INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVII November 2025 | Special Issue on Psychology
Page 834
www.rsisinternational.org
Do Gender and Age Matter in Pro-Environmental Behavior? A Non-
Experimental Quantitative Study
Alvin M. Nieva, Annabel D. Quilon, Gerard Mark C. Santos, Noel D. Santander
College of Arts and Sciences, San Beda University, Manila
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.917PSY0075
Received: 12 December 2025; Accepted: 18 December 2025; Published: 22 December 2025
ABSTRACT
This study explored the effect of gender and age on the pro-environmental behavior of Filipino workers in the
NCR. We had two primary objectives: first, to determine if there was a notable difference in eco-friendly
actions between male and female workers; and second, to assess whether an individual's age could predict their
level of involvement in conservation efforts. We gathered data from a sample of 629 Filipino workers from
both public and private sectors within the NCR. This sample included 260 male and 369 female participants,
with ages ranging from 18 to 62 years. Our research employed a quantitative approach, specifically a cross-
sectional descriptive as well as predictive design. To assess participants' pro-environmental behaviors, we used
a 16-item scale developed by Nieva (2024), an adapted version of Kaiser's (2020) General Ecological Behavior
(GEB) scale, which uses a 5-point rating scale. Our analysis revealed no significant difference in pro-
environmental behavior between male and female workers. Additionally, a simple linear regression analysis
indicated that age did not significantly predict pro-environmental behavior. This evidence suggests that a
participant's age did not appear to influence their engagement in pro-environmental actions. These findings are
quite encouraging, as they suggest that the capacity for caring for the environment is not limited by an
individual's gender or age among the Filipino workers studied. This implies that anyone, regardless of their
gender or age, has the potential to be an active partner or agent in fostering sustainability. This wide inclusivity
is important for broad participation in environmental efforts, showing that programs designed to encourage
pro-environmental behavior can successfully reach different groups without having to focus on specific
genders or ages.
Keywords: pro-environmental behavior, gender, age, descriptive comparative study, cross-sectional predictive
study
INTRODUCTION
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a major step in humanity's pursuit of a sustainable
future. This endeavor can be traced back to the 17th century, when declining European forest resources led to
early calls for reforestation and conservation, thereby establishing the core idea that the present generation is
responsible for future generations' welfare (Estoque, 2022). These global objectives aim to address urgent
problems such as climate change, human rights, inequality, and power disparities, acknowledging that no
single country can achieve these worldwide aims independently (Nieva & Aton, 2025).
In a similar vein, Pope Francis' 2015 encyclical, Laudato si', emphasizes environmental sustainability as
crucial for our common home (as cited in Isanbor, 2021). This document addresses humanity's ability to tackle
ecological problems arising from issues like nuclear warfare, unchecked industrialization, excessive mining,
and harmful biochemical research (Isanbor, 2021). Ultimately, the encyclical links these environmental
concerns to the broader goal of achieving global social order, all while being rooted in the philosophical
tradition of Catholic Social Teachings (Isanbor, 2021)
When our ecosystems are progressively lost and damaged, affecting flora and fauna, it leads to significant
environmental shifts. These shifts create both short-term and long-term threats to human well-being (Quilon,
2024). To effectively predict future environmental needs and social trends and to create useful products,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVII November 2025 | Special Issue on Psychology
Page 835
www.rsisinternational.org
educational programs, and policies that meet these environmental demands, it's crucial to identify what
encourages people to act in an environmentally friendly way.
Psychology of Sustainability
Conservation psychology, also termed the psychology of sustainability (Corral-Verdugo, Aguilar-Luzón, &
Hernández, 2019; Nieva, 2024), is a discipline dedicated to understanding the drivers of pro-environmental
behaviors and formulating methods to promote them (Clayton & Brook, 2005; Clayton & Myers, 2015; Nieva,
2024). Originating from social psychology in the 1950s, this field is a specialized area of environmental
psychology that specifically examines the human dimension of environmental protection. While environmental
psychology looks at how people interact with their surroundings in general, conservation psychology was
created to tackle specific conservation issues; therefore, even though they have some similarities, these areas
often work together.
In the Philippines, the field of environmental psychology is considered nascent. The formation of the
Environmental Psychology Special Interest Group (EPSIGPAP) in March 2020 marked its official recognition
in the country (Aruta, 2023).
Pro-Environmental Behavior
Psychological traits such as attitudes, values, and motivations, along with social norms, significantly influence
individuals' engagement in conservation (Wallen and Landon, 2020). Consequently, conservation psychology
centers on both pro-environmental attitudes (defined as a positive inclination toward nature; Hawcroft &
Milfont, 2010) and pro-environmental behaviors (PEB), which are actions that benefit the environment,
whether intentional or not (Soutter & Mõttus, 2021). More broadly, pro-environmental behavior refers to any
individual action aimed at lessening humanity's negative effects on the natural world (Ágoston et al., 2024;
Mónus, 2021).
In line with this, environmental psychology largely focuses on pro-environmental behaviors, with Kaiser and
Wilson (2004) advocating for its scope to be limited to goal-directed actions (Gatersleben, 2013). Goal-
directed behavior theory posits that behavioral intention, the strongest predictor of actual behavior, stems from
factors such as motivation, attitudes, social norms, perceived ability, anticipated emotions, and past behavior
(Han, 2021).
Building on this theoretical framework, Kaiser and Wilson (2004) developed a unidimensional measure for
goal-oriented environmental behaviors based on the Campbell paradigm. This theory suggests that actions
related to an environmental goal can be ranked by difficulty; higher engagement in more challenging behaviors
indicates stronger environmental concern. Specifically, this measure assumes individuals prefer easier actions,
and greater effort or sacrifice toward environmental goals reflects stronger commitment, whereas abandoning
simple actions indicates weak dedication (Gatersleben, 2013).
Socialization Theory
Socialization theory offers a framework for understanding why men and women may exhibit different pro-
environmental behaviors. This theory posits that an individual's actions are significantly influenced by the
gender expectations prevalent within their cultural environment (Schahn & Holzer, 1990; Vicente-Molina et
al., 2018; Zelezny et al., 2000).
Specifically, socialization often shapes women into roles that prioritize nurturing and caregiving. This
upbringing tends to cultivate traits such as compassion, empathy, and cooperation, which are believed to
encourage a more protective stance toward the natural environment (Blocker & Eckberg, 1997). Conversely,
male socialization frequently prioritizes roles as economic providers and engagement in market-driven
activities. This often fosters assertiveness, rationality, and competitiveness, which may correlate with less pro-
environmental attitudes (Blocker & Eckberg, 1997; Hunter et al., 2004; Mohai, 1997).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVII November 2025 | Special Issue on Psychology
Page 836
www.rsisinternational.org
Adding to this perspective, Brough et al. (2016) indicate a cognitive association between environmentalism
and femininity. Their research reveals that individuals who participate in environmentally friendly behaviors
often face stereotypes from others and may even perceive themselves as more feminine. Furthermore, men's
willingness to participate in green behaviors can be influenced by factors that either challenge or affirm their
masculinity, as well as by the use of masculine-oriented rather than conventional environmental branding.
In line with these gendered differences, women's participation in pro-environmental actions appears linked to
their lifestyles and societal expectations, whereas men's lifestyles are more influenced by their perspectives on
environmental policies (Wut et al., 2021).
Gender and Age in Pro-Environmental Behavior
A study by Hidalgo and associates (2022) explored how gender influences environmental concern and pro-
environmental behaviors among 1,210 individuals in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Their findings indicated that women
demonstrated greater environmental concern and engaged in more pro-environmental behaviors, leading them
to conclude that gender plays a significant role in these areas. This result is similar to findings from both Li et
al. (2022) and Xiao and Hong (2010).
Similarly, Li and colleagues (2022) conducted a study with 532 Chinese participants, which also indicated that
gender affects how people think and act about the environment. Specifically, their findings showed that
Chinese women were more environmentally aware. They also strongly supported actions like banning plastic,
held more positive views on reducing plastic use, and were more likely to use reusable shopping bags.
Using path analyses, Xiao and Hong (2010) found gender differences in environmental behaviors in China that
mirrored Western trends: women were more involved in household environmental actions, such as recycling.
However, no clear gender patterns emerged for environmental behaviors outside the home, like donating to
environmental organizations. Interestingly, Chinese women showed less environmental concern than men—a
result that contrasts with most studies from Western countries.
On the other hand, the study by Vicente-Molina and colleagues (2018) presents contrasting findings. They
found notable gender-based differences in what influences Spanish university students' pro-environmental
behavior. Their analysis, using ordinal logistic regression, indicated that men's behavior was generally more
responsive to intervention programs, as shown by their higher elasticity values.
Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that gender differences in pro-environmental behavior may not
always exist. For instance, Ichsan et al. (2018) found no significant difference in pro-environmental behavior
related to green consumerism between junior high school males and females in Indonesia using a t-test with a
95% confidence level.
In the Philippines, Montebon and colleagues (2022) investigated sustainable practices in select Filipino homes,
examining how gender impacts family members' roles in fostering sustainable habits. Their findings showed
that women, particularly mothers, play a crucial part in championing and carrying out sustainable development
within the household.
In terms of age differences, younger individuals tend to hold slightly more positive intentions and attitudes
toward environmentally conscious behavior compared to older demographics (Ágoston et al., 2024; Wiernik et
al., 2013). Consistent with this, younger age is frequently linked to heightened climate or eco-anxiety (Ágoston
et al., 2022; Ágoston et al., 2024; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Kácha et al., 2022).
However, when examining actual pro-environmental behaviors rather than just awareness and emotions, most
research suggests that older individuals are more engaged. They are more likely to take part in conservation
efforts that aim to protect ecosystems and prevent environmental damage, and they tend to save materials and
natural resources. Moreover, older adults frequently participate in outdoor activities (Wiernik et al., 2013). A
recent international study across 31 countries supports this trend by finding that older people exhibit more pro-
environmental behavior (Wang et al., 2021).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVII November 2025 | Special Issue on Psychology
Page 837
www.rsisinternational.org
At present, aside from the study conducted by Montebon and colleagues (2022), there exists a paucity of
research in the Philippines examining gender and age disparities in pro-environmental behavior, particularly
among employees in the National Capital Region (NCR). This is a significant gap, as these individuals
regularly commute and consume products that directly impact the environment. Given that the actions and
resource use of this population have a direct influence on conservation, it's crucial to determine how to foster
sustainability among them and to explore whether gender and age are indeed significant factors in sustainable
behavior. Hence, this research endeavors to fill this gap.
Research Question
The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of gender and age on the level of pro-environmental
behavior of Filipino workers in the NCR. Specifically, this aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. Is there a significant difference in the level of pro-environmental behavior of the participants when
compared according to gender?
2. Is age a significant predictor of the level of pro-environmental behavior of the participants?
METHOD
Design
This study employed a non-experimental quantitative research design, specifically combining a cross-sectional
descriptive and predictive approach (Christensen et al., 2020; Johnson, 2001). The cross-sectional dimension
signifies that data were collected from participants at a single point. Furthermore, the study incorporated
descriptive comparative research, also known as causal-comparative research (Cantrell, 2011). This approach
aims to investigate potential cause-and-effect relationships by comparing pre-existing groups, even though the
researcher does not manipulate variables or assign participants to groups (Cantrell, 2011). In this context,
gender served as the independent variable, while pro-environmental behavior was the dependent variable.
Additionally, the research aimed to predict future events or behaviors by looking at trends in the data collected.
For this purpose, age was designated as the predictor variable, and pro-environmental behavior was the
outcome variable.
Participants
A total of 629 Filipino workers from both public and private sectors within the National Capital Region (NCR)
participated in this study. The sample comprised 260 (59%) males and 369 (41%) females, with ages ranging
from 18 to 62 years. The average age of the participants was 32 years old, with a standard deviation of 9.45.
Measure
The participants' pro-environmental behavior was assessed using the adapted General Ecological Behavior
(GEB) scale. Specifically, this 16-item scale, developed by Nieva (2024), is an adaptation of Kaiser's (2020)
GEB scale. While the original General Ecological Behavior (GEB) scale is a well-known self-report tool, this
new version was adapted to fit Filipino culture. This adaptation was crucial because cross-cultural validation of
measurement tools is essential when used with diverse groups, as they might function differently outside their
original cultural context (Nieva, 2023; Nieva et al., 2025; Rada & Nieva, 2024).
This adapted scale utilizes a 5-point rating system (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, and 5 =
very often). The scoring procedure from Davis, Green, and Reed (2008) was adopted. We calculated an overall
GEB score by averaging the responses across all questions. This single indicator means that higher scores
reflect greater pro-environmental engagement. In this study, the scale demonstrated strong reliability with
McDonald’s omega (ω) = 0.723 and Cronbach’s alpha (α) = 0.739. Given these values, the scale is considered
reliable.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVII November 2025 | Special Issue on Psychology
Page 838
www.rsisinternational.org
Procedure
Participants were asked to complete an online survey, which was administered via the secure platform
Microsoft Forms. However, we first informed them that they could only proceed after providing their informed
consent. Each individual received a consent form that explained the study's purpose, its procedures, and how
their information would be kept confidential and anonymous. JASP software (version 0.18.1) subsequently
analyzed all the data gathered from these questionnaires.
Data Analysis
The initial data analysis involved checking for skewness, kurtosis, mean, and standard deviation to determine
the data's normality and its descriptive statistics. The reliability of the GEB scale was assessed using
McDonald's omega and Cronbach's alpha. For the main analyses, an independent t-test was used to determine
if there were significant differences in the pro-environmental behaviors of the participants when compared
according to gender. Furthermore, a simple linear regression analysis was employed to determine if age
significantly predicts pro-environmental behavior. According to Field (2018), simple regression is a
fundamental tool for understanding and quantifying the linear relationship between two variables, allowing for
prediction and explanation within the observed data.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study aimed to investigate how gender and age influence pro-environmental behavior among Filipino
workers in the NCR. Before the primary analysis, researchers conducted a preliminary assessment of the data.
This step involved calculating descriptive statistics, specifically the mean, standard deviation, and normality
tests using skewness and kurtosis. Additionally, reliability estimates like McDonald’s omega and Cronbach’s
alpha were computed. These steps were important for figuring out if parametric tests could be used for analysis
and for checking how reliable the pro-environmental behavior measurement scale was.
Regarding the normality tests, as presented in Table 1, the skewness values for age and pro-environmental
behavior were 0.877 and -0.025, respectively. Furthermore, the kurtosis values for both variables were 0.195.
These figures suggest a normal data distribution, as George and Mallery (2019) state that skewness and
kurtosis values between -2 and +2 fall within acceptable limits. Therefore, the use of parametric inferential
statistics is deemed appropriate.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Variables
N
M
SD
Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum
PEB
629
2.903
0.517
0.195
1
4.688
Age
629
32.245
9.445
0.195
18
62
Table 1 displays the mean scores and standard deviations for participants' pro-environmental behavior. The
mean score indicates an average level of pro-environmental behavior, as it aligns with the midpoint of 3.
Furthermore, the standard deviation values suggest that participants' scores were relatively consistent,
demonstrating less variability in their responses.
This finding suggests a moderate level of engagement in sustainable practices among participants. This
indicates that while they may adopt some environmentally friendly habits, like recycling regularly or
conserving water by showering, they might not consistently practice all behaviors. For instance, they might be
active in reducing consumption and waste; however, they may be less involved in broader environmental
advocacy, such as financially contributing to organizations or consistently boycotting environmentally
damaging products. These average scores reflect a population that is aware of environmental issues and takes
some personal responsibility, yet still has room to further integrate a wider range of sustainable actions into
their daily lives and expand their sphere of influence beyond individual habits.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVII November 2025 | Special Issue on Psychology
Page 839
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 2. t Statistics
Gender
Male
Female
M
SD
M
SD
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Cohen's d
2.928
0.541
2.885
0.500
-1.028
198
0.304
-0.083
An independent-samples t-test was performed to examine whether there was a difference in the level of pro-
environmental behavior between male and female Filipino workers. The results of Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances confirmed the assumption of homogeneity of variances, with F(1, 627) = 0.175 and p = 0.676. The
results, as presented in Table 2, indicated no significant difference in the level of pro-environmental behavior
of male and female Filipino workers, t(198) = -1.028, p = .304.
Our analysis revealed no significant difference in pro-environmental behavior between male and female
workers. Although prior research frequently indicates that women are more involved in specific pro-
environmental behaviors, our study reveals that male and female workers in this sample exhibit similar levels
of such conduct. This finding aligns with Ichsan et al.'s (2018) study, which also reported no significant
difference in pro-environmental behavior between junior high school males and females in Indonesia. The
result suggests that for our study's population, gender is not a primary factor influencing engagement in
sustainable practices. Instead, other factors might be more important in determining how these workers act in
ways that help the environment, suggesting that their actions are not just based on typical gender roles but are
influenced by stronger factors. Therefore, future research could investigate these alternative influences to
better understand what drives pro-environmental behavior in this demographic.
Table 3. Linear Regression
Collinearity Statistics
Predictor
B
SE
β
t
p
Tolerance
VIF
Age
-8.011×10
-4
0.002
-0.015
-0.366
0.714
1.000
1.000
Note: Adjusted R² = -0.001, F (1,627) = 0.134, p = 0.714
Table 3 displays the outcomes of the linear regression analysis, where pro-environmental behavior was the
outcome or dependent variable and age was the predictor or independent variable. Based on the ANOVA
result, the regression model as a whole was not a good fit for the data. The result indicates that the predictor or
independent variable included in the model does not collectively explain a significant amount of the variation
in the dependent variable. Therefore, the analysis revealed that age did not significantly predict pro-
environmental behavior, accounting for only -0.1% of the variance in the dependent variable.
While the regression coefficients suggested negative results, implying an inverse trend, the overall finding
indicates that a participant's age did not appear to influence their engagement in pro-environmental actions.
This contrasts with existing literature that often presents mixed results regarding age and PEB; some studies
suggest younger individuals have more positive attitudes or higher eco-anxiety, whereas others show older
adults demonstrating more actual conservation behaviors. However, in our sample, age cannot explain the
variance in PEB, suggesting that other factors play a more influential role. The result implies that both younger
and older workers in this population are equally likely to adopt or neglect sustainable practices. Therefore,
future research should explore alternative predictors to better understand the drivers of pro-environmental
behavior in this demographic, rather than focusing solely on age. For instance, according to Hoffmann et al.
(2022), research also indicates that negative emotions such as guilt or shame can influence pro-environmental
behavior.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVII November 2025 | Special Issue on Psychology
Page 840
www.rsisinternational.org
The overall findings of this research support the literature review by Li et al. (2019). Specifically, Li and
colleagues argue that recent environmental behavior research increasingly suggests demographic factors like
age and gender, along with social norms, may not always be sufficient to fully explain pro-environmental
actions. Instead, the current focus has shifted toward understanding the role of psychological factors. For
instance, Nieva (2024) found that personality traits, particularly extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness
to experience, positively predict pro-environmental behavior.
CONCLUSION
This study aimed to investigate the influence of gender and age on pro-environmental behavior among Filipino
workers in the National Capital Region. Collectively, our findings suggest that neither gender nor age
primarily drives individual pro-environmental behavior within this demographic. Although participants usually
engage moderately in sustainable practices, the fact that gender and age do not strongly predict this behavior
shows that future research should look into other important factors. Such factors could include individual
values, environmental knowledge, specific workplace initiatives, socioeconomic conditions, or even emotional
responses like guilt or shame, as suggested by external literature. Understanding these alternative drivers will
be key to creating more targeted and effective sustainability interventions within this demographic.
Moreover, these results are encouraging because they suggest that the capacity for sustainable progress and
innovation among the Filipino workers studied is not limited by an individual's gender or age. This implies that
anyone, regardless of their gender or age, has the potential to actively contribute to fostering a more
sustainable future. This wide inclusivity is important for getting more people involved in environmental
efforts, showing that programs encouraging eco-friendly actions can successfully reach different groups
without needing to focus on specific genders or ages.
Future research on pro-environmental behavior among Filipinos should broaden its focus beyond the National
Capital Region. This includes studying diverse populations and sectors to improve the generalizability of
findings. To better understand how these behaviors develop and what drives them, studies should use
longitudinal designs and objective measures to support self-reported data and reduce bias. Since gender and
age were not key predictors in this study, future work should explore other influencing factors and their
determinants, such as personal values, environmental knowledge, and emotional responses. Finally, qualitative
methods could offer more profound insights into the motivations and barriers to environmental action.
REFERENCES
1. Ágoston, C., Urbán, R., Nagy, B., Csaba, B., Kőváry, Z., Kovács, K., . . . Demetrovics, Z. (2022). The
psychological consequences of the ecological crisis: Three new questionnaires to assess eco-anxiety,
eco-guilt, and ecological grief. Climate Risk Management, 37, 100441. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2022.100441
2. Ágoston, C., Balázs, B., Mónus, F., & Varga, A. (2024). Age differences and profiles in pro-
environmental behavior and eco-emotions. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 48(2),
132-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254231222436
3. Aruta, J. J. B. R. (2023). Environmental psychology in the Philippines: Growth, challenges and
prospects. International Journal of Psychology, 58(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12896
4. Blocker, T. J., & Eckberg, D. L. (1997). Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993 general
social survey. Social Science Quarterly, 841-858. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42863735
5. Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The
green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of consumer
research, 43(4), 567-582. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044
6. Cantrell, M. A. (2011). Demystifying the research process: understanding a descriptive comparative
research design. Pediatric nursing, 37(4), 188-189.
7. Christensen, L., Johnson, R., & Turner, L. (2020). Research Methods, Design and Analysis (13
th
ed.).
Pearson.
8. Clayton, S., & Brook, A. (2005). Can psychology help save the world? A model for conservation
psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
2415.2005.00057.x
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVII November 2025 | Special Issue on Psychology
Page 841
www.rsisinternational.org
9. Clayton, S., & Karazsia, B. T. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change
anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434
10. Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2015). Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care
for nature. John Wiley & Sons.
11. Corral-Verdugo, V., Aguilar-Luzón, M. D. C., & Hernández, B. (2019). Theoretical bases guiding
conservation psychology. Papeles del Psicólogo—Psychologist Papers, 40(2), 174.
https://doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol2019.2897
12. Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment,
interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of environmental psychology, 29(2), 173-180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001
13. Estoque, R. C. (2020). A review of the sustainability concept and the state of SDG monitoring using
remote sensing. Remote Sensing, 12(11), 1770. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111770
14. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.
15. Gatersleben, B. (2013). Measuring environmental behaviour. In Steg, L., van den Berg, A. E., & de
Groot, J. I. M. (Eds.), Environmental Psychology: An introduction. BPS Blackwell.
16. Gatersleben, B. & Murtagh, N. (2023). Handbook on Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change. Edward
Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800882133.00006
17. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference
(16th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056765
18. Gu, D., Jiang, J., Zhang, Y., Sun, Y., Jiang, W., & Du, X. (2020). Concern for the future and saving the
earth: When does ecological resource scarcity promote pro-environmental behavior?. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 72, 101501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101501
19. Han, H. (2021). Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: A
review of theories, concepts, and latest research. Sustainable Consumer Behaviour and the
Environment, 1-22.
20. Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale
over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 143–158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003
21. Hidalgo, J., Benítez, F., Amaya, J., Soto, M., Terán-Alvarado, F., & Hidalgo, A. (2022, July). Does
gender influence a person´ s environmental concern and pro-environmental behaviours?. In 20th
LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology:“Education,
Research and Leadership in Post-pandemic Engineering: Resilient, Inclusive and Sustainable Actions”.
Latin American and Caribbean Consortium of Engineering Institutions.
https://doi.org/10.18687/laccei2022.1.1.673
22. Hoffmann, C., Hoppe, J. A., & Ziemann, N. (2022). Who has the future in mind? Gender, time
perspectives, and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Research Letters, 17(10), 104026.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac9296
23. Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. (2004). Cross‐national gender variation in environmental
behaviors. Social science quarterly, 85(3), 677-694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00239.x
24. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v3i2.3358
25. Isanbor, P. O. (2021). Environmental Sustainability and the Quest for Global Social Order in Francis’
Laudato Si. African Eco-Philosophy: Cosmology, Consciousness and the Environment, 42-66.
26. Kácha, O., Vintr, J., & Brick, C. (2022). Four Europes: Climate change beliefs and attitudes predict
behavior and policy preferences using a latent class analysis on 23 countries. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 81, 101815. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101815
27. Kaiser, F.G. (2020). GEB-50. General Ecological Behavior Scale [procedure documentation,
questionnaire in German and English]. In Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) (ed.), Open Test
Archive. Trier: ZPID. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4489
28. 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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.003
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVII November 2025 | Special Issue on Psychology
Page 842
www.rsisinternational.org
29. Kaiser, F. G., Doka, G., Hofstetter, P., & Ranney, M. A. (2003). Ecological behavior and its
environmental consequences: A life cycle assessment of a self-report measure. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00075-0
30. Johnson (2001). Towards a new classification of non-experimental quantitative research. Educational
Researcher, 30(2). 3-13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030002003
31. Li, Y., Wang, B., & Saechang, O. (2022). Is female a more pro-environmental gender? Evidence from
China. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(13), 8002.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138002
32. Li, D., Zhao, L., Ma, S., Shao, S., & Zhang, L. (2019). What influences an individual’s pro-
environmental behavior? A literature review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 28-34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.024
33. Mohai, P. (1997). Gender differences in the perception of most important environmental
problems. Race, Gender & Class, 153-169. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41674853
34. Montebon, D. R. T., Gonzaga, M., Santos, V. J. D., & Ginez, J. O. (2022). Sustainability and Gender in
Select Filipino Households. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social
Sciences), 15(4), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.14456/jcdr-hs.2022.40
35. Mónus, F. (2021). Environmental perceptions and pro-environmental behavior–comparing different
measuring approaches. Environmental Education Research, 27(1), 25.
doi:10.1080/13504622.2020.1842332
36. Nieva, A. (2023). Construct validation of the teacher attitude to inclusion scale for Filipino pre-service
teachers. Bedan Research Journal, 8(1), 305–329. https://doi.org/10.58870/berj.v8i1.56
37. Nieva, A. (2024). Personality Traits as Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behavior: Evidence from the
Philippines. Bedan Research Journal, 9(1), 145–173. https://doi.org/10.58870/berj.v9i1.68
38. Nieva, A., & Aton, P. (2025). The Relationship between Growth Mindsets and Climate Action Among
Filipino Early Adults. Bedan Research Journal, 10(1), 285–314. https://doi.org/10.58870/berj.v10i1.88
39. Nieva, A. M., Quilon, A. D., Prudente, J. E., & Cuaresma, E. R. (2025). The Structural Validity of the
Employee Performance Scale for Filipino Workers (EPS-FW). International Journal of Research and
Innovation in Social Science, 9(17), 247-256. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.917PSY0025
40. Quilon, A. (2024). Role of Eco-spirituality in Psychological Well-Being of Selected Working
Women. Bedan Research Journal, 9(1), 196–220. https://doi.org/10.58870/berj.v9i1.70
41. Rada, E., & Nieva, A. (2024). Translation and Validation of the Filipino Sustainability Consciousness
Questionnaire. Bedan Research Journal, 9(1), 53–82. https://doi.org/10.58870/berj.v9i1.65
42. Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: The role of knowledge,
gender, and background variables. Environment and behavior, 22(6), 767-786.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916590226003
43. Selinske, M. J., Garrard, G. E., Bekessy, S. A., Gordon, A., Kusmanoff, A. M., & Fidler, F. (2018).
Revisiting the promise of conservation psychology. Conservation Biology, 32(6), 1464-1468.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13106
44. Soutter, A. R. B., & Mõttus, R. (2021). Big Five facets' associations with pro‐environmental attitudes
and behaviors. Journal of Personality, 89(2), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12576
45. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.079
46. Wallen, K. E., & Landon, A. C. (2020). Systematic map of conservation psychology. Conservation
Biology, 34(6), 1339-1352. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13623
47. Wang, Y., Hao, F., & Liu, Y. (2021). Pro-Environmental Behavior in an Aging World: Evidence from
31 Countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4).
doi:10.3390/ijerph18041748
48. Wiernik, B. M., Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Age and environmental sustainability: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7-8), 826–856. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2013-
0221
49. Wut, T. M., Ng, P., Kan, H. K. M., & Fong, C. S. (2021). Does gender matter? Attitude towards waste
charging policy and pro-environmental behaviours. Social Responsibility Journal, 17(8), 1100-1115.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-03-2020-0102
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVII November 2025 | Special Issue on Psychology
Page 843
www.rsisinternational.org
50. Xiao, C., & Hong, D. (2010). Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Population and
Environment, 32, 88-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0115-z
51. Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism:
Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social issues, 56(3), 443-457.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177