Normal vs. Green Elementary School Students:

Comparison in Nature Relatedness and Pro-environmental Behavior

Aditya Benyamin

, Ratna Djuwita

and Amarina Ashar Ariyanto

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

Keywords: Nature relatedness (NR), pro-environmental behaviour (PEB), green school.

Abstract: The lack of proper environmental education which develops an integrated self-concept with nature (nature

relatedness) is damaging our environment globally. This study aims to find out whether green school

(Sekolah Alam) modified curriculum actually created a significant difference in the nature relatedness and

pro-environmental behavior of their students by comparing them with normal elementary school students.

School location, nature exposure, age, educational, and residential history are controlled. In both schools

students were asked to fill the NR-Scale and self-report PEB questionnaire, in addition to behavioral

observation. The data was analysed using independent sample t-test. Result shows that that green school

students behave more pro-environmentally. Furthermore, there is no significant difference in their nature

relatedness. This might suggest that the green school curriculum only alters the behavior of their students,

but more importantly not their self-concept. In the discussion, it is explained how PEB could be preceded by

other factors which include contextual factors (governmental regulations, infrastructures, technology

advancement, etc.) and previous habits.

1 INTRODUCTION

The world is currently facing a global environmental

threat with problems such as climate change and

extinction on our biodiversity (United Nations,

2015). The main contributor to this issue is no other

than human ourselves. As our population has grown

(World Bank, 2017), so has our consumption rate of

the resources around us. One of the behaviour

causing that environmental destruction is the

overconsumption of single-use plastic. Single-use

plastic entangled us in every aspect of our life to the

degree that we could call this era as the plastic age

(Lewis, 2016, Thompson, Swan, Moore, & von Saal,

2009). With over 80% used plastic accumulated as

pollution to our soil and other terrains (Geyer,

Jambeck, & Law, 2017), we can no longer stand still

to the matter at hand.

In the spirit of tackling this plastic age issue,

several solutions have been offered. Globally, world

leaders have agreed to create a greener future

through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs;

United Nations, 2015). But, there are also so much

we can do as an individual as well. We can realize

that SDGs as an individual through behaving pro-

environmentally (Thøgersen, 2014). Pro-

environmental behavior (PEB) is human behavior

which has the capacity to alter the availability of

materials and energy in our environment, or

changing the structure and dynamics of the

biosphere or ecosystem itself (Stern, 2000).

In order to develop PEB, there are at least four

challenges according to Schultz (2011). First, our

current education does not necessarily designed to

enable this behavior. Second, the human mindset

tends to think in a short-term when it comes to the

threat to our environment. Third, our relationship

with nature seems so severed that we don’t consider

ourselves connected with nature anymore. Four, this

PEB is also influenced by an external factor which is

the pre-existing social norm. This study will focus

on the first and third challenges which could be

summarized with the terms environmental education

and nature relatedness (NR).

Nature relatedness is an understanding and

appreciation that humans are connected with all

other living things on earth (Nisbet, Zelenski, &

Murphy, 2009). It is said that this variable is a part

of how we define oursleve or our so-called self-

concept (Clayton & Myers, 2009). In the past, we

completely rely on nature for housings, foods,

clothing, and every single thing in our life. As

424

Benyamin, A., Djuwita, R. and Ariyanto, A.

Normal vs. Green Elementary School Students: Comparison in Nature Relatedness and Pro-environmental Behavior.

DOI: 10.5220/0008590404240430

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 424-430

ISBN: 978-989-758-435-0

civilization advances, we grew farther and farther

from nature by living in concrete jungles and

removing close to all natural elements in our

surrounding (Barlett, 2009, Vining, Merrick, &

Price, 2008). This is worrisome since nature

relatedness has been proven to be one of the

antecedents of PEB. Someone with higher nature

relatedness will care more about nature, involved

with environmental activism and organizations, and

generally shows more pro-environmental behaviors

(Hinds & Sparks, 2008; Nisbet, 2013; Sparks, Hinds,

Curnock, & Pavey, 2014; Nisbet, Zelenski, &

Murphy, 2009). If this nature relatedness is not

properly cultivated in our current and future

generations, the behavior we elicit might be the

cause of our own global demise.

The cultivation of one’s self-concept that relates

to nature should’ve been done since early stages of

our development, yet research on nature relatedness

and its relation with PEB in children is still

minimum based on the researchers’ literature study.

Nature relatedness is said to develop since we are a

child, or specifically in middle childhood stage (6-11

years old; Clayton & Myers, 2009; Chawla, 1999;

Degenhardt, 2002; Wells & Lekies, 2006). In this

stage, children start to form and compare their views

on him/herself’s current state (real self) and in the

future (ideal self; Papalia & Martorell, 2014). This

view is determined by experiences with nature we

acquire during childhood and will continue to direct

whether we consider ourselves as an

environmentalist or not.

One stakeholder who could be a major supplier

of that experiences with nature is school. Especially

because children spend a lot of time on school

ground. In Indonesia, elementary schools usually

start at 7 a.m. and end at around 12 a.m to 2 p.m.

Furthermore, children’s significant others who

influence their development started to shift from

parents alone to teachers and peers (Papalia &

Martorell, 2014). These differences in experience

with nature, teachers, and peers could be observed

through the school’s environmental education

policy. Environment education itself is a part of

personal-social education (PSE) which is a

multidisciplinary field that tried to elevate the

knowledge and awareness on environment and

relevant challenges in order to develop the attitude,

motivation, commitment to make decisions based on

information and acts responsibly through pro-

environmental behavior (UNESCO, 1977).

In Indonesia, aside from the official curriculum

disseminated by the Ministry of Education and

Culture, there is a considerably new trend of Nature

School (Sekolah Alam). Nature school has a nature-

savvy value which is created in order to give their

students familiarity and closeness with nature

(Sekolah Alam Indonesia, n. d.). They consider

nature as a source of children’s learning process. To

accomplish that, they provide opportunities for their

students to learn outdoor on a vast green area of the

school and classrooms with open access to nature.

Adding to that they have routine outbound activity

every week and actually teach several pro-

environmental behaviors such as waste segregation,

recycle, and bring their own lunch box or drinking

bottles. They based their curriculum, including the

environmental education, on religious teachings of

Islam. This might be a unique approach compared to

most researches on environmental education in

Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic

(WEIRD) samples (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan,

2010). Most researches on those samples based their

environmental education on a more westernized

philosophy.

Compared to Nature School, most public

schools don’t give as much concern about

environmental education. In Indonesia,

environmental education is either integrated through

other subjects or taught in a distinctive local subject

(Muatan Lokal; Soerjani, Yuwono & Fardiaz, 2007).

Through other subjects, environment education is

taught in civics, natural science, and religion for

examples. On the other hand, local subject only

applies to several regions in Indonesia as each

region has their own unique local subjects.

Environment education is generally only given

formally through lectures, discussion, or direct

experiences in indoor classes (Muntasib, Masy’ud,

Rushayati, Meilani, & Rachmawati, 2015; Muslicha,

2015). As a result, Indonesian public schools

environmental education is deemed to be ineffective

(Soerjani, Yuwono & Fardiaz, 2007).

These differences in environment education

curriculum are suggested to create a difference in

the students’ nature relatedness and pro-

environmental behavior. Though, there is no specific

research on the differences environment education

creates on nature relatedness to the researchers’

awareness, this study wants to prove this possibility.

By definition alone and how it is realized differently

in nature and public schools, environment education

should be able to create a significant difference

between students in the two schools. Next, the

different environmental education applied in nature

and public schools should also create a significant

difference between their students’ pro-

environmental behavior. As suggested by research

Normal vs. Green Elementary School Students: Comparison in Nature Relatedness and Pro-environmental Behavior

425

such as from Collado, Staat, and Corraliza (2013),

environment education such as nature camps has

been proved to develop PEB. This study aims to test

this possibility in a different context of environment

education in the formal education provided by

Indonesia’s nature and public schools. In summary,

there are two main research problems in this study.

First is to test whether there is a significant

difference in nature relatedness between nature and

public schools students. Second, is to test whether

there is a significant difference in pro-environmental

behavior between nature and public schools

students.

2 METHOD

2.1 Respondents

The sample is acquired through a purposive and

accidental sampling method. Participating schools

are selected purposively after consulting with

Indonesia Nature Schools Network (Jaringan

Sekolah Alam Nusantara) for which school would

represent Nature School’s concept most properly.

Through that consideration, 7 nature schools are

selected in the area of Jabodetabek (Jakarta, Bogor,

Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi) which is Indonesia’s

capital megapolitan. Afterwards, the public school

were selected by listing down all schools located in

2 kilometers radius as a match for each nature school

based on the database provided by the Ministry of

Education and Culture. This done so that the

environment surrounding each school is controlled.

The curriculum used in each public school must also

match the curriculum used in nature school (2006 or

2013 curriculum). Furthermore, only schools which

implement no international curriculum (such as

International Baccalaureate or IB in short, or

Cambridge International Examination or CIE in

short) that could be included as participant in this

research. Through that selection process, 7 public

schools were acquired as a match of each nature

school.

Accidental sampling was used to determine

which student would participate in this study.

Students were given a parental consent form days

before the assigned date of the research and asked to

request their parents to fill out the form. Only those

who completed this form and was present during the

day of the research would be included as the

participant. Aside from that, we establish 3 criteria

to select the participants. First, they must be

officially enlisted as a fifth-grade student in their

school to control age, educational level, teachers’

and peer’s value. Second, they must be enlisted there

since the first grade and never move to other schools

to make sure of the consistency of curriculum they

receive. Third, each student must have lived in

Indonesia for 6 years minimum to control past

environmental conditions and cultural influences.

Through this sampling process, 533 participants

were then acquired with 57% were from public

schools, 53.3% were male, and age range varies

from 10-13 years old (M = 10.88).

2.2 Measures

2.2.1 Nature Relatedness (NR)

An adaptation of Nature Relatedness Scale (NR-

Scale) by Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy (2009) is

used. The adaptation process includes back-

translating items in the questionnaire, expert

judgement, interviews with participants of similar

characteristics, and confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA). This questionnaire consisted of 7 items with

good model fitness (X2 = 867.783; RMSEA =

0.083; CFI = 0.939; TLI = 0.909; SRMR = 0.037)

and standardized factor loading ranging from 0.514-

0.643. Goodness of fit of measurement models is

based on insignificant X

with p > 0.05, CFI > 0.90,

TLI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.05, and SRMR < 0.05

(Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). All items

should also have significant standardized factor

loading (p < 0.050; Wijanto, 2015). Participants

were required to answer in a 4-points Likert scale

ranging from strongly disagree-disagree-agree-

strongly agree). Sample item includes “nature is

important for me (alam penting bagiku).”

2.2.2 Pro-Environmental Behaviour (PEB)

Table 1: PEB Self-Report Norm

Behavio

Cate

/Scorin

Plentiful

(

)

(2) (3) Few

(

)

Plate >8 5-8 3-4 0-2

Glass >8 6-8 3-5 0-2

Straw >8 5-8 3-4 0-2

Bag >7 5-7 3-4 0-2

The PEB measured specifically in this research are

consumption of four different single-use plastic

including plastic plates, glass, straws, and bags. To

quantify these behaviors, two methods were used

which are a self-report questionnaire and behavioral

observation. Four items in the questionnaire asked

how many of each of those aforementioned single-

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

426

use plastic products they used in the past week.

Participants have to answer with the estimated

number of plastics they used. This number was then

categorized to four level of consumption from

plentiful (1) to just a few (4) based on the date

acquired. Detailed norms for each category on every

behaviour is shown in Table 1. Each row of the

behaviors listed represents the amount of specific

products participant used in the past week.

Table 2: PEB Observation-FGD Norm

Behavior Reasonin

Not Pro-

Evironmental

Pro-

Environmental

Not Pro-

Evironmental

1 2

Pro-Evironmental 3 4

PEB was also measured through a structure

observation. In the observation process, participants

were told that they will be given foods and

beverages. Each participant was asked whether they

want to use a reusable product or single-use plastic

for each behaviour. The reasons why they chose

reusable or single-use product were then asked

through a Focus Group Discussion (FGD). Scoring

based on the behaviors elicited and their reasoning

are shown in Table 2. Score from both observation

and self-report were then combined. Participants

with higher scores are considered to behave pro-

environmentally.

2.3 Procedure

This study is conducted through mainly four steps

after each participant has confirmed their eligibility

by submitting the parental consent form. The first

step is that all participants were divided into groups

of 4-7 students. Each group was accompanied by a

research assistant to ensure that they understand

each item and instruction, also to guide the FGD

session later on. Secondly, participants were

instructed to fill out the questionnaire. Third,

participants were called one by one to the post where

the behavioral observation was done. Each

participant was asked to choose a reusable or single-

use plastic plate, glass, to use straw or not, and to

use a plastic bag or not. Each participant’s answers

were noted. In each group, the research assistant will

then begin the FGD after all participants have made

their choices. Data was then analysed through

independent sample t-test in SPSS program.

3 RESULT

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of NR and PEB

Variables Mean SD

3.39 .46

PEB

2.62 .69

PEB-SR

2.67 .89

PEB-O

2.57 .85

NR = Nature Relatedness; PEB = Pro-Environmental

Behavior (self-report and observation data averaged);

PEB-SR = Pro-Environmental Behavior Self-Report;

PEB-O = Pro-Environmental Behavior Observation.

First of all, descriptive analysis of the acquired data

shows that both NR and PEB is higher than the

hypothetical mean of 2 out of the maximum score of

4. NR has the mean of 3.39 (SD = .46). PEB has the

mean of 2.62 (SD = .69) which specified according

to its measurement of self-report with a mean of

2.67 (SD = .89) and observation with a mean of 2.57

(SD = .85). These numbers indicate that most

students used at least 3-8 plastic plates, glasses,

straws a week and 3-7 plastic bag a week. They used

at least 1 single-use plastic product every single day.

Figure 1: PEB Observation-FGD Result

Group 1-4 as listed in Table 2. PEB Observation-FGD

Norm

Furthermore, from the analysis of the

participant’s reasoning behind their behaviour, it is

found that they usually behave pro-environmentally

without pro-environmental reasoning (PEB-O score

= 3) or act not pro-environmentally but with pro-

environmental reasoning (PEB-O score = 2). The

majority (40%) showed the later condition, followed

by the first (34%). Only 19% showed PEB with pro-

environmental reasoning (PEB-O score = 4), and 7%

who didn’t show PEB with not pro-environmental

reasoning as well (PEB score = 1). Thus, it can be

concluded that their behaviour doesn’t match their

reason, for causes that will be discussed further in

the discussion.

Normal vs. Green Elementary School Students: Comparison in Nature Relatedness and Pro-environmental Behavior

427

Table 4: Independent Sample t-test Result

Variables t df Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Std.

Error

Differe

nce

-1.06 531 .292 .04

PEB

10.33 513.18 .000** .56

PEB-SR

4.29 531 .000** .08

PEB-O

11.65 531 .000** .07

NR = Nature Relatedness; PEB = Pro-Environmental

Behavior (self-report and observation data averaged);

PEB-SR = Pro-Environmental Behavior Self-Report;

PEB-O = Pro-Environmental Behavior Observation.

From the independent sample t-test it is found

that there is no significant difference of nature

relatedness t = -1.056, p < 0.05 (two-tailed) between

nature schools (M = 3.37, SD = 0.54) and public

school students (M = 3.41, SD = 0.39). Although the

average score of nature relatedness in public school

students is higher, it is not significant. Thus,

hypothesis null for the first research problem is

failed to be rejected.

There is a significant difference t = 10.328, p <

0.01 (two-tailed) on pro-environmental behaviour

between nature schools (M = 2.95, SD = 0.59) and

public schools students (M = 2.38, SD = 0.66). It is

proven that nature schools students behave more

pro-environmentally than public schools students.

More specifically looking at the result from the two

methods of PEB measurement, there is a significant

difference t = 4.29, p < 0.01 (two-tailed) of PEB

measure through self-report method between

students from green schools (M = 2.86; SD = .85)

and public schools (M = 2.53; SD = .90). There is

also a significant difference t = 11.65, p < 0.01 (two-

tailed) of PEB measure through self-report method

between students from green schools (M = 3.01; SD

= .70) and public schools (M = 2.24; SD = .80).

According to this result, the alternative hypothesis

for the second research problem is accepted.

4 DISCUSSION

To conclude this research, the first hypothesis is

accepted while the second failed to be proven. There

is a significant difference in pro-environmental

behaviour, but not in nature relatedness between

green and normal (public) schools students. First, we

will discuss why there is no significant difference in

nature relatedness between the two sample groups.

Self-concept is said to develop during childhood and

considerably fixed during adolescent stage (Papalia

& Martorell, 2014). The changing state of self-

concept in childhood might explain why nature

schools students don’t significantly differ from

public school students. The result of each school’s

curriculum might not be augmented yet in their self-

concept. Furthermore, unstable experiences in

childhood might also create unstable self-concept,

which in this case unstable experiences with nature

such as moving from one place to another frequently

might make one’s connection to nature unstable too.

Thus, they don’t view themselves as nature related

persons yet (Clayton & Myers, 2009). Further

investigation should look out whether this difference

would be augmented in adolescent or not.

This results might also due to the fact that nature

schools don’t actually target their students’ self-

concept, but their values instead. But, even values

requires continuous repetitions of experiences which

could develop it (Schwartz, 1992). This should be

put into nature schools management consideration,

since a nature-related self-concept might determine

more various pro-environmental behaviour

regardless of the specific ones being taught at

school. So the school could guarantee that students

who received their environmental education

curriculum would actually be greener individuals in

general. Nature schools could prioritize developing a

nature related self-concept as one of their long-term

goals and implemented through their school

regulation, learning plan, teaching prompts, and

many other methods. And even then, a child’s value

or self-concept should still be doubted as their own,

as Cheng and Monroe (2012) found that parental

value predicts a child’s PEB more than other

variables.

Next, we should discuss how there is a

significant difference in PEB despite that there is no

difference in NR. Even though PEB could be

explained by NR, there are many other variables that

are able to predict PEB. Stern (2000) stated that

there are at least 4 categories of factors which could

explain PEB. First is attitudinal factors including

norms, beliefs, and values. Basically, this category

covers almost all internal psychological variables

explaining PEB. NR should also be in this category.

Form this category alone, PEB might be explained

by other variables such as values and belief. These

variables should be a focus on future researches.

Furthermore, this category does not only covers the

attitudinal factors of oneself but also other. As

someone’s attitude, belief, and even-self are prone to

the effect of social desirability. Responses given

within this research might also have been tempered

by this effect, thus becoming one of the limitations.

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

428

Second, contextual or external factors which

include interpersonal influence (persuasion,

modelling, community expectation etc.),

governmental policies, incentives, financial state,

family conditions, and many more. Demographic

variables such as gender are also part of this

category and should be more rigorously controlled in

future study. Third, personal capabilities which

include knowledge, ability, time availability, and

resources availability. Environmental education

might also alter these variables, which then change

how pro-environmental someone might behave.

Fourth, is habit and routine. Future studies should

also collect data regarding past behaviors and how

participant behave across context such as in home or

with other certain people.

The significant difference in PEB should also be

followed up with caution as this research found that

children’s behaviour doesn’t match their reasoning.

Children might use single-use plastic (not PEB) so

they can reuse it to make handicrafts (pro-

environmental reasoning) or don’t use plastic (PEB)

just to reduce their financial expenditure (not pro-

environmental reasoning). It should have been better

if these are not the case. Thus, school should

reconsider their environmental education strategy to

develop proper environmental knowledge and belief

so they can have pro-environmental reasons the next

time they have to choose between single-use plastic

or more sustainable options. This would fit an

existing value-belief-norm (VBN) model by Stern

(2000) which explains the belief that our behaviour

has certain consequences to nature or Adverse

Consequence (AC) is one of the antecedents of PEB.

Furthermore, school management should also be

informed the hierarchy of sustainable consumption

and production as stated in the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) number 12 that suggests

to prioritize reducing consumption of unsustainable

products before their waste management. Currently

Indonesia, and green schools specifically is only

focusing on the later through their trash bank and

waste segregation policy. All and all, this research

would be the first step to formulate a better

environmental education not only in green schools

but hopefully also in public schools.

REFERENCES

Barlett, P. F. 2008. Reason and reenchantment in cultural

change: Sustainability in higher education. Current

Anthropology, 49, 1077- 1098.

Chawla, L. 1999. Life paths into effective environmental

action. Journal of Environmental Education 31 (1),

15-26.

Cheng, J. C. & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to

nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature.

Environment and Behavior 44 (1): 31-49, DOI:

10.1177/0013916510385082.

Clayton, S. & Myers, G. 2009. Conservation psychology:

Understanding and promoting human care for nature.

New Jersey: Wiley- Blackwell Publishing.

Collado, S., Staats, H., & Corraliza, J. A. 2013.

Experiencing nature in children's summer camps:

Affective, cognitive and behavioral consequences.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 37-44.

Degenhardt, L. 2002. Why do people act in sustainable

ways? In P. Schmuck & W. Schultz, Psychology of

sustainable development. Boston: Kluwer.

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. 2017. Production,

use, and fate of all plastic ever made. Science

Advances, 3: e1700782.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzajayan, A. 2010. The

weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, DOI:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.

Hinds, J. & Sparks, P. 2008. Engaging with the natural

environment: The role of affective connection and

identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28,

109-120.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. 2008.

Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for

determining model fit. The Electric Journal of

Business Research Method, 6, 1, 53-60.

Lewis, D. 2016. Are we living in a plastic age? Scientists

argue that this material may best define our current

period within the Anthropocene. Accessed on 31 May

2018 dari https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-

news/are-we-living-plastic-age-180957817/.

Muntasib, E. K. S. H., Masy’ud, B., Rushayati, S. B.,

Meilani, R., & Rachmawati, E. 2015. Buku ajar

pendidikan konservasi. Bogor: Penerbit IPB Press.

Muslicha, A. 2015. Metode pembelajaran dalam

pendidikan lingkungan hidup pada siswa sekolah

dasar: Studi kasus antara sekolah Jepang di Indonesia

dan sekolah adiwiyata di DKI Jakarta. Depok:

Universitas Indoensia.

Nisbet, E. K. 2013. Nature relatedness-Individuals’

connectedness with nature and the role in motivating

environmental concern and behavior. Scientific

presentations on 2013 Clean Water Summit. Accessed

on 13 January 2018 from http://www.arboretum.

umn.edu/UserFiles/File/2013%20Clean%20Water%20

Summit/Elizabeth%20Nisbet.pdf.

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.

Papalia, D. E. & Martorell, G. (2014). Experience human

development (13th Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill

Education.

Normal vs. Green Elementary School Students: Comparison in Nature Relatedness and Pro-environmental Behavior

429

Schultz, P. W. 2011. Conservation means behaviour.

Conservation Biology, 25 (6), 1080-1083.

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

structure of values: Theoretical advances and

empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.ekolah

Alam Indonesia. n.d. Visi dan misi. Accessed on 11

January 2018 from

https://www.sekolahalamindonesia.org/visi-dan-misi/.

Sparks, P., Hinds, J., Curnock, S., & Pavey, L. 2014.

Connectedness and its consequences: a study of

relationships with the natural environment. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 44, 166–174, DOI:

10.1111/jasp.12206.

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

Lingkungan hidup: Pendidikan, pengelolaan

gkungan dan kelangsungan pembangunan (Edisi

Kedua). Jakarta: yayasan Institut Pendidikan dan

Pengembangan Lingkungan (IPPL).

Stern, P. C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of

environmentally significant behavior. Journal of

Social Issues, 56 (3), 407-424.Thompson, R. C., Swan,

S. H., Moore, C. J., & von Saal, F. S. 2009. Our plastic

age. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 364 (1526),

DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0054

Thøgersen, J. 2014. Unsustainable consumption: basic

causes and implications for policy. European

Psychologist, DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000176.

UNESCO. 1977. Intergovernmental conference on

environmental education. Tbilisi: UNESCO-UNEP.

United Nations. 2015. A/RES/70/1 - Transforming our

world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

Accessed on 13 February 2018 from

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/docume

nts/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20

Development%20web.pdf.

Vining, J., Merrick, M. S., & Price, E. A. 2008. The

distinction between humans and nature: Human

perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements

of the natural and unnatural. Human Ecology Review,

15, 1-11.

Wells, N. & Lekies, K. S. 2006. Nature and the life

course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences

to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth, and

Environments 16 (1), 1-24.

Wijanto, S. H., 2015. Metode penelitian menggunakan

structural equation modeling dengan LISREL 9.

Jakarta: Lembaga Penerbit Fakultas Ekonomi UI.

World Bank. 2017. Population total. Accessed on 12 June

2018 from https://data.worldbank.org

/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.

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

430