The Role of Willingness to Sacrifice towards Pro-environmental

Behavior in Jakarta Citizens

Nourma Octavia, Riselligia Caninsti, Fitri Arlinkasari

Faculty of Psychology, YARSI University, Jakarta

Keywords: Pro-environmental Behaviour, Willingness to Sacrifice, Jakarta

Abstract: The decreasing of environmental quality in Jakarta caused by the interference of the Jakarta citizens itself,

but there are still many attempts by some citizens and governments to improve the environment with pro-

environment behaviour. One of the most significant factors contributing to pro-environmental behaviour is

the willingness to sacrifice (WtS). This study aims to see whether WtS contributes significantly to pro-

environmental behaviour. The number of samples in this study was 332 samples with characteristics of age

21-65 years old and domiciled in Jakarta. In this study, the instruments are the General Ecological Behavior

and Willingness to Sacrifice for The Environment. Based on the result of regression, there is a significant role

between WtS toward pro-environmental behaviour (p = 0.001, p <0.05) and R2 0.031. For further research, it

is expected to add other factors such as attitudes toward the environment and commitment to the environment

that can form the pro-environmental behaviour in one study.

1 INTRODUCTION

Jakarta has a complex living environment. Starting

from the number of slum settlements, polluted rivers,

and air and water pollution, the quality of Jakarta's

environment continues to decline. Based on data

contained in the Indonesia Environment Quality

Index (IKLHI) (2012) report, Jakarta ranks last on the

index of environmental quality compared to other

cities in Indonesia. Besides, according to data

obtained from the Sustainable Cities Index (2016),

Jakarta ranks 85th out of 100 cities in the world in

Green City aspect. Aspects of Green city include

environmental risks, air pollution, drinking water and

sanitation, energy, greenhouse gas emissions,

greenhouses, and waste management (Sustainable

Cities Index, 2016). With these ratings, Jakarta has a

reduced environmental quality.

One of the most apparent environmental issues in

Jakarta is the flood. According to data obtained from

the National Disaster Management Agency (2016),

within the last five years, there are 1,212 cases of

floods in Jakarta and from those cases have claimed

casualties and resulted in substantial losses.

According to the Jakarta Regional Library and

Archives Board (2015), the danger of floods and

puddles in Jakarta is due to the overflow of river water

and rain (Hastari, 2015). According to the Director-

General of Waste Management, Waste and B3

KLKH, in 2019 Jakarta is predicted to produce 68

million tons of garbage with 9.52 million tons of

plastic waste which is one of the causes of flooding

(National geographic, 2016). That condition caused

by the behaviour of people who throw garbage in the

river so that the river flow becomes obstructed

(Hapsari & Zenurianto, 2016). According to Irianto,

other causes are people who build houses on the

banks of the river (Salmah, 2012). Also, flooding also

caused by the urbanization is so high that a lot of

green open land that used as a place to live. The

reduced number of green public areas also narrows

the waterways and water absorption that could

potentially cause flooding (Hapsari & Zenurianto,

2016).

In addition to flooding, pollution is also an

environmental problem in Jakarta. According to the

Jakarta Regional Library and Archive Board (2015),

the environmental quality in Jakarta is the third city

in the world with high pollution levels, both water, air

and land pollution (Hastari, 2015). According to the

IKLHI (2012) report, air quality, especially in large

cities and metropolitan areas heavily influenced by

transportation activities such as inefficient use of cars

with one car occupied by only one person. According

to the Jakarta Regional Library and Archives Board

(2015), the air pollution occurring in Jakarta

288

Octavia, N., Caninsti, R. and Arlinkasari, F.

The Role of Willingness to Sacriﬁce towards Pro-environmental Behavior in Jakarta Citizens.

DOI: 10.5220/0010041902880293

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Computer, Environment, Agriculture, Social Science, Health Science, Engineering and Technology (ICEST 2018), pages 288-293

ISBN: 978-989-758-496-1

dominated by transportation that generates 70 percent

of total nitrogen oxide contamination (NOx)

emissions.

There have been many attempts by the

government to reduce environmental problems.

According to Smart City Jakarta (2016), several

things have been done by the government to

overcome the flood disaster such as shallow river

normalization, cleaning of integrated waste treatment

plant (TPST), and hygiene campaign. Also, the

government has made a pay-plastic policy, where one

plastic is priced at Rp 200 in supermarkets to reduce

the amount of plastic waste, but the program does not

last long because the plastic waste in Jakarta is

increasing (UNAIR News, 2016). However, the

Jakarta government's efforts to address

environmental issues are not enough to reduce

environmental problems.

From some of the above explanations, it appears

that the people of Jakarta still throw garbage out of

place, choose to drive private vehicles rather than

public transportation, and it shows that people do not

yet have pro-environment behaviour. Pro-

environmental behaviour is a concern, awareness, and

understanding of personal consequences for

environmental protection (Bronfman, Cisternas,

López-Vázquez, la Maza, and Oyanedel, 2015).

Besides, Sawitri, Hadiyanti, and Hari (2015) define

pro-environment behaviour as a conscious act done

by individuals to reduce the adverse impacts of

human activities on the environment and to improve

environmental quality.

Nevertheless, there are still people who conduct

activities that show that they have pro-environmental

behaviour. According to Homburg and Stolberg (in

Sawitri et al., 2015), individual characteristics with

high pro-environmental behaviour are active in the

environment (such as participating actively in

environmental organizations). Non-activist action in

the public sphere (such as petitions on issues)

ecological issues), environmentalism in personal life

(energy savings, purchasing recyclables), and

behaviour within the organization (such as product

design). Actual activities are undertaken by the

community in pro-environmental behaviour one of

them is to follow the events organized by the

government such as Clean Up Jakarta Day where the

people of Jakarta annually participate clean the streets

of the garbage (Clean-Up Jakarta Day, 2018).

Also, a handful of Jakarta residents are also

recycling reusable waste to be a creation or item that

can be useful to the surrounding community (Tunas

Nusa, 2014). Another thing that some Jakarta people

do is cycling to work or elsewhere to reduce and

prevent the increase of air pollution in Jakarta (Bike

to Work, 2018). Individuals with high pro-

environment behaviour may also be affected by their

age, socioeconomic or income status, and sex

(Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Bronfman et al., 2015).

Six factors can shape pro-environment behaviour,

that is a personal norm, new ecological paradigm,

awareness of consequence, an ascription of

responsibility, personal value, and willingness to

sacrifice (Willuweit, 2009). Willingness to Sacrifice

(WtS) is one factor that can play a role in pro-

environment, it is because WtS is the determining

factor whether the society will behave pro-

environment or not (Davis, Le & Coy, 2011; Chen &

Zheng, 2016 ).

WtS represents the extent to which decisions

made by individuals will improve welfare despite

sacrificing self-interest, cost, or effort (Davis et al.,

2011). With WtS encouragement on the individual, he

will be more active in activities related to welfare and

environmental protection (Han & Hyun, 2016). Pro-

environment behavior that can be grouped as a form

of WtS is the willingness of individuals to buy

environmentally friendly products, although slightly

expensive (replacing plastic with their own shopping

bags and buying organic food), willing to lower the

standard of living (replace the air conditioner with

fan), and accept environment-related government

policies (Chen & Zheng, 2016). In WtS, a handful of

Jakarta people have a willingness to accept a policy

of increasing the price of plastics to shop for the

protection of the environment from plastic waste

(Suryani, 2016). Besides, the people of Jakarta are

also willing to pay more for waste processing (Emalia

and Huntari, 2016).

Results of research conducted by Davis et al.

(2011) found that WtS has a significant and positive

relationship with pro-environment behaviour, where

the number of relations is 0.52. Also, Willuweit

(2009) found that WtS can predict pro-environment

behaviour significantly so that WtS has a very

significant role in the formation of pro-environment

behaviour. Another study conducted by Iwata (in

Davis et al., 2011) found that individuals who had

higher WtS to the environment would have a higher

responsibility to the environment. Han and Hyun

(2016) found that the role of WtS against a person's

intent to conduct pro-environment behaviour was

0.740 or 74%.

The purpose of this research is to see the role of

Willingness to Sacrifice toward pro-environment

behaviour in Jakarta citizens. Benefits that can be

expected from this research that can be a reference in

designing programs that encourage people to increase

The Role of Willingness to Sacriﬁce towards Pro-environmental Behavior in Jakarta Citizens

289

further the willingness in sacrifice to improve or

preserve the environment to help the formation of

appropriate pro-environmental behaviour.

1.1 Pro-environment Behavior

Pro-environment behaviour is a conscious act to

minimize the adverse effects of individual behaviour

on the environment (Kolmuss & Agyeman, 2002).

Ramus and Killmer (2007) argue that pro-

environmental behaviour is part of prosocial

behaviour because this behaviour has benefits for

others and the environment. Also, According to

Bronfman et al. (2014), a pro-environmental

behaviour is a concern, awareness, and understanding

of the personal consequences of environmental

protection.

Pro-environmental behaviour has six dimensions

(Bronfman et al., 2015), namely:

1. Power Conservation: energy-saving

behaviour. Like not turn on the light during

the day and unplug the unused cable.

2. Ecologically Aware Consumer Behavior:

the behaviour of buying products that have

environmentally friendly materials. Like

buying organic food products.

3. Biodiversity Protection: protecting

biodiversities, such as taking a pet to a

veterinarian, visiting a park and planting

trees or plants.

4. Water conservation: water-saving

behaviour. Like turning off the tap while

brushing your teeth.

5. Rational Automobile: behaviour undertaken

to reduce air pollution. Like to prefer to use

a bicycle to travel rather than using a motor

vehicle.

6. Ecological Waste Management: waste

management behaviour to reduce household

waste. Like, recycle items that are not used.

There are factors that may influence pro-

environment behaviour, i.e. age, gender, and

socioeconomic status which in this study uses

income.

1.2 Willingness to Sacrifice

Willingness to Sacrifice (WtS) is the extent to which

decisions made by individuals will improve their

well-being despite sacrificing their self-interest, cost,

or effort (Davis, Le, & Coy, 2011). According to

Chen and Zheng (2016), WtS is a sacrifice made by

individuals who have a positive or positive impact on

others, especially for the next generation. Factors that

may affect WTS include age, education level, and

socioeconomic status which in this study uses income

(Willuweit, 2009).

2 METHODS

This research uses incidental sampling technique.

Characteristics of the sample in this study were DKI

Jakarta citizens aged 21-65 years. Measurements are

made through two measuring instruments. The pro-

environmental behaviour variable uses the General

Ecological Behavior Scale (GEB) developed by

Bronfman et al. (2015) and the Willingness to

Sacrifice variable using the Willingness to Sacrifice

for The Environment Scale developed by Davis et al.

(2011). The GEB measurement tool has Cronbach's

Alpha reliability of 0.79, and the Willingness to

Sacrifice for The Environment Scale has Cronbach's

Alpha reliability of 0.823.

2.1 Analysis and Result

This study used 332 respondents with age 21-39 years

(N = 288) and age 40-65 years (N = 44). Female

gender (N = 208) and male (N = 124), and earnings

ranging from 0-25.000.000 rupiah range. Before

doing linearity and regression test, the researcher

performs normality test. The data can be said to be

normal if the significance value p> 0.05 (see table 1).

Table 1. Normality Test Result

Unstandardized

Residual

Kolmo

orov-Smirnov Z 0.804

mp. Si

. (2-tailed) 0.538*

*p>0.05

2.2 Preliminary Analysis

In this study, researchers controlled the demographic

variables that could affect the pro-environment

behaviour variables other than the WtS variable. The

control test by using regression hierarchy test.

However, before conducting regression tests, the

researchers correlated between demographic

variables and pro-environment behavioural variables

(see table 2). Demographic variables to be controlled

are age, sex, and income.

ICEST 2018 - 3rd International Conference of Computer, Environment, Agriculture, Social Science, Health Science, Engineering and

Technology

290

Table 2. Correlation Test Result

Demographic

Variables

R Sig.

Pro Environmental

Behaviour

Sex

-0,080

0,1

Pro Environmental

Behaviour

Income

0,172

0,0

Pro Environmental

Behaviour

0,184

0,0

Table 2 shows that pro-environment behavioural

variable has a significant correlations with income

demographics (SES) and age variables. Therefore, the

researchers control the two variables. However, pro-

environment behaviour has no significant association

with sex. Nevertheless, researchers continue to

exercise control over the sex variables, given the

comparison between the sexes of men and women

who are almost balanced. Therefore, the researchers

conducted a different test (see table 3).

Table 3. The Different Test Based on Gender

Demo

hic Variables M Si

Male 100.38

0.005

Female

97.98

Based on the above table, the researchers found

significant value on the different test of gender

demographic variable with significance value p =

0.005 were (p <0.01). On the sex difference test, the

male has M = 100.38, and the female has M = 97.98.

From the results of the mean (M) that have been

described, it can be said that men have a slightly

higher level of pro-environment behaviour than

women. After the correlation test and different test,

the researchers then

conducted a multilevel

regression test. Based on the result of the multilevel

regression test, the value of R2 before controlled is

0.081 and after control, the R2 value decreases to

0.031 (see table 4).

Table 4. Multilevel regression test

Model R

Square

Chan

F Sig.

1 0.050 0.050 5.781 0.001

2 0.081 0.031 7.229 0.001

3 DISCUSSION

The result of simple regression test shows that the

significant value is 0.001 (p <0.05) which means that

the accepted research hypothesis WtS plays a

significant role in the pro-environment behaviour. In

this study found that the role of WtS is 3.1% of pro-

environment behaviour, where 96.9% is the influence

of other factors. Other factors are personal norms,

personal values, awareness of consequences, an

ascription of responsibilities, and attitudes toward the

environment (Oreg& Katz-Gerro, 2006; Willuweit,

2009; Chen & Zheng, 2016).

The results of hypothesis testing are in line with

research conducted by Katz-gerro (2006) and

Willuweit (2009), where WtS can be one of the

factors that can influence the formation of pro-

environment behaviour. According to Davis, et al.

(2011) states that individuals who have WtS will

experience a cognitive change where the individual

will focus on sacrificing for others compared with the

individual self itself, this is called a transformation of

motivation. This is because WtS is a form of altruism

motivation where individuals will feel the moral

obligation, awareness, and responsibility for pro-

environmental behaviour (Chen & Zheng, 2016).

Therefore, WtS has an important role in shaping pro-

environment behaviour (Han & Hyun, 2016).

Also, Davis et al. (2011) state that the important

role of WtS is used to determine the actions of pro-

environmental behaviour to be undertaken by

individuals.Where in this case involves psychological

pressure between following self-interest and

orientation to the future for the welfare of the

surrounding environment (Sara &Nurit, 2014). Also,

individuals with WtS to protect the environment will

become more active in conducting pro-environment

behaviour (Iwata, 2002) (in Han & Hyun, 2016).

According to Bronfman et al. (2014), environmental

protection depends not only on the government but on

the choice of community activities and sacrifices in

protecting the environment (Bronfman et al., 2014).

The behaviours resulting from WtS encouragement

include buying environmentally-friendly products

even more expensive than non-environmentally

friendly products, willing to pay taxes when raised by

the government, and willing to lower lifestyle

standards (Chen & Zheng, 2016).

Another finding in this is the value of its role in

pro-environment behaviour in Jakarta citizens is

3.1%, in this case, it can be said the value of the role

is low. That is, WtS in Jakarta society has a low

contribution to shaping pro-environment behaviour.

The low contribution of WtS to pro-environment

The Role of Willingness to Sacriﬁce towards Pro-environmental Behavior in Jakarta Citizens

291

behaviour can be caused by people who have not

looked at environmental protection as a top priority,

but people are still trying to achieve economic

prosperity (Dunlap &Mertigg, 1995; Willuweit,

2009; Phuphisith, Kurisu, Hanaki, 2017). According

to Bronfman et al. (2015), as for people in cities in

developing countries who care about environmental

protection only reached the concern for the area

where he lived at that time but have not reached the

thought for the next generation.

The researchers' assumptions, the delegation of

responsibility to the environment can also affect the

level of WtS in individuals (Chen and Zheng, 2016).

The delegation of responsibility for environmental

management comprises two: self-delegation of

responsibilities and assignment of responsibility to

the government (Bronfman et al., 2014). According

to Bronfman et al. (2014) and Chen & Zheng (2016),

the modern community of developing countries

delegates more responsibility to the government than

the developed countries, so the people do not feel the

responsibility to protect the great environment. This

can affect the WtS owned by the individual.

4 CONCLUSION

According to the results of research that has been

done to 332 respondents, willingness to sacrifice has

a significant role in the pro-environment behaviour in

Jakarta citizens. Nevertheless, the purpose generated

between WtS towards pro-environment behaviour is

only 3.1% percent.

4.1 Sugestion

1. For future researchers are expected to pay

attention to the distribution of data for both

ages, place of residence, and income so that

the results of the study can become more

comprehensive.

2. For future researchers, it is expected to add

other factors such as attitudes toward the

environment and commitment to the

environment in one study that can shape pro-

environmental behaviour.

3. Further research is expected to exercise

control and categorization of subjects who

have pro-environmental behaviour and who

do not have pro-environment behaviour.

REFERENCES

Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana.(2016). Data

Kejadian Banjir, diakses dari

http://geospasial.bnpb.go.id/pantauanbencana/data/dat

abanjirall.php , 18 Maret 2017.

Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi DKI Jakarta.(2016). Jakarta

Dalam Angka. Jakarta : BPS Provinsi DKI Jakarta.

Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi DKI Jakarta.(2016). Tingkat

Kemiskinan di DKI Jakarta Maret 2017.Jakarta : BPS

Provinsi DKI Jakarta.

Batten, J. (2016). Sustainable Cities Index 2016 : putting

people at the heart of city sustainability. Amsterdam

:Arcadis.

Bike to Work.(2018). Sejarah & Opini Seputar Bike to Work

Indonesia, diakses dari https://www.b2w-

indonesia.or.id/b2w-indonesia/sejarah-b2w-indonesia ,

15 Maret 2018.

Bronfman, N. C., Cisternas, P. C., López-Vázquez, E., la

Maza, C. D., Oyanedel, J.C. (2015).Understanding

Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behaviors in a

Chilean Community. Sustainability, 7 : 14133-14152.

Chen, Y., Zheng, Y. (2016). Willingness to Sacrifice for

The Environment: A Comparison of Environmental

Consciousness in China, Japan, and South Korea.

Behaviormetrika43(1) : 19-39.

Clean Up Jakarta Day. (2018). Clean Up Jakarta Day,

diakses dari http://cleanupjakartaday.org/id/ , 15 Maret

2018.

Davis, J. L., Le, B., Coy, A. E. (2011). Building a Model of

Commitment to The Natural Environment to Predict

Ecological Behavior and Willingness to Sacrifice.

Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(1) : 1-9.

Djajadilaga, M. (2012).Indeks Kualitas Lingkungan Hidup

Indonesia. Jakarta :Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup.

Dunlap. R. E. Mertig. A.G. (1995). Global Concern For The

Environment: Is Affluence A Prerequisite: J. Soc.

Issues,51, 121-137.

Emalia, Z., Huntari, D. (2016). Willingness to Pay

Masyarakat Terhadap Penggunaan Jasa Pengolahan

Sampah. Jurnal Ekonomi Kuantitatif Terapan, 9 (1) :

46-52.

Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.

(2015). Why Environmental Quality is Poor in

Developing Countries : A Primer, diakses dari

https://epic.uchicago.edu/news-events/news/why-

environmental-quality-poor-developing-countries-

primer , 23 Febuari 2018.

Environmental Performance Index.(2014). Country

Rankings, diakses dari

http://archive.epi.yale.edu/epi/country-rankings , 22

Febuari 2018.

Fraenkel, J. &Wallen, N. (1993).How to Design and

evaluate research in education. (2nd ed). New York:

McGraw-Hill Inc.

Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social

factors that influence pro-environmental concern and

behaviour: A review.

International Journal of

Psychology, 1-17.

ICEST 2018 - 3rd International Conference of Computer, Environment, Agriculture, Social Science, Health Science, Engineering and

Technology

292

Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2016). Fostering Costumer’s Pro-

environmental Behavior at A Museum.Journal of

Sustainable Tourism 25 (9) : 1240 – 1256.

Hapsari, Ratih. I., &Zenurianto, M. (2016).View of Flood

Disaster Management in Indonesia and the Key

Solution. American Journal of Engineering Research,

5(3) : 140-151.

Hastari, R. (2015). Kondisi Lingkungan Jakarta, diakses

dari

http://jakartapedia.bpadjakarta.net/index.php/Kondisi

_Lingkungan_Jakarta, 10 Maret 2017.

Hidayati, F. (2016). Konsep Altruisme Dalam Perspektif

Ajaran Agama Islam (Itsar).Jurnal Psikoislamika, 13

(1) : 59-63.

Ismiyati., Marlita, D., Saidah, D. (2014). Pencemaran

Udara Akibat Emisi Gas Buang Kendaraan Bermotor.

Jurnal Manajemen Transportasi & Logistik, 1 (3), 241-

248.

JSC.(2016). Kerja Nyata Dinas Kebersihan Pemprov DKI

Jakarta, diakses dari

http://smartcity.jakarta.go.id/blog/96/kerja-nyata-

dinas-kebersihan-pemprov-dki-jakarta , 21 Maret 2017.

Kollmuss, A., &Agyemann, J. (2002). The Mind Gap : Why

Do People Act Environmentally and What are The

Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior.

Environmental Education Research, 8(3) : 239-260.

Londo, P. (2015). Aneka Ragam Masalah Lingkungan

Membelit Jakarta, diakses dari

https://www.kompasiana.com/lsspi/aneka-ragam-

masalah-lingkungan-membelit-

jakarta_5528df006ea8348b128b4567 , 1 Febuari 2018.

Markowitz, E.M., Goldberg, L. R., Ashton, M. C., Lee, K.

(2012). Profiling the “Pro-environmental Individual” :

A Personality Perspective. Journal of Personality, 80

(1).

National Geographic.(2016). Setelah Cina, Indonesia

Tempati Posisi Kedua Penyumbang Sampah Terbesar

Di Dunia, diakses dari

http://nationalgeographic.co.id/berita/2016/07/setelah-

cina-indonesia-tempati-posisi-kedua-penyumbang-

sampah-terbesar-di-dunia , 1 Febuari 2018.

Ramus C.A., & Killmer, A. (2007). Corporate Greening

Through Pro-social Extra Role Behaviors. Business

Strategy and the Environment, 16, 554-570.

Salmah, S. (2012). Modal Sosial :Kekuatan dan Pertahanan

di Bantaran Sungai. Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat

Nasional, 7 (1) : 31-36.

Sara, A., Nurit, C. (2014). Pro-environmental and Its

Antecedents as a Case of Social and Temporal

Dilemma. British Journal of Education, Society &

Behavioural Science 4(4) : 508-526.

Sawitri, D. R., Hadiyanto, H., Hadi, S. P., (2015). Pro-

environmental Behavior from a Social Cognitive

Theory Perspective. Procedia Environmental

Sciences23 : 27-33.

Sunaryo, T. (n. d).Environmental Problems in Indonesia: A

Review,

diaksesdarihttps://aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publicat

ions/proceedings/downloads/12-sunaryo.pdf , 22

Febuari 2018.

Suryanih, A. S. (2016). Persepsi Masyarakat dan Analisis

Willingness to Pay Terhadap Kebijakan Kantong

Plastik Berbayar Studi di Jakarta dan Bandung. Kajian,

(4) : 359-376.

Tunas Nusa.(2014). Si Dalang,

diaksesdarihttps://www.tunasnusa.org/si-dalang , 15

Maret 2018.

UNAIR News. (2016). Kebijakan Plastik Berbayar Tak

Efektif Atasi Persoalan Sampah,

diaksesdarihttp://news.unair.ac.id/2016/02/23/kebijaka

n-plastik-berbayar-tak-efektif-atasi-persoalan-

sampah/, 14 Febuari 2018.

Willuweit, L. (2009). Promoting Environmental Behavior:

An Investigating of The Cross-Cultural Environmental

Behavior Patterns. The Case Of Abu Dhabi, Tesis,

Stockholm University, Stockholm.

The Role of Willingness to Sacriﬁce towards Pro-environmental Behavior in Jakarta Citizens

293