.
4. Discriminant Validity - Fornell-Larcker Criterion : The root of average value for each indicator
must exceed all the values below its row and column and the table shows that the data has met
the criteria.
5. Discriminant Validity - Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio : The threshold value for HTMT is 0,900.
In this case, there are no value above 0,900. So, there is no evidence that show a lack of
discriminant validity.
6. Loadings and Cross-Loading : Our data is acceptable because all the indicator's loading are
higher than the cross-loading.

C.
1. Beta (Value and Interpretation): The resulting effect depends on the beta value. The greater the
beta value, the greater the effect. As it is in our data, environmental knowledge will have the
greatest impact on attitude towards eBikes because it has the highest value (0,271) and eBike’s
infrastructure has the least effect on attitude towards eBikes because it has the smallest value
(0,114). The value for effect of environmental concern on attitude towards eBikes is 0,207 and
the value for effect of health consciousness on attitude towards eBikes is 0,206.

7. CI, t-value, p-value (Value and Interpretation) :

CI:
-The value of 0 for environmental concern does not falls between the interval (0.004 , 0.406). It
means that environmental concern is a significant predictor.
-The value of 0 for environmental knowledge falls between the interval (-0.033 , 0.598). It
means that the environmental knowledge is not a significant predictor.
-The value of 0 for health consciousness falls between the interval (-0.051 , 0.457). It means
that the health consciousness is not a significant predictor.
-The value of 0 for eBike’s infrastructure falls between the interval (-0,193 , 0.423). It means
that the eBike’s infrastructure is not a significant predictor.

T value:
- Environmental concern has significant effect on attitude towards eBikes because the t-value of
environmental concern is 1,683 and it is exceeds the threshold value that is 1,67.
- Environmental knowledge does not have significant effect on attitude towards eBikes because
the t-value of environmental knowledge is 1,378 and it is not exceeds 1.67 as the minimum
criteria.
-Health consciousness does not have significant effect on attitude towards eBikes because the t-
value of health consciousness is 1,296 and it is not exceeds 1.67 as the minimum criteria.
-eBike’s infrastructure does not have significant effect on attitude towards eBikes because the t-
value of eBike’s infrastructure is 0,595 and it is not exceeds 1.67 as the minimum criteria.

P value:
-Environmental concern has significant effect on attitude towards eBikes because the p-value of
environmental concern is 0,046 and it is less than 0,05.
-Environmental knowledge does not have significant effect on attitude towards eBikes because
the p-value of environmental knowledge is 0,084 and it is more than 0,05.
-Health consciousness does not have significant effect on attitude towards eBikes because the
p-value of health consciousness is 0,098 and it is more than 0,05.
-eBike’s infrastructure does not have significant effect on attitude towards eBikes because the
p-value of eBike’s infrastructure is 0,276 and it is more than 0,05.