International Conference of Biodiversity and Conservation 2015

ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR (ERB) AMONG STUDENTTEACHERS

Azman Omar , Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Malaysia.azman@ipgmksm.edu.my

Norhayati Tahir, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu,Malaysia.norhayati@umt.edu.my

Wan Solihin Wong Abdullah, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu,Malaysia. salihin@umt.edu.my

Mohd Zaki Mohd Amin, IPG Kampus Sultan Mizan.mohdzaki@ipgmksm.edu.my

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to identify factors or predictor that

influence the behaviour of environmental accountability (ERB) or

pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) pre-service teachers in Teacher

Education Institutes (IPGM). By selecting the model behaviour

toward environmental responsibility (ERB) as the basic theory, a

questionnaire survey was carried out in Institute of Teacher

Education Campus (PGK). Data were analyzed using Partial Least Square

(PLS). The results show that attitude, awareness, self-efficacy

and religious play an important role in influencing

Environmentally Responsible Behaviour (ERB). However knowledge

does not affect the ERB. The results of this study may contribute

towards the establishment of an Environmental Education

curriculum in Malaysia particularly the implementation of

teaching and learning model (T&L) Environmental Education.

Keywords: ERB, Environmental Education Model, Partial Least Square

(PLS)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

Environmental deterioration and the depreciation of the components of

living things in it that are happening today directly reflects our

indifference in appreciating our role and responsibility as caliphs

who are responsible for administering and ensuring the prosperity of

the earth to our best ability (Rosmidzatul Azila, 2012). Our image as

the leaders of the world has been tainted due to various environmental

issues broadcasted through the mass media. Environmental issues such

as floods, tsunamis and haze that destroy thousands of lives have

become the main attention of media and public attention. However, when

this issues subsided, environmental issues are soon marginalized and

forgotten by the society and the parties involved (Haliza, 2012). Jill

(2007) argues that the important thing to be emphasized is the

attitude and behaviour of individuals towards the environment to

ensure sustainable survival of human beings. Hence, Environmental

Education was introduced to enhance the knowledge and awareness about

the environment and surroundings (Nurul Hidayah, Haryati & Seow,

2013). Hungerford & Volk (1990) argues that education leads to the

desired behaviour that can be shaped optimally to form a society that

is responsible towards the environment (environmental citizenship) or

Environmentally Responsible Behaviour (ERB). Therefore, to achieve

this educational objective, teachers are considered the most important

characters in the process of delivering knowledge to the target group

(Nur Hidayah, 2012). Pre-service teachers are the ones who will ensure

the effective implementation of Environmental Education (PAS) in

school. Hence, this study was carried out to examine factors such as

knowledge, attitudes, awareness, self-efficacy and religion that will

impact ERB.

2. Literature Review

Education plays a very important role in shaping individual behaviour

(Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Accordingly, Environmental Education (PAS)

has been introduced in enhancing the accountability of environmental

behaviour (ERB) (Leeming, Dwyer, Porter, & Cobern, 1993; Zelezny,

1999). The definition of Environmentally Responsible Behaviour (ERB)

is an actual treatment shown by individuals on issues related to the

environment (Leff, 1978). Lee, Jan & Yang (2013) argues that there are

many terminologies used in connection with the concept of ERB. Among

these are the environmentally-concerned behaviour (Axelrod & Lehman,

1993), Pro-environmental behaviour (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2003),

Environmentally significant behaviour (Stern, 2000) and Sustainable

behaviour (Meijers & Staples, 2011). The terminologies used by

researchers bring the same meaning that is the actual actions

performed by individuals on any issues related to the environment

(Hazura, 2009).

3. Theoritical Framework and Hypothesis

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) has introduced

the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Theory of Planned Behaviour

(TPB). However, Regis (1990) argues that this model has some

limitations namely the assumption of rational individual action is not

being given due recognition and that it only provides the basic

assumptions. Sociological model to analyse environmentally Pro-

behaviour has been introduced by Fietkau & Kessel (1981). This model

consists of five variables which act directly and indirectly to the

pro environmental behaviours. Hungerfold & Volk (1990) states that

there are many variables that can affect the ERB. According to him,

more previous studies conducted involved examining correlation and

less studies were done on cause and effect relationship. In a study

from 1986-87, Hines et.al developed a model of Responsible Conduct

towards the Environment through a meta-analysis research in

Environmental Education. In the model designed by Hines et. al (1986)

involving some predictors or variables that can affect responsible

behaviour towards the Environment. Although the framework developed by

Hines et.al (1986-87) is more sophisticated than the theory developed

by Ajzen & Fishbein's (1980), several factors do not reflect the ERB.

Blake (1999) stated that there is a lot of discussion about the gap

between values and actions on pro-environmental behavioural model. He

believes that the most pro-environmental model is limited because the

researchers failed to take into account individual and social factors,

and institutional constraints. Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002) argues that

there are several factors that predispose individuals to behave pro-

environment, namely demographic factors, external factors and internal

factors. According to Hawthorne & Alabaster (2000), the internal locus

of control (LOC) is the precondition for the citizens of the

environment (environment citizenship). They also stated predictors

that are related to the concept of environment citizenship that is the

participation of citizens, emotional, religious practice, parenting

factors and social class. Other predictors that have been studied by

researchers before this include sensitivity to the environment,

knowledge, skills, attitudes, locus of control and gender, verbal

commitment, shelter, environmental awareness, situational factors of

Environmentally Responsible Behaviour as well as pro-environment

behaviour (Marcinkowsi, 1988; Cottrell, 1993; Vaske and Kobrin, 2001;

Siemer & Knuth, 2001; Jena, 2012; Lavega, 2004; Meinhold, 2005;

Pavalache & UNIAN, 2012)

In conclusion, Hungerford & Volk (1990) suggested that there should be

a new model introduced if environmental issue is used as the main

factor in changing individual behaviour towards the environment. He

also believes that there should be a new variable if it goes beyond

awareness and knowledge. His research also shows that ERB can be

established through Environmental Education. Hence this study included

religious and self-efficacy factor into the previous research model

that act as predictors affecting ERB.

3.1 Knowledge of the Environment & ERB.

This factor has become the main agenda for the implementation of

Environmental Education. This is in line with the 21st agenda that is

the concept of environmental well-being through education and

environmental awareness that will lead to individuals involved in

environmental activities gaining insights into concept of good

environmental well-being and their concern for the environment and

environmental awareness increasing. Temin (2013) and Mo and Muniandy

(2010) found that the factors that led to the less than optimum

implementation of Environmental Education is caused by the low level

of knowledge on environmental education among pre-service teachers.

Boubonari, Markos, and Kevrekidis (2013) outlined that the knowledge

of marine pollution of pre-service teachers in Greek is at the

moderate level. This means that knowledge is an important factor in

ensuring the maximum implementation of the Environmental Education.

According Masithah (2012) there is a void or gap between teachers as

implementers and pupils in cultivating the value of Environmental

Education. The void or gap that she referred to is the knowledge of

teachers or prospective teachers that can ensure the effective

implementation of Environmental Education. This assertion is supported

by Turner et.al (2009) who argues that teachers need extensive

knowledge about the environment, positive attitude towards the

environment and good awareness of environmental problems to produce

students with environmental literacy. In this study, knowledge factor

is positive towards the Environmentally Responsible Behaviour (H1).

3.2 Attitudes towards the Environment & ERB

Attitude is a factor that should be taken seriously in today's

society. The phenomenon of environmental pollution in Malaysia and

also the tragedy of natural disasters that still persist prove that

behavioural and community commitment in safeguarding the environment

is at a low level (Hazura, 2009). Mohammad Zohir and Nordin (2007)

stated that teachers' attitudes and knowledge about environmental

concepts directly affect confidence and the willingness of teachers to

teach this subject. This assertion is supported by Watson (2002) who

believe that attitudes can affect how people think and then act.

Previous researchers argued that the attitude is a strong predictor of

Environmentally Responsible Behaviour (ERB) (Heyl, Moyano, &

Cifuentes, 2013; Kaiseretal1999; Makki, Abdel Khalick & Boujaoude,

2003). Thus, attitude is a positive factor towards Environmentally

Responsible Behaviour (H2).

3.3 Awareness about Nature & ERB

Awareness factor plays an important role in the implementation of

Environmental Education to develop environmental literacy (Moseley,

2000). Studies using this predictor are important to ensure a paradigm

shift in Environmental Education for teachers to produce students who

can compete in the 21st century (Arba'at & Mohd Zaid, 2011). A Review

by Samuel (1993) found that although environmental awareness among

teachers exist in the schools studied, knowledge about the environment

is still lacking. In conclusion, by providing knowledge we will

increase awareness and concern (attitude) and will eventually produce

individuals who have a more positive behaviour towards the environment

(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2010). In this study, researcher wanted to see

positive relation between awareness and Environmentally Responsible

Behaviour (H3).

3.4 Self-Efficacy towards the environment and ERB

One of the key variables in determining Environmentally Responsible

Behaviour is self-efficacy (Clayton & Myers, 2009). Similarly,

according to Hines et al. (1986/87) self-efficacy is a stronger

predictor than knowledge and attitudes in predicting Environmentally

Responsible Behaviour. Stibbards & Puk (2011) states that self-

efficacy is a good predictor of behaviour-based teaching for future

generations. A study that have been done by Meinhold & Malchus (2005)

showed that self-efficacy is the independent variable rather than

acting as a moderator in the relationship between adolescents'

attitudes and behaviour towards the environment. According to them

self-efficacy is not only the ability to create perception but it also

affects the motivation of an individual. However, these personal

traits of self-efficacy are given less attention by researchers

(Bandura, 1977), even though some studies have shown that a person's

success can be predicted through self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Thus,

self-efficacy should be considered as an important factor and given

priority in the implementation of the Environmental Education and this

factor has a major impact on the formation of positive behaviours

towards the environment. Self-efficacy is a positive factor for

Environmentally Responsible Behaviour (H4).

3.5 Religiousity towards the Environment and ERB

One important factor that is less emphasized on in applying the

positive behaviour towards the environment is religious factor. This

factor is less focused on in addressing environmental problems (Sayyed

Hossein Nasr, 1976) in Azrina (2012). He stated that spirituality like

religious elements need to be cultivated into environmental education

and also management and policy formation. In the context of discussing

the establishment of ethics in the society for the preservation and

conservation of the environment, religious approach has very real

impact in shaping the spiritual and physical being of a healthy and

kind person (Mohamadisa, 2005). Environmental crisis has also been

attributed to the lack of religiosity (Sayyed Hossein Nasr, 1996,

1997). Thus, the commitment of teachers based on religious values

which will produce a generation who can manage the environment

responsibly is very much needed now. This is consistent with Crowe

(2013) who found that integration between the spiritual and religious

values in Environmental Education is an appropriate approach to

transform the attitude and behaviour of pupils. His research shows

that there is a correlation between attitude and behaviour towards the

environment. So it is natural religious variable is studied as one of

the most important factors in improving environmental education

curriculum so as to produce wholesome individuals who are responsible

towards nature. Therefore researcher wants to see positive

relationship between religiosity and Environmentally Responsible

Behaviour (H5).

3.6 Conceptual Framework

Figure 3-1: Research Conceptual Model

4. Research Methodology

4.1 Sample & Data Collection Method

Pengetahuan(H1)

Sikap (H2)

Keagamaan (H5)

Kesedaran (H3)

EfikasiKendiri (H4)

ERB

The research conducted in several IPG in Malaysia by using stratified

random sampling technique according to the percentage of gender in a

population. Advantages of this sampling procedure is that its sampling

error is smaller (Chua, 2006 & Zikmund, Babin, Carr & Graffin, 2010)

4. Research Questionnaire

The questionnaire is based on the modification and adaptation to

several studies that involve the knowledge, attitude and awareness

construct by Masitah (2012), Hazura (2009) and Dunlap et al. (2000),

the religious factor by Crowe (2011), Self-efficacy by Effeney and

Davis (2013) and Boon (2011) and Environmentally Responsible Behaviour

(ERB) by Mobley, C., Vagias, WM, & Deward, SL (2009).

5. Research Findings & Discussion

5.1 Construct Validity

Construct validity was assessed through convergent and discriminant

validity. The procedure is to look at cross loading and loading using

a cut off value of 0.5 which is considered significant (Hair, Black,

Babin and Anderson, 2010). The convergent validity testing aims to

determine the extent to which the diversity of items measure the same

concept. Hair et al. (2010) suggested that the use of factor loadings,

composite reliability and average variance extracted is taken into

account to assess the convergence validity. Through Table 1 below, all

the values of loading factors are greater than 0.5 as proposed by Hair

et al.'s (2010). Hair et al. (2010) also proposed that all constructs

must have a composite reliability more than 0.6 to indicate that they

are at the high levels of internal consistency. Table 1 below shows

that all constructs are in the range of 0.873-0.931, exceeding what is

proposed. Average variance extracted (AVE) measures the variance that

can be observed by the indicators (indicators relative) of measurement

error and it must be greater than 0.50 to justify the application of

the construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Barclay, Thompson and

Higgins, 1995). Through Table 1 below this study also found that all

constructs have exceeded 0.5 AVE level and considered to meet the

convergent validity.

Discriminant validity is the extent of the difference between the

constructs or item in a different size concept (distinct concepts)

(Ramayah, Jason and Julie, 2011). As shown in Table 2, the square root

(√ AVE) shown diagonally is larger than the correlation between the

constructs not shown diagonally (Henseler et al., 2009). This study

has shown that the results of the analysis have reached a sufficient

discriminant test criteria as prescribed and at the same time it

justifies for the construct of this study to be maintained for further

analysis.

Table 1 : Results of measurement model

Konstruk Item β CompositRealibility

Factor Loading

AVE

KNOWLEDGEthe good items are items that have difficulty index values between 0.2 and 0.8 as well as positive discrimination index.

AWARENESS

AWA1

0.9067

0.7374

0.5239

AWA2 0.5556AWA3 0.7508AWA4 0.8296AWA5 0.7561AWA6 0.8405AWA7 0.5807AWA8 0.7732AWA9 0.6305

ATTITUDE ATT1 0.7402 0.9298 0.6002ATT2 0.5796SELF EFFICACY EF1 0.8215 0.7389 0.6997EF2 0.9238RELIGIOUSITY REL1 0.7483 0.6078 0.6076REL2 0.9197

ERBERB1 0.8668 0.7339 0.522ERB2 0.7055ERB3 0.8418ERB4 0.6615ERB500

0.7059

Table 2 : Discriminant Validity

AW

ERB

REL

SE

ATT

K

AW 0.723809 0 0 0 0 0

ERB 0.4361 0.722496 0 0 0 0

REL 0.0157 -0.2277 0.779487 0 0 0

EF 0.4785 0.4767 -0.0132 0.836481 0 0

ATT 0.3991 0.8053 -0.2036 0.439 0.774726 0

K -0.0473 -0.0844 0.1549 -0.0486 -0.0839 1

5.2 Reliability Analysis

Researcher used Cronbach's alpha and Composite Reliability to observe

consistency between items. Referring to Table 3 below, the alpha value

is more than 0.6 as suggested by Nunnally Bernstein (1994), except for

religious construct, attitude and attitude values <0.6. According to

Hair (2014), the Cronbach's alpha is sensitive to the item in the

construct. Therefore to measure the Internal consistency reliability

it is sufficient enough to use the value of Composite Reliability.

According to George & Mallery (2003), an instrument are considered to

have sufficient reliability when having equal or more than .70.

Therefore it can be concluded that all of these measures have high

internal consistency more than .70. Therefore it can be concluded that

all of these measures have high internal consistency.

Table 3: Value of reliability

Construct CronbachsAlpha

No. ofItem

CompositRealibility

Awareness 0.8846 9 0.9067ERB 0.8194 6 0.8668Religousity 0.3963 2 0.7483Self Efficacy 0.5961 2 0.8215Attitude 0.3857 2 0.7402

6. Findings

Hypothesis testing is done by assessing the structural model based on

the standard value of beta (β), statistical t and R square (R2). The

value of R gained from testing showed the strength of a relationship

model. The R2 will explain the percentage change towards the dependent

construct in relation to its connection with independent construct

(Henseler et al., 2009). This study conceded that the insertion of

knowledge, consciousness, attitudes, self-efficacy and religious

construct improves the individual ERB as much as 0.681 or as much as

68 per cent.

Table 4 below shows the result of hypothesis testing using SmartPLS

model analysis approach has shown some discoveries. First, the

knowledge construct does not have a significant positive relationship

to the ERB (β = -0002; t = 0.0501; p = 0480) and therefore H1 is

rejected. Both attitude factors towards the ERB also showed a

significant positive relationship (β = 0.6931; t = 13 353; p = 0.000,

and thus H2 is accepted. Awareness factor demonstrated (β = 0.1023; t

= 1,878; p = 0.031), and therefore awareness has a positive

relationship to the ERB. The same foes with self-efficacy, the value

of β = 0.1223; t = 2,503; p = 0.007) means that self-efficacy has a

positive relationship to the ERB. For religious construct p the value

is (β = -0.0862 t = 1,802; p = 0:03). Thus, religious factor has a

positive relationship to the ERB.

6.1 Structural Model

Structural model is a model that aims to look at the relationship between the constructs and significant value.

Table 4 : Structural Model

Hypothesis Relationshi

p

PathCooficient

T-Value

P-value

Supported

H1

KESEDARAN-> ERB 0.1023 1.8777

0.030908

Yes

H2

KEAGAMAAN ->ERB

-0.0862 1.8024

0.036462

Yes

H3

EFIKASI-KENDIRI-> ERB

0.1223 2.5026

0.006547

Yes

H4

SIKAP -> ERB 0.6931 13.3528

0.00001

Yes

H5

PENGETAHUAN ->ERB

-0.0021 0.0501

0.480 No

7.0 Discussion

The study showed that the factors or predictors of attitude has a

positive relationship with ERB. This is consistent with many studies

that have been conducted by previous researchers (Bamberg & Moser,

2007; Cottrell & Graefe, 1997). Attitude is also a strong predictor

of measuring the ERB (Heyl, Moyano, & Cifuentes, 2013; Makki, Abd-El-

Khalick & Boujaoude. 2003). A next predictor is self-efficacy which is

rarely studied by researchers before. In this study, this predictor is

significant relationship with ERB. According to Payne (2013) and

Tabernero & Hernandez (2010), this factor is significant relationship

with ERB. In addition, oawareness also has a significant relationship

with ERB. This is consistent with studies conducted by Hawthorne &

Alabaster (2000). This study also found that religious factors provide

a significant positive to ERB. A study conducted by Crowe (2013) also

showed these factors have a significant relationship with ERB. This

factor should be one of the predictors in the model behavior for the

Environment Accountability (ERB). In this study knowledge is not

significant with ERB. However, these predictors accounted for 68.1% of

variance of ERB.

8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Future Study

Behavioral modeling studies of ERB should be expanded to identify

predictors of "parsimonius". This means there is a 42% variance again

predictors contributed to the formation of a good model. For further

study, the sample can be run to school teachers and the general public

to see the other factors of ERB particularly religious factors should

be taken into account.

Bibliografi

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predictingsocial behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.

Arba’at, H., & Mohd. Zaid, I. (2011). The infusion ofEnvironmental Education (EE) in chemistry teaching andstudents’ awareness and attitudes towards environment inMalaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3404–3409.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.309

Axelrod, L. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding toenvironmental concerns: what factors guide individual action?Journal of Environmental Psychology,13(2),149-159.

Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines,Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-socialdeterminants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25.doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002

Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman

Barclay D.W, Thompson R., Higgins C. (1995). The partial leastsquares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computeradoption and use an illustration. Technol Stud 2(2):285–309.

Boubonari, T., Markos, A., & Kevrekidis, T. (2013). Greek Pre-Service Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and EnvironmentalBehavior Toward Marine Pollution. The Journal of EnvironmentalEducation, 44(4), 232–251. doi:10.1080/00958964.2013.785381

Clayton, S. & Myers, G. (2009). Conservation Psychology : Understandingand Promoting Human Care For Nature. John Wiley & Sons. Apr 20.

Crowe, J. L. (2013). Transforming Environmental Attitudes and Behavioursthrough Eco-spirituality and Religion. International Electronic Journal ofEnvironmental Education.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen,I.(1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior : AnIntroduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.

Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981). Evaluating structural equationmodels with unobservable variables and measurement error. JMark Res 18(1):39–50

George, D., & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS forWindows step by step: a simple guide and reference:Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E.(2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hawthorne, M., & Alabaster, T. (2000). Citizen 2000 : developmentof a model of environmental citizenship, 9(1999), 25–43.

Hazura, A.B. (2009). Hubungan antara penghayatan agama, nilai hidupdan pengetahuan alam sekitar pelajar muslim dengan sikap dan tingkahlaku. USM. Thesis.

Henseler J., Ringle C. dan Sinkovics R., (2009). The HE UseSE ofpartial least squars path modeling in internationa;lmarketing, New ChallengestoInternationalMarketing AdvancesinInternationalMarketing,Volume 20,277–319

Heyl, M., Moyano, E., & Cifuentes, L. (2013). Environmentalattitudes and behaviors of college students : a case studyconducted at a chilean university. Revista Latinoamericana dePsicología, 45(3), 487–500. Retrieved fromhttp://publicaciones.konradlorenz.edu.co/index.php/rlpsi/article/view/1489

Hines, J., Hungerford, H. dan Tomera, A. (1986/1987). ‘Analysisand Synthesis of Research on Responsible EnvironmentalBehaviour: A Meta-analysis’. Journal of Environmental Education. 18(2): 1-8.

Kaiser, E., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmentalattitude and ecological behavior. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 19, 1-19. http://dx.doi. org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0107

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2010). Mind the Gap : Why do peopleact environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior ?, (November 2013), 37–41.

Lateh, H. (2013). Pre-Service Teachers Attitude towards TeachingEnvironmental Education (EE) during Practicum in MalaysianPrimary Schools. Journal of Environmental Protection, 04(02), 201–204.doi:10.4236/jep.2013.42024

Lateh, H., & Muniandy, P. (2010). Environmental education (EE):current situational and the challenges among trainee teachersat teachers training institute in Malaysia. Procedia - Social andBehavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1896–1900.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.1005

Makki, M.H., M., Abd-el-Khalick, F., & Boujaoude, S. (2003).Lebanese Secondary School Students’ Environmental Knowledgeand Attitudes. Environmental Education Research, 9(1), 21-33.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620303468

Meinhold, J.L., and A.J. Malkus. 2005. Adolescent environmentalbehaviors: Can knowl- edge, attitudes, and self-efficacymake a difference? Environment and Behavior 37: 511–532.doi:10.1177/0013916504269665

Meijers, M. H. C., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Me tomorrow, theothers later: how perspective fit increases sustainablebehavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31,14-20.

Payne, K. (2013). The effects of self-efficacy on pro-environmental intentions. The Plymouth Student Scientist, 6(1), 224–238.

Ramayah,T., Jason W.C.L. dan Julie B. C. I., (2011). Serv Bus(2011) 5:411–428

doi: 10.1007/s11628-011-0120-z

Rosmidzatul Azila, M.Y., & Abu Bakar, Y. (2010). Islam, Pemuliharaanhidupan liar dan Anda. Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM) &Tabung Alam Malaysia (WWF-Malaysia). Percetakan Imprint (M).Sdn.Bhd.

Stibbards, A., & Puk, T. (2011). Applied Environmental Education& Communication The Efficacy of Ecological Macro-Models inPreservice Teacher Education : Transforming States of MindThe Efficacy of Ecological Macro-Models in Preservice TeacherEducation : Transforming States, (November 2013), 37–41.doi:10.1080/1533015X.2011.549796

Tabernero, C., & Hernandez, B. (2010). Self-Efficacy andIntrinsic Motivation Guiding Environmental Behavior.Environment and Behavior, 43(5), 658–675.doi:10.1177/0013916510379759

Zelezny, L. C. (1999). Educational Interventions That ImproveEnvironmental Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 31(1), 5–14.doi:10.1080/00958969909598627