Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-06-09
Connectedness to Nature Encourages,but Materialism Hinders,Ecological Behavior in the Philippines: The Higher Order and Second-Order Factors of Environmental Attitudes as Viable Mediating Pathways
Despite the global prevalence of environmental issues, limited research has been done in wider sociocultural contexts. This study aimed to determine the influence of (1) connectedness to nature, (2) materialism on ecological behavior, and (3) to juxtapose two models demonstrating the mediating role of the overall index of environmental attitudes (Model 1) and its second-order factors (Model 2) (i.e., education, field trips, conservation, and intention facets) on the impact of connectedness to nature and materialism on ecological behavior in the Philippine context. Using an online questionnaire, 589 individuals (men = 216, women = 373) with ages ranging between 18 and 65 years old (mean age = 30.06 years; SD age = 13.31) participated in the study. Results revealed that individuals with higher levels of affiliation with nature reported greater engagement in ecological behaviors. In contrast, people with higher materialistic values reported lower levels of ecological behaviors. Moreover, results showed that both models of environmental attitudes (except the education and field trips facets) can be viable mediating pathways in the influence of connectedness to nature and materialism on ecological behavior in Filipinos. Findings were discussed within the context of the massive environmental degradation and fast urbanization in a developing country such as the Philippines. Limitations, future directions, and implications are discussed with reference to community and psychoeducational interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsonP. R., & InglehartR. F. (2009). Value change in global perspective. Ann Harbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
2.
AbreoN., BlatchleyD., & SuperioM. (2019). Stranded whale shark (Rhincodon typus) reveals vulnerability of filter-feeding elasmobranchs to marine litter in the Philippines. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 141, 79–83
3.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50, 179–211.
4.
AlzubaidiH., SladeE. L., & DwivediY. K. (2020). Examining antecedents of consumers' pro-environmental behaviours: TPB extended with materialism and innovativeness. Journal of Business Research,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.017
5.
ArutaJ. J. B. (2016). Understanding the structure of autonomy among Filipino adolescents. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Research, 7, 37–49.
6.
ArutaJ. J. B., BarrettoD. I., ShinY., & JangA. (2019). The experience of power in teacher student relationships in collectivistic context. Psychological Studies, 64, 316–331.
7.
BankoffG. (2007). One island too many: Reappraising the extent of deforestation in the Philippines prior to 1946. Journal of Historical Geography, 33, 314–334.
BenselT. (2008). Fuelwood, deforestation, and land degradation: 10 years of evidence from Cebu province, the Philippines. Land Degradation & Development, 19, 587–605.
10.
CasalóL. V., & EscarioJ. J. (2018). Heterogeneity in the association between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: A multilevel regression approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 155–163.
11.
ChaplinL. N., HillR. P., & JohnD. R. (2014). Poverty and materialism: A look at impoverished versus affluent children. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33, 78–92.
12.
DuraiappahA. K. (1998). Poverty and environmental degradation: A review and analysis of the nexus. World Development, 26, 2169–2179.
13.
EomK., KimH. S., & ShermanD. K. (2018). Social class, control, and action: Socioeconomic status differences in antecedents of support for pro-environmental action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 60–75.
14.
EomK., SaadC., & KimH. S. (2020). Religiosity moderates the link between environmental beliefs and pro-environmental support: The role of belief in a controlling god. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220948712.
15.
Fernadez-ManzanalR., Rodriguez-BarreiroL., & CarrasquerJ. (2007). Evaluation of environmental attitudes: Analysis and results of a scale applied to university students. Science Education, 91, 988–1009.
16.
GarciaK., LascoR., InesA., LyonB., & PulhinF. (2013). Predicting geographic distribution and habitat suitability due to climate change of selected threatened forest tree species in the Philippines. Applied Geography, 44, 12–22.
17.
GuD., GaoS., WangR., JiangJ., & XuY. (2018). The negative associations between materialism and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors: Individual and regional evidence from China. Environment and Behavior, 52, 611–638.
18.
GultianoS., & XenosP. (2004). Age-structure and urban migration of youth in the Philippines. In CICRED seminar on age-structural transitions: Demographic bonuses, but emerging challenges for population and sustainable development. Paris: Committee for International Cooperation in National Research in Demography.
19.
HanleyA. W., BettmannJ. E., KendrickC. E., DeringerA., & NortonC. L. (2020). Dispositional mindfulness is associated with greater nature connectedness and self-reported ecological behavior. Ecopsychology, 12, 54–63.
20.
HoldenW. N. (2019). Endogenous exacerbation of an exogenous problem: climate change, environmental degradation, and unsustainable development practices in the Philippines. Asian Geographer, 36, 1–27.
21.
HuL., & BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
22.
HurstM., DittmarH., BondR., & KasserT. (2013). The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 257–269.
23.
KaiserF. (1998). A General Measure of Ecological Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 395–422.
24.
KongL., Poh AiI., Gusti TisnaP., RemorinP., SuwannatachoteR., & LeeW. (2000). In D. Yencken, J. Fien, & H. Sykes (eds.), Environment, education and society in the Asia-Pacific: Local traditions and global discourses (pp. 113–134). London: Routledge.
25.
KrettenauerT., WangW., JiaF., & YaoY. (2019). Connectedness with nature and the decline of pro-environmental behavior in adolescence: A comparison of Canada and China. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101348
26.
LiobikieneG., LiobikasJ., BrizgaJ., & JuknysR. (2020). Materialistic values impact on pro-environmental behavior: The case of transition country as Lithuania. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118859.
27.
LiuP., TengM., & HanC. (2020). How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors? The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Science of the Total Environment, 728, 138126.
28.
MagalangA. A. (2014). Municipal solid waste management in the Philippines. In: A. Pariatamby & M. Tanaka (eds.), Municipal solid waste management in Asia and the Pacific Islands. Environmental science and engineering. Springer, Singapore.
29.
MalaqueI. R. III & YokohariM. (2007). Urbanization process and the changing agricultural landscape pattern in the urban fringe of Metro Manila, Philippines. Environment & Urbanization, 19, 191–206.
30.
MaohongB. (2012). Deforestation in the Philippines, 1946–1995. Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints, 60, 117–130..
31.
MayerF. S., & FrantzC. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
32.
MilfontT. L., PoortingaW., & SibleyC. G. (2020). Does having children increase environmental concern? Testing parenthood effects with longitudinal data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study. PLoS One, 15, e0230361.
33.
MilfontT. L., & SibleyC. G. (2016). Empathic and social dominance orientations help explain gender differences in environmentalism: A one-year Bayesian mediation. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 85–88.
34.
MyersN., MittermeierR. A., MittermeierC. G., da FonsecaG. A. B., & KentJ. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.
35.
NisbettE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., & MurphyS. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.
36.
OttoS., & KaiserF. G. (2014). Ecological behavior across the lifespan: Why environmentalism increases as people grow older. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 331–338.
37.
PayerC. (1973). Exchange controls and national capitalism: The Philippines experience. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 3, 54–69.
38.
RichinsM. L. (1995). Social comparison, advertising, and consumer discontent. American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 593–607.
39.
RichinsM. L. (2004). The materialistic values scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 209–219.
40.
RichinsM. L., & DawsonS. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303–316.
41.
RoxasM., DavidA., & ArutaJ. J. B. (2019). Compassion, forgiveness, and subjective well-being among Filipino counseling professionals. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 41, 272–283.
42.
ScanesC. G. (2018). Human activity and habitat loss: Destruction, fragmentation and degradation. Animal and Human Society, 451–482.
43.
SchultzP. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339.
44.
SuarezR. K. & SajiseP. E. (2010). Deforestation, swidden agriculture and Philippine biodiversity. Philippine Science Letters, 3, 91–99.
45.
TamK. & MilfontT. L. (2020). Towards cross-cultural environmental psychology: A state-of-the-art review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1010474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101474
46.
TangY. & HinschC. (2018). Going green to be morally clean: An examination of environmental behavior among materialistic consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 5, 845–862.
WhitburnJ., LinklaterW. L., & MilfontT. L. (2019). Exposure to urban nature and tree planting are related to pro-environmental behavior via connection to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior,51, 787–810.
