Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, East Java, Indonesia
JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia)
p-ISSN 2442-3750, e-ISSN 2537-6204 // Vol. 5 No. 2 July 2019, pp. 237-244
10.22219/jpbi.v5i2.7831 http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/jpbi jpbi@umm.ac.id 237
Research Article
Environmental responsibility and pro-environmental
behavior: Biology undergraduate students’ profile
Diana Vivanti Sigit a,1,*, Eka Putri Azrai a,2, Erna Heryanti a,3 , Kasih Anggraeni a,4 , Ilmi Zajuli
Ichsan a,5 , Rahmat Fadrikal b,6
a Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jl.Rawamangun Muka,
the Special Capital Territory of Jakarta (DKI, Jakarta) 13220, Indonesia
b Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Jl. Ciwaru Raya
No. 25, Serang, Banten 42117, Indonesia
1 dianav@unj.ac.id*; 2 ep_azrai@yahoo.com; 3 erna.heryanti@gmail.com; 4 kasihanggara@gmail.com; 5 ilmi.zajuli@outlook.co.id;
6 fadrikal@gmail.com
* Corresponding author
INTRODUCTION
The problem of environmental degradation has become the world's attention (Bronfman, Cisternas, López-
Vázquez, De la Maza, & Oyanedel, 2015; Choudri et al., 2017; Miller & Bush, 2015). Environmental problems
that often arise such as global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, accumulation of inorganic waste and
environmental pollution by chemicals. Every country contributes to the destruction of the global environment,
especially in big cities. Big cities experience problems such as river pollution, air pollution, and industrial waste
problems (Aye & Widjaya, 2006; Hama & Hilal, 2017; Kanchanabhandhu & Woraphong, 2016; Song, Li, Duan,
Yu, & Wang, 2017).
Environmental problems are complex problems that are interrelated with the emergence of other problems.
This is due to high population growth, both caused by birth and urbanization. The main environmental problems
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history
Received March 10, 2019
Revised June 15, 2019
Accepted June 22, 2019
Published June 30, 2019
Environmental responsibility is a crucial aspect which determines the environmental
solving problems in term of enhancing the pro-environmental behavior. This study
aimed to examine the relation between the environmental responsibility and pro-
environmental behavior of the undergraduate students. The sample of this descriptive
correlational study was 106 students of biology education department which was taken
randomly. This study showed that the undergraduate students were in high criteria of
environment responsibility (ER). This was represented by feeling guilty which was the
highest percentage and followed by responsibility feeling and responsibility judgment
respectively. In addition, the undergraduate students were in positive pro-environmental
behavior (PEB). The regression model was y = 23.876 + 0.623x; while ER contributed
as high as 22.1% to the undergraduate student’s PEB. This implied that to improve the
undergraduate student’s PEB is by strengthening their ER.
Copyright © 2019, Sigit et al
This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license
Keywords
Biology undergraduate student
profile
Environmental responsibility
Pro-environmental behavior
How to cite: Sigit, D. V., Azrai, E. P., Heryanti, E., Anggraeni, K., Ichsan, I. Z., & Fadrikal, R. (2019). Environmental responsibility
and pro-environmental behavior: Biology undergraduate students’ profile. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia),
5(2), 237-244. doi: https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i2.7831
http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/
http://u.lipi.go.id/1422867894
http://u.lipi.go.id/1460300524
https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i2.7831
http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/jpbi
mailto:jpbi@umm.ac.id
mailto:dianav@unj.ac.id
mailto:*
mailto:ep_azrai@yahoo.com
mailto:erna.heryanti@gmail.com
mailto:kasihanggara@gmail.com
mailto:ilmi.zajuli@outlook.co.id
mailto:fadrikal@gmail.com
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https:/doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i2.7831
https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.22219/jpbi.v5i2.7831&domai
JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia)
Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2019, pp. 237-244
238
Sigit et.al (Environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behavior …)
in major cities in Indonesia include reduced water catchment areas, shrinking green open areas, damage to
blue open areas (rivers, waterways and coastal waters), underground water exploitation, coastal abrasion due
to loss of mangrove forests on the north coast, and a bad city drainage system (Gabarda-Mallorquí, Fraguell, &
Ribas, 2018; Lazaridou, Michailidis, & Trigkas, 2018). This has become a special focus for environmentalists,
many efforts can be made to minimize the adverse effects of the environment (Cooper, Larson, Dayer,
Stedman, & Decker, 2015; Steinhorst & Klöckner, 2017).
The problem of environmental degradation as happened in Jakarta is caused by many factors in human
behavior. Humans use natural resources available to meet their growing needs. Excessive exploitation of a
commodity in a region will certainly damage the region. This is showed by the reduced diversity in the area and
the depletion of natural resources there (Cooper et al., 2015; Margono, Potapov, Turubanova, Stolle, &
Hansen, 2014; Strange, Jellesmark, Bladt, Wilson, & Rahbek, 2011).
Humans as subjects who can process natural resources have responsibility for the environment and various
flora and fauna that exist on the face of the earth. This responsibility is called Environmental Responsibility
(ER). In simple terms, ER is a behavior in which a human being is responsible for his daily behavior so that his
environment can be maintained (Choudri et al., 2017; Lekakos, Vlachos, & Koritos, 2014; Wong, Miao, Cui, &
Tang, 2018). The implementation of the ER can be started on a small scale, such as changing daily behavior to
be more environmentally friendly or to be a loving behavior for the environment.
Meanwhile besides the ER needed, a human being is also required to have a Pro-environmental behavior
(PEB) which is a behavior that is shown to be concerned with the environment (Durr, Bilecki, & Li, 2017;
Rezvani, Jansson, & Bengtsson, 2017; Schmitt, Aknin, Axsen, & Shwom, 2018; Tang, Geng, Schultz, Zhou, &
Xiang, 2017). People who have high PEB will definitely do everything by considering the environment. They will
not act or do anything that is contrary to the environment in which they live.
Undergraduate students are young intellectuals and act as agents of change. Biology undergraduate
students study the science of living things and their environment. Biology undergraduate students are expected
to have a high ER because the ER is the main goal of environmental education. Therefore, biology
undergraduate students are expected to be able to apply their knowledge to daily behavior as a PEB and
socialize it to the public (Akenji, 2014; Buzov, 2014; Ichsan, Sigit, Miarsyah, Azrai, & Heryanti, 2019; Jonell,
Crona, Brown, Rönnbäck, & Troell, 2016; Krettenauer, 2017). Previous research mostly examined ER and PEB
in the community, but not specifically studied related to undergraduate students in the Biology study program
(Du, Jian, Zeng, & Du, 2014; Panno et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2018). This is a novelty of this research, which
presents ER data and PEB undergraduate students in biology education programs. Based on various studies
that have been conducted from various sources, it is suspected that there is a relationship between ER and
PEB, in this case, the Biology Education undergraduate students. The purpose of this study was to determine
the relationship between ER and PEB for Biology undergraduate students at Universitas Negeri Jakarta.
METHOD
The method used is descriptive survey research with independent variables (X) is environmental
responsibility (ER) and the dependent variable (Y) is the pro-environmental behavior (PEB). This research was
conducted at the Biology Education Study Program, Universitas Negeri Jakarta in January 2017. The
population is undergraduate students from the 5th semester of the Biology education study program at the
Universitas Negeri Jakarta. A sample of 106 undergraduate students was taken by simple random sampling.
The instrument used was the ER questionnaire consisting of 40 statements with dimensions including
Responsibility Feeling, Feeling Guilty, Responsibility Judgment (Du et al., 2014; Kaiser, Ranney, Hartig, &
Bowler, 1999). The PEB questionnaire consists of 41 statements including energy conservation, transportation
mobility, consumerism, waste avoidance, representative social behavior towards conservation and recycling
according to what was stated by Kaiser & Wilson (2004). Both instruments have been tested for validity and
reliability and the instrument was declared valid and reliable. After that, data were analyzed by normality and
homogeneity test, while data have normal distributed regression and linearity test can be use, but if data
doesn’t normal distribution, data analyze with non-parametric test (such as Spearman rank test). Hypothesis
testing was analyzed by regression model and coefficient of determination between variables. The research
hypotheses was there is a positive relationship between ER and PEB in Biology undergraduate Students.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Most Undergraduate students (10+78%) were shown to had very high and high levels of ER and 1% with
low criterion as shown in Table 1.
JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia)
Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2019, pp. 237-244
239
Sigit et.al (Environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behavior …)
Table 1. Percentage of students who fall into each environmental responsibility criterion
Criteria Percentage (%)
Very High 10
High 78
Moderate 11
Low 1
The distribution of biology undergraduate students in three ER indicators is shown in Table 2. The highest
percentage was 42% for feeling guilty, while the indicator with the lowest percentage of 19% was the
responsibility judgement. The remaining 39% was for the responsibility feeling indicators
Table 2. Percentage of students categorized into the indicator for environmental responsibility
Indicators Percentage (%)
Responsibility Feeling 39
Feeling Guilty 42
Responsibility Judgment 19
The majority of biology undergraduate students have a PEB score with positive criteria of 77.4%, while
22.6% get negative criteria, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Percentage of students who fall into alternative pro environmental behavior criterion
Criteria Percentage (%)
Positive 77.4
Negative 22.6
PEB includes 6 indicators. The percentage of students categorized into each indicator is shown in Table 4.
The indicator of PEB which had the highest percentage were energy conservation, transportation, and mobility
of 19%, while the indicator with the lowest percentage (13%) was recycling. The rest were consumerism (18%),
waste avoidance (16%) and representative social behavior towards conservation (15%).
Table 4. Percentage of students categorized into the indicator for pro environmental behavior
Indicators Percentage (%)
Energy Conservation 19
Transportation and Mobility 19
Waste Avoidance 16
Consumerism 18
Recycling 13
Vicarious, Social Behavior 15
On average, female students had a higher score for ER than male students. The average ER score of
female undergraduate students was 98.70 while that of male students was 95.46. The difference between the
value of male and female was 3.24, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Average environmental responsibility score based on gender
Gender ER Score
Male 95.46
Female 98.70
For the PEB variable, the average of female undergraduate students scores higher than that of male
students. The average score of female students is 85.20 while that of male students is 84.00, as shown in
Table 6. The difference between the value of male and female students is 0.80. This shows that PEB is
influenced by gender in conformity with the other report (Ichsan, Sigit, & Miarsyah, 2018; Vicente-Molina,
Fernández-Sainz, & Izagirre-Olaizola, 2018).
Table 6. Average pro-environmental behavior score based on gender
Gender PEB Score
Male 84.00
Female 85.20
Nearly 90% of the respondents, undergraduate biology students, were shown to have a high ER. This is
because environmental knowledge and environmental problems in studying biology can produce students' self-
JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia)
Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2019, pp. 237-244
240
Sigit et.al (Environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behavior …)
awareness of the environment. A person's awareness to the environment depends on the knowledge of the
environmental problem and everyone must be responsible for their respective environment (Chander &
Muthukrishnan, 2015; Chuang & Huang, 2018; Istiana & Awaludin, 2018; Juhanda & Maryanto, 2018; Lee,
Sung, Wu, Ho, & Chiou, 2018; Suryanda, Azrai, & Wari, 2016).
Among the indicator for ER, feeling guilty has the highest percentage of 42%. This shows that guilt because
of bad behavior towards the environment in undergraduate students plays the biggest role in generating a
sense of responsibility towards the environment. When undergraduate students damage the environment,
students would be feeling guilty, so students reduce their actions that damage the environment. The influence
of guilt on someone can be a great behavioral motivator (Fitriani, Adisyahputra, & Komala, 2018; Moghavvemi,
Sulaiman, Jaafar, & Kasem, 2018; Owens, Sadler, Barlow, & Smith-Walters, 2017; Supriyatin, Nurnawati, &
Heryanti, 2016). The lowest dimension with a percentage of 19% is the dimension of responsibility assessment.
Responsibility is an important thing if we talk about the environment (Azrai, Ernawati, & Sulistianingrum, 2017;
Choudri et al., 2017; Collado, Staats, & Sancho, 2017; Istiana & Awaludin, 2018; Schmitt et al., 2018).
Based on the results of the study, the data shows in a normal and homogeneous distribution. Correlation
test results show that ER and PEB have a positive and significant relationship. The regression model was
obtained Ŷ = 23.876 + 0.623X while the coefficient correlation was 0.469 which means there was a moderate
correlation. This shows that the two variables studied have a moderate correlation. The results of this study
indicate that the higher the ER the higher the PEB undergraduate student, while the lower the ER of students,
the lower the PEB too. PEB can be well predicted by the ER. Students with low responsibility for the
environment might have bad attitude to the environment (El Ghoul, Guedhami, Kim, & Park, 2018; Koutsoukos,
Fragoulis, & Valkanos, 2015; Lai, 2018; Moisander, 2007; Sangroya & Nayak, 2017)
ER and PEB are also influenced by demographic factors such as gender, age, and duration of education.
ER scores and PEB scores for female undergraduate students were higher than for male undergraduate
students. This is because women have a higher level of responsibility in protecting the environment and caring
for others in taking responsibility for reducing environmental problems (Derevenskaia, 2014; Ertz, Karakas, &
Sarigöllü, 2016; Freed, 2018; Jonell et al., 2016; Kamerilova, Kartavykh, Ageeva, Veryaskina, & Ruban, 2016).
In many studies also found gender differences in perceptions of the environment. Ordinary women are trained
early to be more expressive, sympathetic, nurturing, cooperative, independent, and helpful (Syabilla, Suryanda,
& Sigit, 2018; Vicente-Molina et al., 2018). In addition, environmental-related behaviors mostly occur at home,
such as saving electricity, using recycled products, and buying household products (Arnold, Kibbe, Hartig, &
Kaiser, 2018; Kaiser & Wilson, 2004; Matthes & Wonneberger, 2014; McCarthy & Liu, 2017).
The age range of undergraduate students in this study is 18-21 years. The highest ER and PEB score in
this study was not obtained from 21-year-old students who were the highest age, but the highest ER score was
obtained from 20-year students, while PEB was obtained from 19-year students. This is not consistent with the
theory that older people are environments that behave better than younger ages. Older people play a more
important role in PEB than younger humans (Han, Nelson, & Kim, 2015; Havu-Nuutinen & Niikko, 2014;
Koutsoukos et al., 2015; Schmitt et al., 2018). The incompatibility of the results of this study with the theory can
be caused by the close age range of the respondents so that it does not have a major influence on the ER and
PEB scores (Jonell et al., 2016; Wong et al., 2018).
Based on the results of the study, the determination coefficient value of 0.221 obtained indicates that the
ER variable contributes 22.1% to the PEB variable. While the other 77.9% of PEB is influenced by other factors
in the form of external factors and other internal factors. External factors that can affect PEB such as socio-
cultural and economic factors (Akenji, 2014; Austgulen, 2016; Haanpää, 2007). If environmental norms in
community groups are upheld, then the community will be more environmentally friendly. Likewise, vice versa,
if the environmental norms in a group of people are ignored, people will be lazy to take care of the environment
(Aslan, 2015; Collado et al., 2017; Ito & Kawazoe, 2015; Nordin & Alias, 2013; Wynveen & Sutton, 2017).
In addition, economic factors play a role in making decisions for PEB. Students have a high need to support
their lectures. While most students do not have their own income. Such problems can affect students not to
have high PEB. Some PEB as a good behavior in protecting the environment must pay higher costs, such as
choosing organic food products, using renewable energy sources such as solar panels, the price of bags is
more expensive than plastic bags (Arafat, Jijakli, & Ahsan, 2015; Diaz-Rainey & Ashton, 2011; Gu, Chhajed,
Petruzzi, & Yalabik, 2015; Ichsan & Mulyani, 2018; Strange et al., 2011)
CONCLUSION
The result of the present study indicates a positive relationship between ER and PEB in biology
undergraduate students. Based on this study, it is concluded that increasing people to have a PEB is by letting
JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia)
Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2019, pp. 237-244
241
Sigit et.al (Environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behavior …)
them to recognize an ER. For the further studies, it is recommended to make measurements on other factors
that influence students eco-friendly behavior, knowledge, and awareness.
REFERENCES
Akenji, L. (2014). Consumer scapegoatism and limits to green consumerism. Journal of Cleaner Production,
63, 13–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.022
Arafat, H. A., Jijakli, K., & Ahsan, A. (2015). Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five
processes for municipal solid waste treatment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 105, 233–240. doi: https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
Arnold, O., Kibbe, A., Hartig, T., & Kaiser, F. G. (2018). Capturing the environmental impact of individual
lifestyles: Evidence of the criterion validity of the general ecological behavior ccale. Environment and
Behavior, 50(3), 350–372. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517701796
Aslan, S. (2015). Is learning by teaching effective in gaining 21st century skills? the views of pre-service
science teachers. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 15(6), 1441–1457. doi: https://doi.org/10.1273
8/estp.2016.1.0019
Austgulen, M. H. (2016). Environmentally sustainable textile consumption—What characterizes the political
textile consumers? Journal of Consumer Policy, 39(4), 441–466. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-
015-9305-5
Aye, L., & Widjaya, E. R. (2006). Environmental and economic analyses of waste disposal options for
traditional markets in Indonesia. Waste Management, 26(10), 1180–1191. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2005.09.010
Azrai, E. P., Ernawati, E., & Sulistianingrum, G. (2017). Pengaruh gaya belajar David Kolb (divergen,
assimilator, convergen, accommodator) terhadap hasil belajar siswa pada materi pencemaran
lingkungan. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 10(1), 9–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.10-
1.2
Bronfman, N. C., Cisternas, P. C., López-Vázquez, E., De la Maza, C., & Oyanedel, J. C. (2015).
Understanding attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors in a chilean community. Sustainability, 7(10),
14133–14152. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su71014133
Buzov, I. (2014). Social network sites as area for students’ pro-environmental activities. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 152, 1233–1236. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.304
Chander, P., & Muthukrishnan, S. (2015). Green consumerism and pollution control. Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, 114, 27–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.02.013
Choudri, B. S., Baawain, M., Al-Zeidi, K., Al-Nofli, H., Al-Busaidi, R., & Al-Fazari, K. (2017). Citizen perception
on environmental responsibility of the corporate sector in rural areas. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 19(6), 2565–2576. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9855-y
Chuang, S. P., & Huang, S. J. (2018). The effect of environmental corporate social responsibility on
environmental performance and business competitiveness: The mediation of green information
technology capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 991–1009. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
016-3167-x
Collado, S., Staats, H., & Sancho, P. (2017). Normative influences on adolescents’ self-reported pro-
environmental behaviors: The role of parents and friends. Environment and Behavior. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013916517744591
Cooper, C., Larson, L., Dayer, A., Stedman, R., & Decker, D. (2015). Are wildlife recreationists
conservationists? linking hunting, birdwatching, and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 79(3), 446–457. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.855
Derevenskaia, O. (2014). Active learning methods in environmental education of students. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 131, 101–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.086
Diaz-Rainey, I., & Ashton, J. K. (2011). Profiling potential green electricity tariff adopters: Green consumerism
as an environmental policy tool?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(7), 456–470. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1002/bse.699
Du, X., Jian, W., Zeng, Q., & Du, Y. (2014). Corporate environmental responsibility in polluting industries:
Does religion matter?. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 485–507. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
013-1888-7
Durr, E., Bilecki, J., & Li, E. (Qie). (2017). Are beliefs in the importance of pro-environmental behaviors
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517701796
https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.1.0019
https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.1.0019
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-015-9305-5
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-015-9305-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.010
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.10-1.2
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.10-1.2
https://doi.org/10.3390/su71014133
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.304
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.02.013
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9855-y
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3167-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3167-x
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517744591
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517744591
https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.855
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.086
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.699
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.699
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1888-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1888-7
JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia)
Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2019, pp. 237-244
242
Sigit et.al (Environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behavior …)
correlated with pro-environmental behaviors at a college campus?. Sustainability: The Journal of
Record, 10(3), 204–210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/sus.2017.29105.ed
El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kim, H., & Park, K. (2018). Corporate environmental responsibility and the cost of
capital: International evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 335–361. doi: https://doi.org/10.100
7/s10551-015-3005-6
Ertz, M., Karakas, F., & Sarigöllü, E. (2016). Exploring pro-environmental behaviors of consumers: An
analysis of contextual factors, attitude, and behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3971–
3980. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.010
Fitriani, U., Adisyahputra, A., & Komala, R. (2018). Eco-friendly website development in biology learning
based on project activities on environmental pollution. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 11(1), 32–46.
doi: https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.11-1.4
Freed, A. (2018). The relationship between university students’ environmental identity, decision-making
process, and behavior. Environmental Education Research, 24(3), 474–475. doi: https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504622.2017.1320705
Gabarda-Mallorquí, A., Fraguell, R. M., & Ribas, A. (2018). Exploring environmental awareness and behavior
among guests at hotels that apply water-saving measures. Sustainability, 10(5), 1–15. doi: https://doi.
org/10.3390/su10051305
Gu, W., Chhajed, D., Petruzzi, N. C., & Yalabik, B. (2015). Quality design and environmental implications of
green consumerism in remanufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 55–69. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.040
Haanpää, L. (2007). Consumers’ green commitment: Indication of a postmodern lifestyle?. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(5), 478–486. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00598.x
Hama, S. M., & Hilal, N. N. (2017). Fresh properties of self-compacting concrete with plastic waste as partial
replacement of sand. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 6(2), 299–308. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2017.01.001
Han, J. H., Nelson, C. M., & Kim, C. (2015). Pro-environmental behavior in sport event tourism: Roles of event
attendees and destinations. Tourism Geographies, 17(5), 719–737. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/146166
88.2015.1084037
Havu-Nuutinen, S., & Niikko, A. (2014). Finnish primary school as a learning environment for six-year-old
preschool children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22(5), 621–636. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.969084
Ichsan, I. Z., & Mulyani, S. W. W. (2018). Improving students’ motoric skills through demonstration method in
recycling plastic waste. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 4(2), 189–194. doi: https://doi.
org/10.22219/jpbi.v4i2.5890
Ichsan, I. Z., Sigit, D. V., & Miarsyah, M. (2018). Learning environment: Gender profile of students’ Pro-
Environmental Behavior (PEB) based on Green Consumerism. Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan Dan Ilmu
Tarbiyah, 3(2), 97–107. doi: https://doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v3i2.3358
Ichsan, I. Z., Sigit, D. V., Miarsyah, M., Azrai, E. P., & Heryanti, E. (2019). Students’ pro-environmental
behavior and environmental learning outcomes based on green consumerism. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi
Indonesia, 5(1), 109–116. doi: https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i1.6447
Istiana, R., & Awaludin, M. T. (2018). Enhancing biology education students ability to solve problems in
environmental science material through inquiri model-based lesson study. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan
Biologi, 11(1), 57–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.11-1.6
Ito, H., & Kawazoe, N. (2015). Active learning for creating innovators: Employability skills beyond industrial
needs. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 81–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n2p81
Jonell, M., Crona, B., Brown, K., Rönnbäck, P., & Troell, M. (2016). Eco-labeled seafood: Determinants for
(blue) green consumption. Sustainability, 8(9), 1–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090884
Juhanda, A., & Maryanto, Y. (2018). The emergence of biological problems in electronic school books (bse)
class x reviewed from the scientific knowledge domain of scientific literacy. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan
Biologi, 11(2), 121–125. doi: https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.v11n2.121-125
Kaiser, F. G., Ranney, M., Hartig, T., & Bowler, P. A. (1999). Ecological behavior, environmental attitude, and
feelings of responsibility for the environment. European Psychologist, 4(2), 59–74. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1027//1016-9040.4.2.59
Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific composition of a general
performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 1531–1544. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1089/sus.2017.29105.ed
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3005-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3005-6
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.010
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.11-1.4
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1320705
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1320705
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051305
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051305
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.040
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00598.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2017.01.001
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1084037
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1084037
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.969084
https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.969084
https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v4i2.5890
https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v4i2.5890
https://doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v3i2.3358
https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i1.6447
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.11-1.6
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n2p81
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090884
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.v11n2.121-125
https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.4.2.59
https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.4.2.59
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.003
JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia)
Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2019, pp. 237-244
243
Sigit et.al (Environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behavior …)
paid.2003.06.003
Kamerilova, G. S., Kartavykh, M. A., Ageeva, E. L., Veryaskina, M. A., & Ruban, E. M. (2016). Electronic
informational and educational environment as a factor of competence-oriented higher pedagogical
education in the sphere of health, safety and environment. International Journal of Environmental and
Science Education, 11(13), 6185–6194. Retrieved from http://www.ijese.net/makale/786
Kanchanabhandhu, C., & Woraphong, S. (2016). A model of solid waste management based multilateral co-
operation in semi-urban community. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,
11(12), 5762–5775. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9f55/4e6ba88e92939613fca1938
87cfd96e0a722.pdf
Koutsoukos, M., Fragoulis, I., & Valkanos, E. (2015). Connection of environmental education with application
of experiential teaching methods: A case study from Greece. International Education Studies, 8(4), 23–
28. doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n4p23
Krettenauer, T. (2017). Pro-environmental behavior and adolescent moral development. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 27(3), 581–593. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12300
Lai, C.-S. (2018). A study of fifth graders’ environmental learning outcomes in taipei. International Journal of
Research in Education and Science, 4(1), 252–262. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1170105.pdf
Lazaridou, D., Michailidis, A., & Trigkas, M. (2018). Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ willingness to
undertake environmental responsibility. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1–10. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2463-7
Lee, P.-S., Sung, Y.-H., Wu, C.-C., Ho, L.-C., & Chiou, W.-B. (2018). Using episodic future thinking to pre-
experience climate change increases pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior,
001391651879059. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518790590
Lekakos, G., Vlachos, P., & Koritos, C. (2014). Green is good but is usability better? Consumer reactions to
environmental initiatives in e-banking services. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(2), 103–117. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9337-6
Margono, B. A., Potapov, P. V., Turubanova, S., Stolle, F., & Hansen, M. C. (2014). Primary forest cover loss
in indonesia over 2000-2012. Nature Climate Change, 4(8), 730–735. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate2277
Matthes, J., & Wonneberger, A. (2014). The skeptical green consumer revisited: Testing the relationship
between green consumerism and skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 115–127.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.834804
McCarthy, B., & Liu, H. B. (2017). Food waste and the ‘green’ consumer. Australasian Marketing Journal,
25(2), 126–132. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.04.007
Miller, A. M. M., & Bush, S. R. (2015). Authority without credibility? Competition and conflict between
ecolabels in tuna fisheries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 137–145. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.02.047
Moghavvemi, S., Sulaiman, A., Jaafar, N. I., & Kasem, N. (2018). Social media as a complementary learning
tool for teaching and learning: The case of youtube. International Journal of Management Education,
16(1), 37–42. doi: doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.12.001
Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 31(4), 404–409. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00586.x
Nordin, A. B., & Alias, N. (2013). Learning outcomes and student perceptions in using of blended learning in
history. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 577–585. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.
2013.10.375
Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., Barlow, A. T., & Smith-Walters, C. (2017). Student motivation from and
resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education, 1–
25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1
Panno, A., Giacomantonio, M., Carrus, G., Maricchiolo, F., Pirchio, S., & Mannetti, L. (2017). Mindfulness,
pro-environmental behavior, and belief in climate change: The mediating role of social dominance.
Environment and Behavior, 50(8). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517718887
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., & Bengtsson, M. (2017). Cause i’ll feel good! An investigation into the effects of
anticipated emotions and personal moral norms on consumer pro-environmental behavior. Journal of
Promotion Management, 23(1), 163–183. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2016.1267681
Sangroya, D., & Nayak, J. K. (2017). Factors influencing buying behaviour of green energy consumer. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 151, 393–405. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.003
http://www.ijese.net/makale/786
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9f55/4e6ba88e92939613fca193887cfd96e0a722.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9f55/4e6ba88e92939613fca193887cfd96e0a722.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n4p23
https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12300
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1170105.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518790590
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9337-6
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2277
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2277
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.834804
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.04.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.047
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.047
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.12.001
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00586.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.375
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.375
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517718887
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2016.1267681
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.010
JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia)
Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2019, pp. 237-244
244
Sigit et.al (Environmental responsibility and pro-environmental behavior …)
Schmitt, M. T., Aknin, L. B., Axsen, J., & Shwom, R. L. (2018). Unpacking the relationships between pro-
environmental behavior, life satisfaction, and perceived ecological threat. Ecological Economics, 143,
130–140. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.007
Song, Q., Li, J., Duan, H., Yu, D., & Wang, Z. (2017). Towards to sustainable energy-efficient city: A case
study of Macau. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75(August), 504–514. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.018
Steinhorst, J., & Klöckner, C. A. (2017). Effects of monetary versus environmental information framing:
Implications for long-term pro-environmental behavior and intrinsic motivation. Environment and
Behavior. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517725371
Strange, N., Jellesmark, B., Bladt, J., Wilson, K. A., & Rahbek, C. (2011). Conservation policies and planning
under climate change. Biological Conservation, 144(12), 2968–2977. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bio
con.2011.08.022
Supriyatin, S., Nurnawati, N., & Heryanti, E. (2016). Pengaruh penerapan Active, Joyful, And Effective
Learning (AJEL) pada materi perubahan lingkungan terhadap sikap peduli lingkungan siswa. Biosfer:
Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 9(2), 69–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.9-2.10
Suryanda, A., Azrai, E. P., & Wari, N. (2016). Pengaruh penerapan model pembelajaran Group Investigation
(GI) terhadap kemampuan berpikir analisis siswa pada materi pencemaran lingkungan. Biosfer: Jurnal
Pendidikan Biologi, 9(2), 37–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.9-2.6
Syabilla, Y. A., Suryanda, A., & Sigit, D. V. (2018). A correlation between self concept and procrastination
based on gender in neuroscience perspective. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 11(2), 114–120. doi:
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.v11n2.114-120
Tang, Y., Geng, L., Schultz, P. W., Zhou, K., & Xiang, P. (2017). The effects of mindful learning on pro-
environmental behavior: A self-expansion perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 51, 140–148. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.03.005
Vicente-Molina, M. A., Fernández-Sainz, A., & Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2018). Does gender make a difference in
pro-environmental behavior? The case of the Basque Country University students. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 176, 89–98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.079
Wong, C. W. Y., Miao, X., Cui, S., & Tang, Y. (2018). Impact of corporate environmental responsibility on
operating income: Moderating role of regional disparities in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2),
363–382. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3092-z
Wynveen, C. J., & Sutton, S. G. (2017). Engaging great barrier reef stakeholders: Mediation analyses of
barriers among the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 22(2),
126–141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2016.1265185
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.018
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517725371
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.08.022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.08.022
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.9-2.10
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.9-2.6
https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.v11n2.114-120
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.03.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.079
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3092-z
https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2016.1265185