International Conference of Biodiversity and Conservation 2015
ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR (ERB) AMONG STUDENTTEACHERS
Azman Omar , Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, [email protected]
Norhayati Tahir, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu,[email protected]
Wan Solihin Wong Abdullah, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu,Malaysia. [email protected]
Mohd Zaki Mohd Amin, IPG Kampus Sultan [email protected]
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
Top Related