Does Green Curriculum Have an Impact on Pro-environmental

Behavior?: A Comparative Study with Middle Schools

Hanna Raisya

and Ratna Djuwita

Department of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

Keywords: Environmental Education, Nature-based school curriculum, Pro-Environmental Behavior, School.

Abstract: Pro-environmental Behavior is a factor that is most important in explaining humans’ initiative to conserve

nature. One of the most effective and wildly used ways to ensure that individuals develop pro-

environmental behaviour is to implement environmental knowledge through education. However, in

Indonesia, it has never been researched whether or not such specific nature-based curriculum schools really

do implement environmental education better than the general-based curriculum counterpart. This research

will focus on measuring how effective each school’s curriculum in implementing their environmental

education by comparing the mean score between the two groups. Theories related to pro-environmental

behaviour such as the VBN model and nature relatedness are used as the main reference to compare how

effective schools implement their environmental education to their students. This is a quantitative research

that compares between the two groups using the independent sample t-test method. This research has

discovered that the overall mean score of the participants are good. From these findings, it was discovered

that from all the variables that are examined there are three distinct variables, which differ significantly

from each group, that is variables ascription of responsibilities, personal norms and pro-environmental

behaviour. It is found that pupils who attend a general-based school curriculum have a significantly higher

score in ascription of responsibilities and personal norms compared to pupils who attend a nature-based

school curriculum. In addition to that, pupils who attend a nature-based school curriculum are proven to

have a significantly higher score in Pro-Environmental Behavior compared to pupils who attend a normal-

based school curriculum. This research has found that students who attend nature-based curriculums do

significantly behave more pro-environmentally compared to their general-besed curriculum counter-part.

But, not thet do not excel in every variable which corresponds to pro-environmental behaviour.

1 INTRODUCTION

Human beings and their environment are two

inseparable elements (Leopold, 1949). There exists

interrelation between human and their surroundings

including all the living things since the birth of

humankind. The interrelation is materialised in both

physical and material dependence, and dependence

in other aspects, such as esthetics, intelligence,

cognitive, spirits, and satisfaction. This type of

interrelationship is known as biophillia hypothesis.

Biophillia hypothesis, introduced by Kellertand

Wilson (1993),suggested that the interrelationship

between human and the environment is beyond the

exploitation of the environment for the benefits of

the mankind. The interrelation exists to establish

connections and existence with their environment.

As a matter of fact, the nature has provided priceless

contribution to the existence of the human being,

particularly in the long taking human evolution

process so that, substantially, the human will always

be dependent to the nature considering their

characteristics developed since their birth. However,

along with the technological development, the form

of dependence has shifted from natural dependence

to indirect one, which materialised through

technology.The deterioration of natural dependence

will provide adversely impact to the quality of

interrelation of the human and the nature that was

previously achieved in many aspects such as

materials, affection, cognition, and evaluations

(Kellert& Wilson, 1993). Therefore, in order to

maintain the existence of the human being, it is very

important to create strategic and long-term

initiatives aiming at reviving harmonic relation

between the human and the nature.

Raisya, H. and Djuwita, R.

Does Green Curriculum Have an Impact on Pro-environmental Behavior?: A Comparative Study with Middle Schools.

DOI: 10.5220/0008590504310440

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings (ICP-HESOS 2018) - Improving Mental Health and Harmony in

Global Community, pages 431-440

ISBN: 978-989-758-435-0

431

The development in technology and civilization

has brought a progressive urbanization so that

quality of interaction between human and their

nature has been decreasing significantly (Baiquni,

2015). Demographically, the urbanization indicates

the shifting of the living mechanism in the society.

In the early period of civilization, the society was

heavily depending upon the agriculture sector and

the interaction with the nature was very intense.

Currently, people at majority make a living on

industrial activities, which are based on

manufacturing technology. The urbanization has

decreased green area in the urban areas and the

living style has adversely impacted to the

exploitation of the nature, which result in higher

pollution and natural destruction (Baiquni, 2009).

Subsequently, the people have lower awareness to

the nature and tend to commit environmently

unfriendly activities such as littering and using

environmently unfriendly transportation modes, and

etc. (Baiquni, 2015). Therefore, it can be inferred

that the gap between the human and the environment

could potentially develop adverse behaviors that

disbenefit the human.

Kurisu (2015) stated that the gap between human

and the environment would provide adverse impact

to the nature. For example, a lack of awareness of

the people to the environmental issues has

contributed to the global warming, climate change

and the extinction of certain species in many parts of

the world. Another closer example of environmental

destruction is the decrease of the tropical forest in

Indonesia. The destruction intensly happened in the

period of 1990 to 2003 where 16 million acres of

tropical forest has gone into extinction through

illegal logging. (“TahukahKamu”, 2017).

Most of the environmental problems immersed

because of irresponsible actions, which were not

anticipated by preventive actions (Soerjani,

YuwonodanFardiaz, 2007). The most contributing

factors to the environmental destruction globally are

addressed to irresponsible actions which are not only

polutive to the environment and its creatures, but

also hazardous to the human being.Henceforth, it is

important to identify the affecting factors to the

development of pro-environmetal behaviour.

A number of efforts have been initiated to certain

elements in the society to improve pro-

environmental behaviour. One of the approaches that

is considered effective in reshaping the attitude of

the people towards the environment is the

intervention into education system (Palmer & Neal,

2003). Induction of pro-environmetal values into

school education system is one of the modes

(Environmental Education). Environmental

education is an introduction process of values and

concepts to develop skill and preference, which

appreciate harmonious interrelation between human,

culture, and their biophysical environment. The

International Workshop on Environmental

Education (IIEP) has concluded that the

environmental education has three objectives:

promoting the awareness towards the state of

interrelationship among the economic, social,

political and ecological factors in urban and remote

areas; providing fair chance to everybody to absorb

knowledge, values, attitude, commitment, and skills

required in preserving the environment; and,

reshaping the ecological preference individually as

well as community based. The schools are delegated

to develop their system to develop their

implementation program.

Currently, the Indonesian education system run

their education program based on the principles of

2013 national education program which emphasis on

holistic approach. The holistic approach is a method

for education that does not separate the knowledge

into several sub programs.There are three elements

that the government wants to emphasize such as

standard-based education, competency-based

curriculum, and mastery learning.Assessment and

the education serve as the parameters in achieving

minimum standards. Henceforth, some education

methods were developed to facilitate education

process and gain the success in a more systematic

way (personal communication, March 25, 2018). In

Indonesia, there exist nature-based schools that

innovatively develop environmental based

education. Nature based school specifically design

the curriculum which allows the students to improve

their knowledge and to get direct interaction with the

nature whilst studying basic knowledge. The

students are taught basic knowledge in the nature so

that they can conduct environmentally friendly

activities and promote willingness of the student to

do their activities with the nature.

Teenagers are considered the most potential

assets in every country. In Indonesia, the teenagers

(with the age ranging from 10 to 15 years old)

acquires 32.2 percent of the total populations

(8.442.932 persons) in 2016 (Kementerian

Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 2016) and it is

expected to increase until 2030 (BAPPENAS and

LembagaDemografi FEB UI, 2017). Taking the

intensity of current environmental problems, the

investment in the education system to improve the

awareness of pro-environmental behaviors in really

important.

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

432

Well-designed pro-environment education

system is expected to produce new generation who

are environmently friendly as one of the distinctive

features and they have potential to develop their

countries and the world. However, no research has

been conducted to observe the behavioural dynamics

of the teenagers. This research is conducted to fill up

the knowledge. The adoption of values mostly takes

place during the teenage years (Kahn &Kellert,

2002). It is essential to identify the key success

factor in developing awareness for pro-environment

behaviour since the current teenagers will shortly

replace the position of current adults who make

strategic decisions. Through proper execution of

education program, it is expected that pro-

environment society would be able to bring down

the destruction rate to the minimum.

As it was mentioned earlier, during the teenage

period, every individual dynamically is in the search

period and it will be concluded by the internalising

period which leads to the final character determining

daily behaviour (Kohlberg, 1969

dalamPapalia&Martorell, 2015). The school system

may, in fact, serve as a center, which compile and

share experiences of teenage life since the schools

offer a fair chance to gain information and

vocational skills (Papalia&Martorell, 2015). School

serve as the first external circle after the core family

where the students spend considerable portion of

their time in life. The students learn and adopt new

academical and non-academical information and

skills from the school. That explains how the

information shared at school may significantly affect

the character and behaviour building of the students

(Nanne, et al., 2013). This research was conducted

to observe different characters were built due to

different education programs which one of those

emphasisesthe environmental aspect whilst the other

not.

Theoretically, pro-environmental behaviour is

affected by a number of factors. Stern (2000) offered

a VBN (Value, Belief, and Norms) model that is

capable of explaining the building of pro-

environment behavior. This theory explains how

value that relates an individual to the values and how

that relation would build confidence on how those

values need to be preserved and conserve. Besides

values and beliefs, according to the VBN model,

pro-environment behaviour would also be affected

by individual norms and public expectation by the

surrounding relating to how things can be done

(Stern, 2000). A number of researches have

indicated the ability of VBN model to explain pro-

environment behaviour, which based on individual

values, beliefs and norms.

Besides the VBN model proposed by Stern

(2000), Nisbet and Zelenski (2009) proposed a

predictor showing the level of Nature Relatedness,

which describes successfully pro-environment

behavior. Nature Relatedness is a theoretical

framework, which explains individual relatedness,

which is developed on the basis of individual

perception and his personal experiences with the

nature. (Nisbet&Zelenski, 2009). This research aims

to compare the mean score of variables that form

pro-environmental behaviour and pro-environmental

behaviour to see whether or not students who attend

schools which a nature-based curriculum do score

better than students who attend a general-based

school curriculum.

1.1 Pro-environment Behavior

Pro-environment behaviour is a behavioral pattern of

an individual when conducting beneficial and non-

beneficial daily actions based on the same intention

(Stern, 2000). Stern (2000) also denifed pro-

environment behaviour or environmentally

significant behavioras an impact oriented

behavioural pattern and intent oriented. Impact-

oriented behavior is referred more intensely on how

the human behaviour could provide impacts to the

availability of materils and energy from the

environment or how the behaviour could provide

impacts to the dynamic structure of the ecosystem or

the biosphere. Whilst, intent oriented definition is

based on behaviors as an autonomous factor provide

direct impact to the environment (Stern 1997 in,

2000). The main differences between the two

approaches are on impact and the motives.

Subsequently, with the intent-oriented approach, one

will be able to comprehend the process and how to

do intervension in order to reshape the behavioural

patterns. Stern (2000) classified pro-environment

behaviour patterns into four types and identified the

discriminating factors. The first type is the

environmental activism that explains how an

individual involves with meaningful activities to his

environment and surroundings. The second type is

the nonactivistbehaviors in the public spheres

identifying individuals who are supportive to the

environmentally supportive activities. The third type

is the Private sphere behaviors and the last type is

the behaviors in organizations.

Does Green Curriculum Have an Impact on Pro-environmental Behavior?: A Comparative Study with Middle Schools

433

1.2 Value-Belief-Norm Model

Value-Belief-Norm modelis a theoretical framework

used to understand the dynamic of the pro-

environment behavioural development (Oreg&

Katz-Gerro, 2006). The theory argues that pro-

environmet behaviour emerges from individual

values, which then activates his beliefs that certain

things may threaten his values, and for him to active

anticipatory actions (Stern, 1999).The VBN

theoretical framework relates the theory of value to

the norm-activation theory (Stern, 2000). Stern

(2000) has developed the value-belief-norm (VBN)

theoretical framework to further elaborate the

relationship between values and pro-environment

behavior. The VBN model involves six main

variables i.e. Values consisting of hedonistic,

egoiticandbiopheric values; Belief described by the

New Environmental Paradigm, Awareness of

Consequences dan Ascription of Responsibility;

Norm which represented by Personal Norms. Those

six main variables collaboratively trigger the pro-

environment behaviour.

1.3 Nature Relatedness

Nature relatedness refers to a psychological

construct that is capable to capture the uniqueness of

the individuals in percepting their relation with the

environment (Nisbet et al., 2009). The concept

defines three attributes addressing the relationship

with the nature including: (1) NR-self as the

attribute which captures affective relationship to the

nature, established through thoughts and feelings;

(2) NR-perspective as the attribute representing the

cognitive relationship relating to the impact of the

human acts to their surroundings; and (3) NR-

experience as the attribute describing individual

physical relationship to the nature established

through physical comfort which trigger an aspiration

to be a part of the nature physically. Nisbet (2009)

proposed nature relatedness as a term to describe

relationship between human and the nature

regardless he was comfortable or not to be around

his natural surroundings. By definition, NR (Nature

Relatedness) is the affective and cognitive aspects

and also experiences relating to the relationship

between human and the nature (Nisbet in

EnvirontmentalBehavior 41: 715 – 740, 2009’

2 METHOD

This research focuseson examining whether or not

pupils who attend nature-based curriculum schools

and general-based curriculum school really have

distinctive mean scores in variables related to pro-

environmental behavior. The pro-environment

behaviour is inferred from the total score calculated

from the General Environmental Behavior for

Adolescence (Kaiser, Oerke&Bogner, 2007). The

higher the score of the pro-environment behaviour,

the friendlier the person is to the environment. The

VBN model which includes factors that shape pro-

enironmental behaviour is measured by five

variables i.e. biospheric values, new environmental

paradigm, awareness of adverse consequences,

ascription of responsibilities and personal norms.

Pro-environment behaviour is measured by using

an adapted unidimenssional General Environmental

Behavior for Adolescence (Kaiser,Oerke&Bogner,

2007), and variables that forms pro-environmental

behavior, which consists of biospheric values, new

environmental paradigm, awareness of adverse

consequences, ascription of responsibilities and

personal norms. The nature relatedness variable is

measured by using the adaptation of Nature

Relatedness Scale (Nisbet&zelenski, 2009), which

has been translated into Bahasa Indonesia. It uses the

six-point likert scalefrom 1 (least preferable) to 6

(mostpreferrable). The measuring tools of the nature

relatedness consistes of 21 items.

General Environmental Behavior for

Adolescence (Kaiser, Oerke&Bogner, 2007) consists

of 20 items. Out of the 20 items, 3 items are used to

measure the level of energy conservation, 2 items to

measure mobility dan transportation, 3 items to

measure waste avoidance, 3 items to measure

recycling preferences, 3 items to measure level of

consumerism, and 7 items to measure Vicarious

Behaviors toward Conservation. Scale of General

Environmental Behavior for Adolescence is adapted

into Bahasa Indonesia and transformes into Likert

scale. The scale is ranging from 1 (least preferable)

to 6 (most preferable).

This research is classified as a quasi-

experimental since the research identified different

responses based on different treatments to two

different groups that have received a considerably

different treatment in regards to the application

environmental education. Based on the data

compilation method, this research is considered as a

quantitative research since the data in acquired from

the participants in term of numerical scores so that

statistical procedures are applicable (Kumar, 2011).

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

434

The participants of the research were junior high

school students with ages between 11-15 years old

of the public schools and nature schools. The

number of the respondents is 415 students. The

sample selection method is using non-probability

sampling. The selection method is chosen because

initially the exact number of total number of 12

grade students so that individual approach was not

preferred (Kumar, 2011).

Data compilation was conducted offline so that

the data compilation process can be conducted to

reach as many possible participants at one time. The

use of questionnaire is preferred so that all the

response was made accurately in accordance with

the instructions. The questionnaire was used as

research instruments that were used after the validity

and reliability was assured and the language was

transferred into Bahasa to ease the communication.

The research applied certain statistical

techniques for processing the data such as 1)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) used to obtain

valid and reliable indicators of each variables which

consists of The Nature Relatedness Scale, A Brief

Inventory of Values, The New Environmental

Paradigm, Awareness of Adverse Consequences,

Ascription of Responsibilities, Personal Norms

danGeneral Environmental Behavior for

Adolesence; 2) descriptive statistic analysis to obtain

general descriptions including frequency analysis,

obtaining mean, min-max values and deviation

standards; 3) PearsonCorrelation analysis to obtain

interrelation between variables, and; 4) Independent

Sample T-Test to observe differences among

variables based on the types of schools.

3 RESULT

There were a total of 415 participants that agreed to

be a part of the experiment. In which 52.8% of the

participants originated from the nature-based

curriculum school, while 47% of the participants

originated from a general-based curriculum school.

In this research, we have found two important

findings.

As shown on the table, participants who attended

a nature-based school hasscored better than

participants who attended a school with a general-

based curriculum on biospheric valuesand pro-

environmental behaviour. Meanwhile, participants

who attended a school that uses a general-based

curriculum have been found to haveobtained a

higher score in variables nature relatedness,

ascription of responsibilities, personal norms and

new environmental paradigm.

Table 1: Means and standard deviations of the variables

Variables School

Nature-based

General-

based

ean

Freq Mean

Biospheric

Values

4.98 .65 219 4.89

Nature

Relatednes

4.04 .60 219 4.14

Ascription

Responsibil

ities

5.04 .72 219 5.22

Awareness

of Adverse

Consequen

ces

5.00 .68 219 5.00

Personal

Norms

4.61 .72 219 4.87

New

Environme

ntal

Paradigm

2.72 .78 219 2.77

Pro

Environme

nt Behavior

3.24 .57 219 3.08

Second is that using the independent sample t-

test method, this research has found three

distinctvariabels that has a significant mean

difference between the nature-based school

curriculum group and the general-based school

Does Green Curriculum Have an Impact on Pro-environmental Behavior?: A Comparative Study with Middle Schools

435

curriculum group. These variables included are:

ascription of responsibilities, personal norms and

pro-environmental behaviour. In which, for variables

ascription of responsibilities the general-based

school curriculum group had a mean score that is

significantly higher compared to the mean score of

the nature-based school curriculum. Whereas for the

pro-environmental variable, the nature-based school

curriculum group had a significantly higher mean

score compared to their general-based school

curriculum counterpart.

Table 2: Independent sample T-test of each variables

Variables t Significance df

Biospheric

Values

1.285 .199 413

Nature

Relatedness

1.730

.084 413

Awareness of

Adverse

Consequences

-.036 .971 413

Ascription of

Responsibilities

2.628

.009* 413

Personal

Norms

3.693

.000* 413

New

Environmental

Paradigm

-.524 .601 413

Perilaku

Ramah

Lingkungan

2.482 .013* 413

4 DISCUSSION

In this research, we find that indeed pupils who

attend a nature-based curriculum schools do have a

significantly higher mean score in pro-

environmental behaviour compared to its general-

based curriculum counterpart. This means that the

students who attend schools who uses a green-based

curriculum behaves more pro-environmentally

compared to students who attend a general-based

curriculum. However, quite contrary than what was

hypothised, nature-based curriculum schools do not

necceserily result in having students who have a

significantly different score in all variables related to

pro-environmental behaviour. Therefore, the

hypothesis of this research cannot be proven.

It is proven that there are evenseveral variables

in which pupils who attend schools with a general-

based curriculum perform even better compared to

their nature-based school counterpart. Infact, there

were eventwo cases in which the general-based

school curriculum is superior compared to their

nature-based school counterpart. Variables

ascription of responsibilities and personal norms are

found to be significantly higher amongst participants

who attend a general-based school curriculum

compared to their nature-based school curriculum

counterpart.

This means that students who attended schools

with a genera-based curriculum have a better

understanding of the knowledge related to

environmental issues and the importance of

conducting it in real life. However, the majority of

them did not actually behaved according to the

knowledge that they have and have chosen to not

behave pro-environmentally.

Quite different from students who attended

schools with a general-based curriculum, students

who attended schools with a green-based curriculum

may not have a full understanding of why they

should behave pro-environmentally, but because

they are accustomed to a pro-environmental way of

life and have good role-models for it, they in result

perform more pro-environmentally compared to

students who attended a general-based curriculum.

Based on the results that were obtained, we have

concluded several reasons as to why it did not show

as hypothised. The first reason why general-based

curriculum schools perform better in variables which

represents belief and norms is because its

environmental education heavily emphasized

theconsequences theoretically rather than actually

emphasizing the impact of every action that they

take in their daily lives.

So that in both curriculums environmental

education can be implemented effectively, it is

adviced in this research paper that general-based

schools focus on increasing facilities and activities

that give their students opportunity to demonstrate

what they learn. Whereas it is adviced in this

research paper that nature-based schools should

increase the theoretical aspect of their environmental

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

436

education so that their students fully undertand how

their actions really impact on the environment as a

whole and not just act based on habit.

5 CONCLUSION

Through this research, we have concluded that the

schools curriculum indeed affect to the pro-

environmental behaviour of its students. As

explained previously, we concluded that schools

with a green-based curriculum that accustom their

sttudents to behave pro-environmentally do make a

positive habit, even though they do not have the

knowledge of why they do it. On the other hand,

schools with a general based curriculum have

successfully delivered the knowledge related to

environmental issues and how important it is to

behave pro-environmentally, but without habituation

and modelling of the behaviour in their daily life, the

students will not actually perform the behaviour in

their daily lives.

REFERENCES

Arcury, T.A. and Christianson, E.H. 1993 Rural and

Urban Differences in Environmental Knowledge

and Actions. The Journal of Environmental

Education, 25, 19-25.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1993.994194

Baquini, M. 2009 RevolusiIndustri, Ledakan

Penduduk dan Masalah Lingkungan, Jurnal Sains

dan Teknologi Lingkungan Volume 1 No. 1

Januari 2009 ISSN: 2085 -1227. Fakultas

Geografi Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Boerschig, S., & de Young, R. 1993. Evaluation of

selected recycling curricula: Educating the green

citizen. The Journal of Environmental

Education, 24(3), 17-22.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1993.994349

Brosch, Tobias, SANDER, David, (eds.). Handbook

of Value: Perspectives from Economics,

Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology and

Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2016. https://archive-

ouverte.unige.ch/unige:90369

Brügger, A., Kaiser, F. G., &Roczen, N. 2011. One

for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of

nature, environmental identity, and implicit

association with nature. European

Psychologist, 16(4), 324.

Buta, N., Brennan, M.A. and Holland, S. 2013.

“Citizen Differences in Attitudes Towards the

Environment and Pro-Environmental

Engagement: Findings from Rural Romania.”

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration.

31(2): 6-27.

Chawla, L. 1998. Significant life experiences

revisited: A review of research on sources of

environmental sensitivity. The Journal of

Environmental Education, 29(3), 11-21.

Chawla, L. 1999. Life paths into effective

environmental action. The Journal of

Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26.

Chawla, L. 2003. Bonding with the Natural World:

The Roots of Environmental Awareness.

NAMTA journal, 28(1), 133-54.

Cheng, J., Cheng, H., & Monroe, M. C. 2012.

Connection to Nature: Children's Affective

Attitude Towards Nature. Environment and

Behavior, 44(1), 31-49.

doi:10.1177/0013916510385082

Dalal-Clayton, D. B., & Bass, S. 2009. The

challenges of environmental mainstreaming:

Experience of integrating environment into

development institutions and decisions (No. 1).

IIeD.

De Groot, J. I., &Steg, L. 2008. Value orientations

to explain beliefs related to environmental

significant behavior: How to measure egoistic,

altruistic, and biospheric value

orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3),

330-354.

De Groot, J. I., Steg, L., &Dicke, M. 2008.

Transportation trends from a moral perspective:

Value orientations, norms and reducing car

use. New transportation research progress, 67-

91.

De Groot, Jim &Setg, L., 2009 Value orientations to

explain beliefs related to environmental

significant behaviour.

Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., &Shwom, R. 2005.

Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ.

Resour., 30, 335-372.

Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., &Guagnano, G. A. 1998.

Social structural and social psychological bases

of environmental concern. Environment and

behavior, 30(4), 450-471.

Dresner, M. 1989. Changing energy end-use patterns

as a means of reducing global-warming trends.

The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2),

4146.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., &

Jones, R. E. 2000. New trends in measuring

environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement

Does Green Curriculum Have an Impact on Pro-environmental Behavior?: A Comparative Study with Middle Schools

437

of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP

scale. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 425-442.

Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., &

Johnson, J. B. 2007. Connectivity with nature as

a measure of environmental values. Environment

and behavior, 39(4), 474-493.

Eagles, P. F., &Demare, R. 1999. Factors

influencing children's environmental attitudes.

The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4),

33-37.

Ellis, R. J., & Thompson, F. 1997. Culture and the

environment in the Pacific Northwest. American

political science review, 91(4), 885-897.

Ernst, J., &Theimer, S. 2011. Evaluating the effects

of environmental programming on connectedness

to nature. Environmental Education

Research, 17(5), 577-598.

doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.565119

Ernst, J., &Theimer, S. 2011. Evaluating the effects

of environmental education programming on

connectedness to nature. Environmental

Education Research, 17(5), 577-

598.Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to

subjective well-being. J

Feather, N. T. 1995. Values, valences, and choice:

The influences of values on the perceived

attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal

of personality and social psychology, 68(6),

1135.

Geiser, C. 2012. Data analysis with Mplus. Guilford

press.

Gravetter, F. J., &Forzano, L. A. B. 2018. Research

methods for the behavioral sciences. Cengage

Learning.

Gravetter, F. J., &Wallnau, L. B. 2016. Statistics for

the behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning.

Gravetter, F.J., danForzano, L.B., (2012). Research

Methods for The Behavioral Sciences (4th Ed.).

Canada : Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Happiness Stud, 12: 303–322, DOI:

10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7.

Hofmann‐Towfigh, N. 2007. Do students' values

change in different types of schools?.Journal of

Moral Education, 36(4), 453-473.

Jordan, J. R., Hungerford, H. R., &Tomera, A. N.

1986. Effects of two residential environmental

workshops on high school students. The Journal

of Environmental Education, 18(1), 15-22.

Judith I. M. de Groot, Linda Steg 2009 How to

Measure Egoistic, Altruistic, and Biospheric

Value Orientations, August 2007

Kahn, P. H., &Kellert, S. R. 2002. Children and

nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and

evolutionary investigations. MIT press.

Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B., &Bogner, F. X. 2007.

Behavior-based environmental attitude:

Development of an instrument for adolescents.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3),

242-251.

Kohlberg, L., & Kramer, R. 1969. Continuities and

discontinuities in childhood and adult moral

development. Human development, 12(2), 93-

120.

Kossack, A., &Bogner, F. X. 2012. How does a one-

day environmental education programme support

individual connectedness with nature?. Journal

of Biological Education, 46(3), 180-187.

Kurisu, K. 2015. Pro-environmental behaviors.

Tokyo: Springer. Neuroscience, philosophy,

psychology, and sociology. Oxford: Oxford

Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M., & Tate, E. B. 2008.

Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the social

and natural worlds into one's sense of self.

Liefländer, A. K., Fröhlich, G., Bogner, F. X., &

Schultz, P. W. 2013. Promoting connectedness

with nature through environmental

education. Environmental Education

Research, 19(3), 370-384.

Linking individuals’ connection with nature to

environmental concern and

Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. 2004. The

connectedness to nature scale: A measure of

individuals’ feeling in community with nature.

Journal of environmental psychology, 24(4),

503-515.

Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E.,

&Dolliver, K. 2009. Why is nature beneficial?

The role of connectedness to nature.

Environment and behavior, 41(5), 607-643.

Melgar, N., Mussio, I., & Rossi, M. 2013.

Environmental concern and behavior: do

personal attributes matter?.Documento de

Trabajo/FCS-DE; 1/13.

Nabhan, G. P., St Antoine, S., Kellert, S., & Wilson,

E. 1993. The loss of floral and faunal story: The

extinction of experience. The biophilia

hypothesis, 229-250.

Newhouse, N. 1990. Implications of attitude and

behavior research for environmental

conservation. The Journal of Environmental

Education, 22(1), 26-32.

Nilsson, A., von Borgstede, C., & Biel, A. 2004.

Willingness to accept climate change strategies:

The effect of values and norms. Journal of

environmental psychology, 24(3), 267-277.

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

438

Nisbet, E. K., &Zelenski, J. M. 2011b.

Underestimating nearby nature: Affective

forecasting errors obscure the happy path to

sustainability. Psychological science, 22(9),

1101-1106.

Nisbet, E. K., &Zelenski, J. M. 2013. The NR-6: a

new brief measure of nature

relatedness. Personality Science and Individual

Differences, 4(813).

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813

Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A.

2009. The Nature Relatedness Scale Linking

Individuals' Connection With Nature to

Environmental Concern and

Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5),

715-740. doi:10.1177/0013916508318748

Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A.

2011. Happiness is in our nature: Exploring

nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective

well-being. J Happiness Stud, 12: 303–322, DOI:

10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7.

Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S.A. 2009.

The nature relatedness scale: pada 2013 Clean

Water Summit. Diaksespada 13 Januari 2018

dari

Palmer, J. A., & Neal, P. 2003. The handbook of

environmental education. Routledge.

Papalia, D. E., Feldman, R. D., &Martorell, G.

(2012). Experience human development.

Perman, R., & Stern, D. I. 1999. The Environmental

Kuznets Curve: implications of non-stationarity.

Perrin, J. L., &Benassi, V. A. 2009. The

connectedness to nature scale: A measure of

emotional connection to nature?.Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 434-440.

Pooley, J. A., &o’Connor, M. 2000. Environmental

education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are

what is needed. Environment and behavior,

32(5), 711-723.

Press.

Ramsey, J. M. 1993. The effects of issue

investigation and action training on eighth-grade

students' environmental behavior. The Journal of

Environmental Education, 24(3), 31-36.

Ramsey, J. M., & Hungerford, H. 1989. The effects

of issue investigation and action training on

environmental behavior in seventh grade

students. The Journal of Environmental

Education, 20(4), 29-34.

relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 813, DOI:

10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813.

Restall, B., & Conrad, E. 2015. A literature review

of connectedness to nature and its potential for

environmental management. Journal of

Environmental Management, 159, 264-278.

Sahu, P. K. 2013. Research methodology: A guide

for researchers in agricultural science, social

science and other related fields. Place of

publication not identified: Springer, India,

Private. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-1020-7

Schultz, P. 2002. Environmental attitudes and

behaviors across cultures. Online readings in

psychology and culture, 8(1), 4.

Schultz, P. W., &Zelezny, L. C. 1998. Values and

proenvironmental behavior: A five-country

survey. Journal of cross-cultural psychology,

29(4), 540-558.

Schwartz, S. H. 1977. Normative influences on

altruism1. In Advances in experimental social

psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221-279). Academic

Press.

Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and

structure of values: Theoretical advances and

empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-

65). Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. 1981. A normative

decision-making model of altruism. Altruism and

helping behavior, 189-211.

Sellmann, D., &Bogner, F. X. 2013. Effects of a 1-

day environmental education intervention on

environmental attitudes and connectedness with

nature. European Journal of Psychology of

Education, 28(3), 1077-1086.

Soerjani, M., Yuwono, A. &Fardiaz, D. 2007.

Lingkunganhidup:Pendidikan,pengelolaanlingku

ngandankelangsunganpembangunan

(EdisiKedua).

Jakarta:yayasanInstitutPendidikandanPengemban

ganLingkungan (IPPL).

Steg, L., & de Groot, J. I. 2012. Environmental

values. In The Oxford handbook of

environmental and conservation psychology.

Steg, L., &Sievers, I. 2000. Cultural theory and

individual perceptions of environmental risks.

Environment and Behavior, 32, 250–269.

Steg, L., &Vlek, C. 2009. Encouraging pro-

environmental behaviour: An integrative review

and research agenda. Journal of environmental

psychology, 29(3), 309-317.

Steg, L., De Groot, J. I., Dreijerink, L., Abrahamse,

W., &Siero, F. 2011. General antecedents of

personal norms, policy acceptability, and

intentions: The role of values, worldviews, and

environmental concern. Society and Natural

Resources, 24(4), 349-367.

Does Green Curriculum Have an Impact on Pro-environmental Behavior?: A Comparative Study with Middle Schools

439

Stern, D. I. 1998. Progress on the environmental

Kuznets curve?.Environment and development

economics, 3(2), 173-196.

Stern, P. C. 2000. New environmental theories:

toward a coherent theory of environmentally

significant behavior. Journal of social issues,

56(3), 407-424.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A.,

&Kalof, L. 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of

support for social movements: The case of

environmentalism. Human ecology review, 81-

97.

the role in motivating environmental concern and

behavior. Presentasisaintifik

Thøgersen, J., &Ölander, F. 2002. Human values

and the emergence of a sustainable consumption

pattern: A panel study. Journal of economic

psychology, 23(5), 605-

630.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-

4870(02)00120-4

UN Environment. 2018. Sustainable lifestyles:

Consumer goods.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization). 1978. Final report:

Intergovernmental conference on environmental

education. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. 1977. Intergovernmental conference on

environmental education. Tbilisi:

Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013).

The value of environmental self-identity: The

relationship between biospheric values,

environmental self-identity and environmental

preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 34, 55-63.

Wilson, E. O. 2017. Biophilia and the conservation

ethic. In Evolutionary perspectives on

environmental problems (pp. 263-272).

Routledge.

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

440