Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Challenges
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envc

Sustainable behaviors, prosocial behaviors, and religiosity in Colombia. A

first empirical assessment
César Augusto Ruiz Agudelo a,∗, Angela María Cortes-Gómez b
a
Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Ambientales y Sostenibilidad, Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano. Bogotá, Colombia
b
Doctorado en Estudios Ambientales y Rurales. Facultad de Estudios Ambientales y Rurales, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Bogotá, Colombia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Religion is a powerful institution that models human behaviors at all levels. In a time of proven environmental
Religiosity crisis, it is useful to think about how this institution can improve conservation efforts and nature care through
Environmental perception promoting sustainable and prosocial behaviors. Although some research argues that the effect of political ide-
Prosocial behavior
ology and economic status is by far a stronger predictor than religiosity per se, this varies across cultures. We
Sustainable behavior
develop a first research strategy, based on two sources: 1) The World Values Survey, between 1997 and 2018,
Colombia
Structural equations modeling to identify trends regarding the importance of religion in Colombians’ life. 2) Self-administered survey (a total
of 450 surveys applied to Colombians, under snowball sampling in 2020) the sample size is adjusted to the data
analysis technique, which was Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), to understand the potential relationship be-
tween religiosity, environmental perception, prosocial, and sustainable behaviors in a megadiverse country, and
highly religious such as Colombia. The results of this first research, in the Colombian case, reiterate and provide
empirical support to earlier theoretical studies that have pointed out the contribution of religiosity and spiritual-
ity to sustainability and prosocial behaviors. This case shows that acting sustainably is not just a matter of belief
or unbelief, nor of being spiritual or atheist. Prosocial behaviors, in combination with environmental perception
and knowledge, have a major influence on sustainable behaviors for the Colombian case.

1. Introduction much stronger predictors of sustainable behaviors than individual reli-

Religion is a potent source of moral values and beliefs that may form
believers’ responses to the current environmental crisis (Pew Research
Centre, 2017; Christopher and Kidwell, 2019; Shin and Preston, 2019).
According to Baugh (2019), the precise influence that religious outlooks
have on sustainable attitudes and behaviors is a matter of debate among
scholars of Religion and Ecology. While some studies suggest that emer-
gent eco-friendly interpretations of traditional religions offer a promis-
ing path for addressing the world’s ecological crisis, others, offer more
skeptical evaluations about the institutional religions’ efficacy in cur-
rently developing sustainability efforts (Haluza-DeLay, 2014).
Current psychosocial research on environmental topics has provided
critical insights into the relationship between sustainable behavior and
religiosity (Pihkala, 2018; Shin and Preston, 2019). Earlier research has
shown that attitudes on social and political issues come to resemble the
normative opinion of their clergy (Djupe and Gilbert, 2009; Wald et al.,
1988). Beliefs that are legitimate and sacred by a religion, through ap-
proval by authority figures, can influence members’ stances on diverse
matters (Jelen, 1992; Huckfeldt and Sprague, 1995; Wald et al., 1988;
Djupe and Gilbert, 2009; Mathras et al., 2015). Social influences, such
as the churchgoers and clergy’s opinions on the environment, are also
giosity (Djupe and Hunt, 2009) and consequently should play a role in
forming individuals’ attitudes toward environmental crisis (Robina and
Pulido, 2018).
The relationship between religiosity and prosocial behavior (social
and political ethics) has also been explored in some studies. For example,
Kirchmaier et al., (2018) utilizing evidence for a representative sample
of the Dutch population with information about the participants’ reli-
gious experience, studied the relationship between religion, moral con-
duct, and attitudes. They found that religious personality is less accept-
ing of immoral behavior, report that more volunteering religious people
have a lower inclination to income redistribution and that parental re-
ligion correlates with their children’s ethical attitudes.
Research about the influence of religion on sustainable and proso-
cial behaviors is inconclusive (Eckberg and Blocker, 1996; Kearns, 1996;
Kirchmaier et al., 2018; Vaidyanathan, et al., 2018). The focus is on the
relationship between religious beliefs and eco-friendly attitudes, leav-
ing the potential processes under the connection between religion and
environmental action. For example, Greeley (1993) found that a com-
mitment for environmental spending was negatively correlated with bib-
lical literalism, but positively with being Catholic. Hayes and Marangu-
dakis (2000) developed a cross-country survey and indicated significant

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cesara.ruiza@utadeo.edu.co (C.A.R. Agudelo), cortesangela@javeriana.edu.co (A.M. Cortes-Gómez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100088
Received 26 February 2021; Received in revised form 21 March 2021; Accepted 21 March 2021
2667-0100/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez
inter-denominational differences within the Christian tradition in envi-
ronmental attitudes. In this line, Robina and Pulido (2018) show that
the recent research results do not show the type of mediation between
religiosity and the enhanced attitude toward nature. These authors rec-
ommend to analyze this relationship in further research, as well as con-
sidering religiosity as a mediator of other constructs, for example, proso-
cial behaviors.
Colombia, among the megadiverse countries, ranks fourth in
plants species richness, fifth place in mammals, first place in birds,
third place in reptiles, second place in amphibians, freshwater
fish, and butterflies. Despite this richness, more than 1000 species
are threatened by anthropic actions (Andrade, 2011). According to
Armenteras et al. (2017) in recent years, forest loss has been driven
by multiple changing forces. The main transformation drivers of natu-
ral ecosystems are the expansion of the agricultural frontier (Etter et al.,
2006), and the transformation of the forest into pastures for livestock
(Armenteras et al., 2013). Other local transformation causes include
road and human settlements constructions (Armenteras et al., 2011;
2013; 2017; Davalos et al., 2014). In the last decades, illegal activities
have also been part of the driving forces behind the biodiversity loss,
mainly through the expansion of illegal crops (Davalos et al., 2011),
mining (Chadid et al., 2015), and logging (Armenteras et al., 2013). On
the other hand, and according to Beltrán (2013), from the colonial pe-
riod to the mid-twentieth century civil war, known as “The Violence,”
the Roman Catholic Church remained Colombia’s most powerful institu-
tion. Its effect was felt in all social spheres, including political, cultural,
and educational. This impact was not limited to the public domain but
extended to the private living space, guiding, and regulating the Colom-
bians’ lives.
In a time of environmental crisis, it is useful to think how Religion
can improve the conservation efforts and nature care, through promot-
ing sustainable and prosocial behaviors (Vaisey, 2009; Martin, 2010;
Lizardo, 2017). The relationship between religiosity, sustainable, and
prosocial behaviors is complex, and correlations between religious per-
sonality and pro-environmental values can be weak in several cases.
Indeed, some research argues that the mediating influence of political
ideology and economic status is by far a stronger predictor than religios-
ity per se (Ester and Seuren, 1992). This research develops a research
strategy, based on multiple sources, to understand the relationship be-
tween religiosity, environmental perceptions and knowledge, prosocial
behaviors, and sustainable behaviors in a megadiverse, and highly reli-
gious country like Colombia.
The manuscript is organized as follows: Section two describes the
methods and information sources. Section three presents the results of
data analysis (review of previous data and structural equation models).
Section four shows the discussion of the results, and finally, section five
presents the relevant conclusions of this first empirical assessment.
2. Methods
For this research, two information sources were used to understand
the relationship between religiosity, prosocial, and sustainable behav-
iors in a megadiverse country like Colombia:
a. Previous national surveys, specifically The World Values Survey,
between 1997 and 2018 (Inglehart et al., 2014a; 2014b).
b. We applied a self-administered survey. The sample size is ad-
justed to the data analysis technique, which is Structural Equa-
tion Modeling (SEM), through a snowball sampling.
2.1. Review and analysis of previous national surveys
To identify trends and historical patterns, regarding the importance
of religion in Colombians’ life, as well as to assess the temporal evo-
lution of some prosocial and environmental behaviors, we reviewed
The World Values Survey (WVS) between 1997 and 2018, available
2
Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088
at http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/. The WVS is a global research
project that explores peoples’ values and beliefs; how they change over
time and what type of social and political impact they have. It emerged
in 1981. Currently, more than 80 countries (including Colombia) are
involved in the survey. The surveys have circulated among 1100–3500
interviewees per country (Inglehart et al., 2014a; 2014b).
This survey has been implemented by waves. In Colombia’s case, the
data available is from 1995–1998 (wave 3), 2005– 2009 (wave 5), 2010–
2014 (wave 6), and 2017–2020 (wave 7). However, the same questions
and items have not always been applied. To inquire about the historical
patterns, we have selected the following questions and items that reflect
aspects of religiosity, prosocial behavior, and the sustainable behavior
of the Colombian society in this research (Table 1).
As mentioned above, we have only incorporated the questions and
items common to the different waves of WVS for Colombia. These data
were analyzed in a descriptive and diagnostic way, to define multitem-
poral patterns and trends about religiosity, prosocial, and sustainable
behavior in Colombia.
2.3. The new survey applied and the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
In order to understand the relationship between religiosity, environ-
mental perception and knowledge, prosocial behavior, and sustainable
behavior in Colombia, this research draws on in-depth survey data gath-
ered in Colombia between 2018 and 2020. The surveys (Supplementary
material 1) were applied, by means of electronic media and social net-
works, to a large and random sample of Colombians, using a snowball
sampling strategy (Spreen, 1992).
The surveys applied included the following sections:
a. General socioeconomic conditions: Seven (7) questions were for-
mulated (Supplementary material 1), inquiring about the respon-
dent’s characteristics, such as age, sex, educational level, income
level, dependents, marital status, and place of residence.
b. Religiosity: Religiosity and spirituality are multidimensional
concepts (George et al., 2000; Miller and Thoresen, 2003;
Cook, 2004; Hill, 2005). Numerous explanations of religiosity
have been offered from diverse disciplines and perspectives. For
example, Religiosity has been described as “The way in which
people understand and live their lives in view of their ultimate
meaning and value” (Muldoon and King, 1995, p. 336), as “a sub-
jective experience of the sacred” (Vaughan, 1991, p. 105) and as
“a quality that goes beyond religious affiliation, that strives for
inspirations, reverence, awe, meaning, and purpose, even in those
who do not believe in any good.” (Murray and Zenter, 1989). For
this research, the religiosity section (in Likert scales – Supple-
mentary material 1) was based on The Universal Religious Per-
sonality Inventory (URPI) questionnaire of Azimi et al. (2012),
Moberg (2002) and the de Jager Meezenbroek et al (2010) as-
sessment. This section includes 25 declarations, which aimed to
assess the respondent’s religious and spiritual degree.
c. Prosocial behavior: This is the most distinctive aspect of un-
selfish behavior. These pro-social behaviors prioritize the well-
being of others above that of oneself (Sober and Wilson, 2000;
Gärling et al., 2003). It is also reflected in the concept of equity, in
terms of the equal ability to make use of natural resources and the
equal treatment of all people regardless of race, gender, culture,
and ethnic origin (Winter, 2002). Prosocial behavior is related
to the ideology that it could lead people to support the system
(in terms of cultural worldviews, social groups, and economic
stratification); this is the structure through which people may
draw rules, meanings, predictions, judgments, and so on, even
to their own detriment. People who strongly endorse system-
justifying beliefs support the legitimacy of the status quo, inter-
nalize inequality, and derogate potential alternative worldviews
(Zimmerman and Reyna, 2013). This section includes eight (8)
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088

Table 1
Selected questions and items that reflect religiosity, prosocial behavior, and sustainable behavior aspects in Colombian society.

Selected questions and items Waves with information available for Colombia (The Response scale
World Values Survey)

N: 1998 N: 2005 N: 2012 N: 2018

A. Religiosity
1. Importance of religion in your life 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. Rather important. 2. Very important. 3. Not very important. 4. Not
at all important. 5. NA
2. Strengthen the Religious faith in 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. Mentioned. 2. Not mentioned
your children
3. Church or religious organization 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. Active member. 2. Inactive member. 3. Not a member
member
4. Confidence in the church 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. A great deal. 2. Quite a lot. 3. Not very much. 4. None at all. 5. NA
5. You are a religious person? 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. A religious person. 2. Not a religious person. 3. An atheist. 4. NA
6. How important is God in your life? 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. Very important, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Not at all important
7. Do you belong to a religion or 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. None. 2. Buddhist. 3. Christian. 4. Evangelical. 5. Muslim. 6.
religious denomination? Protestant. 7. Roman Catholic. 8. Other;Not specific
8. Apart from weddings and funerals, 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. More than once a week. 2. Once a week. 3. Once a month. 4. Only
about how often do you attend on special holy days. 5. Once a year. 6. Less often. 7. Never,
religious services these days? practically never

B. Prosocial Behavior
1. Humanitarian or charitable 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. Active member. 2. Inactive member. 3. Not a member
organization member
2. Confidence the goverment 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. A great deal. 2. Quite a lot. 3. Not very much. 4. None at all. 5. NA
3. Claiming government benefits to 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. Never justifiable, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Always justifiable
which you are not entitled
4. Cheating on taxes if you have a 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. Never justifiable, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Always justifiable
chance
5. Incomes should be made more 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. Incomes should be made more equal, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, We need
equal larger income differences as incentives for individual effort.
6. The government should take more 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. The government should take more responsibility to ensure that
responsibility to ensure that everyone is provided for, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, People should take
everyone is provided for having more responsibility to provide for themselves.
better life conditions

C. Sustainable behaviors
1. Confidence the Environmental 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. A great deal. 2. Quite a lot. 3. Not very much. 4. None at all. 5. NA
organizations
2. Environmental organization 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. Active member. 2. Inactive member. 3. Not a member
member
3. Here are two statements people 2996 3025 1512 1520 1. Protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it
sometimes make when discussing causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs. 2. Economic
the environment and economic growth and creating jobs should be the top priority, even if the
growth. Which of them comes environment suffers to some extent.
closer to your own point of view?
Source: The World Values Survey (From 1997 to 2018).

statements (Likert scale – Supplementary material 1), which aims
to assess prosocial behaviors among the respondents. Its contents
were based on the contributions of Jost and Thompson (2000),
and Kay and Jost (2003).
d. Environmental perceptions and knowledge: Despite the vast sci-
entific evidence on the damage being caused to the environment
from the current increase of industrial production and the rapid
climate change, human activities continue to cause numerous
threats to earth ecosystems (Scheffer et al., 2001, Hansen, 2004,
Oreskes, 2004, Weart, 2004, Webster et al., 2005). Most people
are still denying the seriousness of the problem and are reluctant
to take action. This section includes ten (10) statements (Likert
scale – Supplementary material 1), intended to assess the knowl-
edge and environmental perceptions’ degree of the respondents.
The contents were based on the works of Dunlap and Van Liere
(1978; 1984), Clark et al. (1993), and Dunlap (1995).
e. Sustainable behaviors: According to Feygina et al. (2010) and
Corral-Verdugo et al. (2011), sustainable behaviors are “A set of
actions aimed at conserving the integrity of the socio-physical
resources of our planet”. These actions may be altruistic and en-
vironmentally friendly. Sustainable environmentally friendly be-
haviors are “Intentional actions resulting in the protection of the
earth’s physical resources” (Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010). Re-
cycling, renewing the earth’s physical resources, responsible con-
sumption, and the conservation and re-use of water and energy,
are examples of sustainable behaviors (Corral and Pinheiro, 2004;
Corral-Verdugo et al., 2011). This last section, which consists of
eight (8) statements (Likert scale – Supplementary material 1),
was aimed at evaluating the sustainable behavior by each re-
spondent. The statements consulted were based on the work of
Feygina et al. (2010).
A total of 450 surveys were applied to Colombians, under snowball
sampling, via email and social networks (for example, email, and face-
book). Of these, 334 were fully completed in all five sections of the sur-
vey. According to Hadaway et al. (1993), Martin (2010), Vaisey (2009),
Jerolmack and Khan (2014), and Vaidyanathan et al, (2018), this re-
search considers the limitations of survey data due to social desirability
bias and potential disjunctures between discursive and practical con-
sciousness. The research also recognizes that people often overestimate
self-reported behaviors (for example, the frequency of attendance to reli-
gious events). Despite this, the individual survey method is considered a
valuable information source to comprehend the relationship between re-
ligiosity, environmental perception and knowledge, sustainable behav-
ior, and prosocial behavior. Furthermore, the surveys provided specific
examples of actions that are typical in particular situations (e.g., using
recycling, cloth bags in grocery stores, eco-friendly purchases, etc.).

3
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez
2.4. Data analysis and interpretation
The 334 surveys were analyzed with the following procedure:
a. The consistency and validity of the instruments were assessed.
The Cronbach coefficient was used to assess the reliability of the
internal consistency of the scales, and confirmatory factor anal-
ysis (CFA) was performed to assess the convergent validity and
discriminant validity of the scales (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
b. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was carried out to test the
hypothetical relationships between four types of values, Reli-
giosity (PR), prosocial behaviors (PB), environmental knowledge
and perceptions (EP), and sustainable behavior (PB). The SEM
method was used because it allows the establishment and esti-
mation of complex causal relationships between multiple latent
variables, while controlling measurement errors. The indices that
measured the goodness of fit of the model contained the chi-
square relationship to the degree of freedom (X2/df), Compar-
ative Index Arrangement (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Stan-
dardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) and Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). For an index to be
acceptable, X2/df must not exceed 5, CFI, and TLI must be
greater than 0.90, and RMSEA and SRMR must be less than 0.08
(Wu, 2009; Muñoz-García and Villena-Martínez, 2020).
c. We applied the bootstrapping technique (5000 bootstrap sam-
ples) to test the serial multiple mediation effects within the
causal chain of the model, to predict sustainable behavior. A 95%
bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval that does not in-
clude zero would present evidence of significant indirect effects,
while reducing the probability of Type 1 error (Preacher and
Hayes, 2008).
Descriptive statistics were used to explain the sample and the vari-
ables. The CFA and SEM analyzes were performed employing the STATA
software package, with the maximum likelihood estimation method
(StataCorp, 2017).
2.5. Theorical framework and proposed hypotheses
The literature shows there are critical differences between countries
in the way that religiosity affects its outlook on ecological problems
(Tjernström and Tietenberg, 2008). Morrison et al. (2015) show that
preceding research has indicated that relationships between religiosity
and sustainable behaviors can be spurious and just reflect the effect of
other sociodemographic and attitudinal variables. To add evidence to
this debate, the following hypotheses are proposed in this research:
1. H1: Religiosity (RP) has a significant positive influence on
sustainable behaviors (SB)
According to Wahid and colleagues (2017) and Oman and
Morello-Frosch (2018), traditional religiousness exercises a no-
table influence over sustainable behaviors. On an individ-
ual level, religion and spirituality facilitate sustainable behav-
ior through their influence on personal values (Bailey and
Sood, 1993; Saroglou and Muñoz, 2008; Morrison et al.,
2015), motivations and goals (Oman and Morello-Frosch, 2018),
lifestyles (Pargament et al., 2013), ethics (Sabbaghi and Cava-
hangh, 2015; Van Buren and Greenwood, 2013) and moral
identity (Gorsuch et al., 1997; Rodríguez-Rad and Ramos-
Hidalgo, 2018). Nevertheless, there are also theoretical and
pragmatic reasons that shows a negative influence of religion
on sustainable behaviors, especially in Judaeo-Christian reli-
gions (Hand and Van Liere, 1984; Shaiko, 1987; Eckberg and
Blocker, 1996; Muñoz-García, 2014), frequency of prayer
(Weigel, 1977), self-reported identification with a specific reli-
gion (Moyano-Díaz et al., 2011), and a severe vs. the benign
image of God (Greeley, 1993) has shown a negative effect on
4
Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088
concern for the natural environment (Steg and Vlek, 2009). In
this line, a negative influence of religion on sustainable behav-
iors may be associated with an anthropocentric worldview.
2. H2: Prosocial behaviors (PB) have a significant positive in-
fluence on sustainable behaviors (SB).
3. H3: Prosocial behaviors (PB) have a significant positive im-
pact on environmental perception and knowledge (EP).
Gärling et al. (2003) show prosocial behavior is the most dis-
tinctive aspect of altruistic sustainable behaviors. The prosocial
behavior prioritizes the wellbeing of others above that of oneself
(Gärling et al., 2003) and does not require sustainable behaviors
that are rooted in cooperation to be reciprocated (Sober et al.,
2000). An altruistic behavior can be considered sustainable if it
promotes to the wellbeing of people and the protection of the so-
cial and natural context (Ebreo et al., 1999). Agreeing to Corral-
Verdugo et al. (2008) and Corral - Verdugo (2012), this social
relevance in sustainable behavior is also reflected in the concept
of equity, in terms of the equality to make use of environmental
resources and the equal treatment of all people regardless of race,
gender, culture, and ethnic origin.
4. H4: Environmental perceptions and knowledge (EP) have a
significant positive influence on sustainable behaviors (SB).
Recognizing that human activities are altering the ecosystems
on which our life is dependent, and growing acknowledgment
of the need of achieving more sustainable development systems,
give credence to propositions made in terms of an important re-
view of our relationship with the environment (Milbrath, 1984;
Stern et al., 1992). Also, suggestions of a more ecologically-sound
worldview emerging have gained credibility (Olsen et al., 1992;
Oreskes, 2004). According to Oreskes (2004), an improvement
in the environmental crisis knowledge can promote sustainable
behaviors for the environment.
5. H5: Religiosity (RP) indirectly influences sustainable behav-
iors (SB), through prosocial behaviors (PB).
6. H6: Religiosity (RP) indirectly influences sustainable behav-
iors (SB) through environmental perception and knowledge
(EP).
7. H7: Religiosity (RP) indirectly influences sustainable behav-
iors (SB) through prosocial behaviors (PB) and environmen-
tal perceptions and knowledge (EP).
8. H8: Prosocial behaviors (PB) indirectly influences sustain-
able behaviors (SB) through environmental perceptions and
knowledge (EP).
According to Stern et al (1999) and Stern (2000), values may have
an indirect effect on specific sustainable behavior through the multiple
mediations of intervening variables in the causal chain of the models.
Researchers have been interested in testing the indirect effects in part of
the causal chain. For example, Nordlund and Garvill (2002) showed that
some variables mediated the path from general values and environmen-
tal values to sustainable behavior. Chua et al. (2016) observed that some
variables functioned as a mediator in the relationship between environ-
mental values and egoistic values. Few studies have contributed to as-
sessing direct and mediating effects in the entire causal chain with small
sample sizes from countries in Europe and Latin America (Lind et al.,
2015). This research expects that there exist multiple mediating rela-
tionships within the model.
3. Results
3.1. The Colombian case: Religiosity, prosocial behaviors, and sustainable
behaviors. Trends and historical patterns
In this section, we describe the results from the analysis of The World
Values Survey between 1997 and 2018 (Inglehart et al., 2014a; 2014b).
Regarding the temporal evolution of the questions and items selected
(Table 1), it is possible to identify:
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez
Fig. 1. Religiosity of Colombians (1998–2018). 1A – Importance of God, religion and religiosity among Colombian people. 1B – Religious denominations among
Colombian people. 1C – Attendance of religious services. Source: The World Values Survey (1997 to 2018).
a. Religiosity: Eight (8) questions from the WVS were analyzed for
the Colombian case, between 1998 and 2018 (Table 1, Fig. 1A).
For more than 80% of the Colombians surveyed, religion has re-
mained a very important element of their lives, as has the image
of God. Besides, between 73.8% and 84.6% of the respondents
consider themselves to be religious people. It is noteworthy how
the statements regarding formal participation in religious organi-
zations have been increasing for this period, from 17% for 1998,
to 49% and 38% for 2012 and 2018, respectively. Contradicto-
rily, the trust of those surveyed in churches and religious orga-
nizations has been decreasing from 82.7% in 1998 to 55.4% in
2018. On the other hand, the interest of parents to strengthen
values such as religious faith in their children has ranged from
35.5% in 1998, with a high peak in 2012 (60.3%) that decreased
to 46.6% in 2018 (Fig. 1A).
Roman Catholicism was the dominant religious denomination be-
tween 1998 and 2012 (86.3% and 61.3%, respectively). For 2018, an in-
teresting phenomenon occurs when the percentage of respondents who
declare themselves Roman Catholic decreases (39.4% for 2018) and
when the percentage of respondents who declare themselves agnostic
or not belonging to any religious denomination increases significantly
(46.5% for 2018). The increase, although to a lesser extent, of those
belonging to Christian, Protestant, and Evangelical religious denomina-
tions are also evident (Fig. 1B). Regarding the percentages of attendance
to rituals and religious meetings in Colombia, the trend of decreasing
frequencies declared between 1998 and 2018 is evident (Fig. 1C).
b. Prosocial behavior: Six (6) questions from the WVS were analyzed
for the Colombian case, between 1998 and 2018 (Table 1, Fig. 2).
For this period, only 25% of respondents (on average) acknowledge
that the government should take more responsibility to ensure that
everyone is provided for having better life conditions. Likewise, be-
tween 12.1% and 23.4% recognize that income should be more eq-
uitable in Colombia. Confidence in the national government has de-
creased from 53% in 2005 to 11.9% in 2018. The low participation
of respondents in humanitarian or charitable organizations has been
increasing from 3.1% in 2018, to 9.8 in 2018 (Fig. 2).
For 1998, 67.5% of those surveyed considered that claiming gov-
ernment benefits to which you are not entitled, is never justifiable; this
percentage decreases significantly for 2018 (47.9%). On the other hand,
in 1998, 64% of the respondents considered that evading taxes if you
5
Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088
have a chance is never justifiable (Fig. 2); this percentage increased for
2018 (73.2%).
c. Sustainable behavior: Three (3) questions from the WVS were an-
alyzed for the Colombian case, between 1998 and 2018 (Table 1,
Fig. 3). For this period, between 67% and 69.8% of the respondents
declared that protecting the environment should be a priority. Par-
ticipation in environmental organizations has been increasing very
timidly from 3.9% in 1998 to 11.2% in 2018. Contradictorily, trust
in environmental organizations has fallen from 70.8% in 1998 to
46% in 2018 (Fig. 3).
3.2. Relationships between religiosity, environmental perception and
knowledge, prosocial behavior, and sustainable behaviors in Colombia
a. Sample description: 334 surveys were fully completed. From this
sample, it is remarkable that:
1. 59% of the sample are females, while 41% are males.
2. 22% of the sample corresponds to Colombians between 26 and
30 years old; 17% are between 41 and 50 years old; and only 2%
are over 50 years old.
3. The sample is made up of representatives from 21 Colombian
provinces.
4. 27% of those surveyed reports the highest monthly income range
consulted (more than COP $4.500.000 a month), followed by the
lowest range (from COP $0 to COP $700.000 a month), with 22%.
5. 29% of those surveyed are professionals (complete university ed-
ucation); 13% are professionals with specialization, 10% have
finished high school, 7% have incomplete high school, 7% have
technical education and only 2% of them have a Ph.D.
6. 59% of those surveyed are single, followed by 24% that are mar-
ried.
7. 58% of those surveyed have no dependents, followed by 20% that
have only one dependent. Only 6% of those surveyed, have from
3 to 5 dependents.
8. For this survey, 51% reported being Roman Catholic, followed by
37% that reported being agnostic. 7% are Christian, and 1% are
Protestant; the final 4% reported other religious denominations
(Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, etc.). The trends analyzed from the
WVS (1998–2018) maintained a decrease toward the importance
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088

Fig. 2. Some aspects of prosocial behavior, between 1998–2018. Source: The World Values Survey (1997 to 2018).

Fig. 3. Some aspects of sustainable behavior, between 1998–2018. Source: The World Values Survey (1997 to 2018).

of the Roman Catholic religion in Colombia, and an increase of
agnostics.
9. 58% of respondents reported they attend religious events once a
year, followed by 34% that attend only on special holy days. Only
3% of them attend masses more than once a month. The trends
analyzed from the WVS (1998–2018) maintained a decrease to-
ward Colombians attendance to churches and religious centers.
Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurto-
sis of the measured variables and items. As shown in Table 2, the mean
of the variables varied from 1.838 to 4.775, the standard deviation fluc-
tuated from 0.526 to 1.516, the values of skewness oscillated from 0.112
to 2.791, and the value of kurtosis ranged from 1.552 to 7.599. Skewness
values were lower than 3 and kurtosis values were lower than 10 in this
study, which suggested that the research data met the requirement of

6
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of the survey items.

Selected questions and items Mean Standard Deviation (SD) Skewness Kurtosis

ID A. Religiosity
RP3 3. I am willing to help older, less favored or disabled people when they need it 4.095 0.850 -0.799 3.691
RP4 4. I always expose my good works to others 2.317 1.178 0.568 2.326
RP5 5. I make a continuous effort to increase my good works and donations 3.188 1.069 -0.188 2.366
RP6 6. I avoid actions, attitudes or opinions that go against my religious principles 2.679 1.429 0.259 1.732
RP7 7. I follow my religious standards in all the activities in which I participate 2.598 1.435 0.267 1.633
RP8 8. I make an effort to be pure 3.143 1.477 -0.270 1.679
RP9 9. I turn to my Holy Book for peace 1.838 1.209 1.311 3.587
RP10 10. I make an effort to fulfill the important contests of my religion. Eg, important 2.227 1.347 0.687 2.144
moments in religious formation, sacraments, etc.
RP11 11. I am involved in the religious work of my community 1.733 1.176 1.501 4.072
RP12 12. I make an effort to deepen my understanding of laws / norms / teachings / 2.026 1.288 0.920 2.531
precepts of my religion
RP13 13. I refer to the teachings of my Holy Book in my conversations and invite others to 1.757 1.100 1.248 3.399
follow the teachings
RP14 14. I try to establish good relationships with others 4.248 0.874 -1.125 3.880
RP15 15. I seek God’s help, before the help of others, when I face a difficulty 2.877 1.516 0.079 1.552
RP16 16. I keep all my promises 3.787 0.869 -0.508 3.071
RP17 17. I always thank people when they do something nice or good for me 4.637 0.664 -1.772 5.342
RP18 18. I treat my parents with respect and follow their example, even if I am angry 4.224 0.775 -1.030 4.493
with them.
RP19 19. I make sure that all the members of my family follow the teachings of my 2.176 1.347 0.701 2.118
religion
RP20 20. I apologize immediately if I’m wrong 3.904 0.972 -0.631 2.783
RP21 21. I easily forgive people when they hurt me. 3248 1.088 -0.266 2.544
RP22 22. I assume no one is perfect 4.407 0.917 -1.894 6.775
RP23 23. I avoid offending others in any way 3.883 1.014 -0.785 3.177
RP24 24. I do my best when I am assigned a job. 4.529 0.691 -1.635 6.530
RP25 25. I make an effort to remember death and the afterlife often 2.479 1.332 0.472 2.086

ID B. Prosocial Behavior
PB1 1. I use public buses, hallways, public places, etc., with care and respect 4.667 0.559 -1.461 4.160
PB2 2. Colombian society is unfair 4,377 0.694 -0.661 2.272
PB3 3. The Colombian political system does not operate as it should 4.502 0.742 -1.510 5.091
PB4 4. Not all Colombians have the opportunity to be happy and prosperous 4.344 0.729 -0.818 2.970
PB5 5. Is the fault of the system that most people do not progress 4.056 0.790 -0.100 1.612
PB6 6. The current social class differences are a reflection of the differences in the 4.317 0.763 -0.726 2.474
natural order of things.
PB7 7. I’m willing to donate money to the neediest people. 4.128 0.750 -0.214 1.803
PB8 8. The Honest work is a duty to society 4.269 0.696 -0.420 2.103

ID C. Environmental perceptions and knowledge

EP1 1. The ecological crisis is real 4.491 0.687 -1.660 7.533
EP2 2. Humans are abusing the earth, and environmental catastrophe will soon be 4.458 0.737 -1.500 5.780
experienced
EP3 3. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support 4.224 0.801 -0.635 2.441
EP4 4. The land has limited natural resources, and it is necessary to make better use of 4.467 0.708 -0.999 2.848
them
EP5 5. Despite science human beings are subject to the laws of nature 4.422 0.793 -1.551 5.945
EP6 6. Nature cannot cope with the Impacts of Industrial Development. 4.146 0.746 -0.244 1.825
EP7 7. It’s very important that people change their lifestyle to protect the environment 4.775 0.526 -2.791 7.012
EP8 8. Environmental problems are generated by economic growth 4.589 0.659 -1.843 7.597
EP9 9. Prevent pollution is more important than consumer goods production 4.619 0.677 -1.979 7.599
EP10 10. There must be controls on the industry to protect the environment 4.461 0.875 -1.954 7.010

ID C. Suatainable behaviours
SB1 1. How often do your shopping and food choices reflect environmental concerns? 3.637 0.912 -0.482 3.149
SB2 2. How often do you encourage government representatives to adopt policies that 2.820 1.339 0.112 1.813
are good for the environment?
SB3 3. How often do you seek to learn more about environmental problems and climate 4.083 1.059 -1.093 3.591
change or global warming?
SB4 4. I agree with a tax increase if the extra money is used to prevent environmental 4.101 0.810 -0.424 2.258
pollution.
SB5 5. I recycle paper, bottles and cans. 4.281 0.808 -0.792 2.675
SB6 6. I donate money to organizations that work for the environment. 3.380 1.223 -0.184 2.081
SB7 7. I reduce the use of electricity and gasoline consumption, to help the environment. 3.988 1.154 -1.242 3.791
SB8 8. I have ecological / green / sustainable / environmentally friendly consumption 3.934 0.956 -0.899 3.504
habits.

a multivariate normal distribution, and subsequent data analyses could
be conducted (Kline, 2011).
b. The Measurement Model: The Confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was first utilized to assess the fitness of the measurement model
to research data before examining the structural relationships among
variables (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The measurement model in-
cluded four (4) latent variables (Religiosity (RP), prosocial behavior
(PB), environmental perceptions and knowledge (EP), and sustainable
behavior (SB)); and 30 observed variables (Fig. 4). In the CFA, latent
variables were allowed to be freely correlated with each other, while

7
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088

Fig. 4. The four-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results of the measurement model.

observed variables were specified to load only on their respective latent Table 3
factors. The result of CFA showed that the measurement model fit the The standard factor loading of items and the reliability of the scales.
data well (𝜒2 = 996.680, df = 276, X2 /df =3.611; CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.91; Variables Measurement ItemsFactor LoadingCronbach’s
SRMR = 0.065; RMSEA = 0.067). (Wu, 2009; Muñoz-García and Villena-
RELIGIOSITY (RP) RP2 0.585 0.899
Martínez, 2020).
RP6 0.445
We tested the fitness of one alternative model with three-factors (1. RP7 0.617
Religiosity (RP); 2. prosocial behaviors (PB); and 3. environmental per- RP9 0.82
ceptions (EP), and sustainable behaviors (SB) together on one latent RP10 0.843
RP11 0.748
construct). The results of CFA indicated that for the Three-factor model
RP12 0.787
(𝜒2 = 2989.320, df = 276, X2 /df =10.830; CFI = 0.68; TLI = 0.69; RP13 0.785
SRMR = 0.132; RMSEA = 0.163), the fit index failed to meet the rec- RP15 0.698
ommended criteria (Wu, 2009). After the CFA analysis, Cronbach’s RP19 0.689
coefficients were computed to evaluate the internal reliability of the PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR (PB) PB2 0.621 0.611
measures. The results demonstrated that Cronbach’s coefficients of the PB3 0.465
scales fluctuated from 0.611 to 0.899, greater than the threshold of 0.6 PB4 0.473
(Loewenthal, 2001). The standard factor loading of all items and relia- PB5 0.392
PB7 0.391
bility estimates for the scales are listed in Table 3.
PB8 0.406
c. Structural model: SEM analysis was performed to test the hy-
pothesized relationships among values, RP, PB, EP, and SB. The anal- ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTIONS ANDEP1 0.428 0.636
KNOWLEDGE (EP)
ysis showed that the initial hypothesized model demonstrated satisfac-
EP4 0.392
tory fit to the data: 𝜒2 = 996.680, df = 276, X2 /df = 3.611; CFI = 0.91; EP5 0.495
TLI = 0.91; SRMR = 0.065; RMSEA = 0.067. Later, the statistical signif- EP6 0.395
icance of the path coefficients among the variables was explored. Only EP7 0.451
the paths from religiosity (RP) to prosocial behavior (PB); prosocial be- EP8 0.534
EP9 0.593
havior (PB) to sustainable behavior (SB); environmental perceptions and EP10 0.389
knowledge (EP) to sustainable behavior (SB), and prosocial behaviors
(PB) to environmental perception and knowledge (EP) are statistically SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIOR (SB) SB1 0.462 0.693
SB2 0.435
significant. Fig. 5 shows the SEM results of the model.
SB3 0.723
Specifically, the effect of religiosity (RP) on prosocial behavior (PB) SB5 0.612
is = 𝛽 -0.17 (t = -2.29, p < 0.05). The effects of prosocial behavior (PB) SB7 0.486
on EP and SB are = 𝛽 0.46 (t = 3.820, p < 0.05) and = 𝛽 0.26 (t = 2.19, SB8 0.492
p < 0.05), respectively. The effect of environmental perceptions and
knowledge (EP) on SB is = 𝛽 0.61 (t = 3.951, p < 0.05). Therefore, the
hypotheses of H2, H3 and H4 are supported, whereas H1 is not sup-
4. Discussion
ported.
Bootstrapping analysis was performed to test the mediating relation-
4.1. Religiosity, prosocial behaviors and sustainable behaviors. Trends and
ships existing in the causal chain of the model. The results revealed
historical patterns in Colombia
that religiosity (RP) (indirect effect = - 0.004, p < 0.05) yields an in-
direct effect through prosocial behaviors (PB) on sustainable behaviors
From the colonial period to the mid-twentieth century civil war,
(SB). The prosocial behaviors (PB) (indirect effect = 0.041, p < 0.05)
known as “The Violence,” the Roman Catholic Church remained Colom-
yields an indirect effect through environmental perception and knowl-
bia’s most powerful institution. Its effect was felt in all social spheres,
edge (EP) on sustainable behaviors (SB). Consequently, the hypothe-
including political, cultural, and educational. This impact was not lim-
sis of H5 and H8 is verified. The hypotheses H6 and H7 are only par-
ited to the public domain but extended to the private living space, guid-
tially supported. Table 4 shows the results of the mediation test using
ing, and regulating the Colombians’ lives. This social situation was re-
bootstrapping.
flected in the 1886 National Constitution, which in article 38 stated:

8
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088

Fig. 5. The structural equation modeling (SEM) results of the model.

Table 4 movements, as a whole, did not represent even 1% of the population

Mediation test using bootstrapping. (Beltrán, 2013). The new religious movements’ growth, particularly
Path Bootstrapping 95% Bias-Corrected CI p Value Protestantism branches, only became evident in the last decades of the
twentieth century. As pointed out by Stark and Iannaccone (1994) for
Indirect Effect Boot S. E. Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
the European case, in Colombia the religious pluralization process, in-
RP – PB –SB -0.004 0.002 -0.011 -0.001 0.027 stead of leading to religion decline, has fostered religious fervor among
RP– EP –SB 0.022 0.014 -0.005 0.065 0.086
certain social sectors, generating a competitive situation in which var-
RP–PB–EP–SB 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.010 0.068
PB–EP–SB 0.041 0.013 0.072 0.019 0.000 ious religious organizations are under pressure to multiply efforts and
better meet the religious needs of the faithful.
Although most religions offer reasons for prosocial and sustainable
action (Kearns, 1996; Khalid, 2002), these are not certainly translated
“The Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion is of the nation; the public
into individual action. According to the WVS (1998–2018), some proso-
authorities will protect it and make it respected as a social order essential
cial behaviors in Colombia, such as the government’s responsibility to
element.” (Beltrán, 2013).
improve living conditions of Colombians, the need for equitable income
Based on the World Values Survey between 1998 and 2018
and participation in humanitarian and charitable organizations, present
(Inglehart et al., 2014a; 2014b), more than 80% of respondents consider
very low percentages (Fig. 2). In this line, non-prosocial behaviors such
religion and the image of God to be very important in their lives. Addi-
as evading taxes and claiming government benefits you are not enti-
tionally, between 73.8% and 84.6% of respondents consider themselves
tled to, continue to present high percentages that justify these actions
religious people. The foregoing pieces of evidence demonstrate the con-
(between 30% and 50%).
temporary importance of religion and religiosity as a social-cultural ref-
The Mikusiński, et al., (2014) research indicates that many areas rec-
erence pattern for Colombians. However, there is evidence of a decrease
ognized as the most important for global biodiversity are in countries
in the importance of religion, with a significant decrease in trust regard-
that are dominated by Christianity and, more precisely, Catholicism and
ing churches and religious organizations. In addition to a significant de-
Orthodoxy. For the Colombian case, according to WVS (1998–2918),
crease in the Roman Catholic Church dominance, there is an increase in
there is an increase in the perception of environmental protection as
people who declare themselves agnostic or without a religious denomi-
a priority (Fig. 3). Despite the above, participation in environmental
nation, and a decrease in the attendance religious services (Fig. 2, and
organizations is low (11.2% for 2018), and trust in environmental or-
Fig. 3).
ganizations has decreased (from 70% in 1998, to 46% in 2018). These
According to Beltran (2013), in Colombia, the percentage of the
findings show contradictions between the feelings and actions when it
faithful who leave the Roman Catholic Church correlate as moderniza-
comes to environmental matters.
tion indicators grow. Currently, the faithful tend to be more oriented
Conventional religiousness and spirituality practice have a signifi-
according to tastes and preferences and depend less on the family tra-
cant influence over the sustainable behaviors of societies (Oman and
dition. In other words, religion is less “something that is inherited” and
Morello, 2018). On a personal level, religion and spirituality could
increasingly “something that is chosen.” This has allowed the moderniza-
enable sustainable behavior through their effect on individual values
tion, secularization, and urbanization of society, accompanied by the
(Saroglou and Muñoz, 2008), motivations and goals, lifestyles, and
expansion and growth of new religious offers. This social change was
moral identity (Rodríguez and Ramos, 2018). In these discussions, two
recorded in the 1991 National Constitution, which, unlike that of 1886,
opposed positions emerge: One that denies that it would be possible
does not privilege any church or religious confession. In its articles 18
that the religious faith would contribute to nature’s conservation, and
and 19, it guarantees conscience freedom, and adds: “No one shall be dis-
another, that finds in the religion, suggestions that it could promote en-
turbed because of his/her convictions or beliefs or compelled to reveal them
vironmental responsibility (Tarakeshwar et al., 2001).
or obliged to act against his/her conscience.” “Everyone has the right to freely
profess his/her religion and to disseminate it in an individual or a collective
form.” 4.2. Relationships between religiosity, prosocial behavior, environmental
Without contemplating indigenous practices, by 1960 the non- perception and knowledge and sustainable behaviors in Colombia
Catholic religious plurality in Colombia was fueled mostly by the var-
ious Protestant, Adventist, and Jehovah’s Witness communities, and Using SEM analysis, our empirical study shows that: (1) Prosocial
the even smaller Mormon, Islamic, and Jewish communities. These behaviors (PB) have a significant positive influence on sustainable be-

9
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez
haviors (SB); (2) environmental perceptions and knowledge (EP) have a
significant positive influence on sustainable behaviors (SB); (3) proso-
cial behaviors (PB) have a significant positive impact on environmental
perception and knowledge (EP). Contrary to what was expected, it was
found that religiosity (PR) has a negative and significant influence on
prosocial behaviors (PB). Furthermore, we also established that: (1) Re-
ligiosity (RP) indirectly influences sustainable behaviors (SB) through
prosocial behaviors (PB); (2) prosocial behaviors (PB) indirectly influ-
ences sustainable behaviors (SB) through environmental perceptions
and knowledge (EP).
a. Influence of religiosity on sustainable behaviors and proso-
cial behaviors: There are no significant and positive direct influences of
religiosity on sustainable behaviors. On the other hand, the negative in-
fluence of religiosity on prosocial behaviors draws much attention in this
case study. According to Hand and Van Liere (1984), Kearns (1996) and
Tadaki et al. (2017), academics’ debate whether, among traditional-
ist religious groups, the dominant relationship between religion and
the environment is positive or negative. In this regard, the evidence
in the literature is contradictory. For example, Schwartz and Huis-
mans (1995) found that the religiosity of devotees to Orthodox, Catholic,
Protestant, and Jewish faiths correlated positively with benevolence,
tradition, conformity and security values, and negatively with power,
achievement, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction. A meta-analysis
conducted in 2004 revealed that religious people rated highly on values
that stimulate protection of social and individual order (Saroglou et al.,
2004). More recently Shin and Preston (2019) developed three studies
(N = 1,389), finding that pro-environmental measures were positively
correlated with stewardship faith and negatively associated with domin-
ion belief, moderated by religiosity.
The results obtained in this research, apparently contradictory,
show a negative influence of religion on sustainable and proso-
cial behaviors. This agrees with the works of Weigel (1977), Hand
and Van Liere (1984), Shaiko (1987), Greeley (1993), Eckberg and
Blocker (1996), Steg and Vlek (2009), Moyano-Díaz et al. (2011), and
Muñoz-García (2014), when they state that especially Judaeo-Christian
religions has shown a negative effect on concern for the natural envi-
ronment.
On the other hand, our results can be related to the effects of other
complementary factors related to the religion professed. Van Riper et al.
(2017; 2019) illustrated how external factors (e.g., institutions, social
structures, etc.), and internal processes (e.g., opinions, passions, etc.)
relate to one another to inform how people understand nature. In this
line, a study by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Re-
search and researchers at Yale University showed that in spite of public
attention, only 40% of American Catholics “are aware of Pope Francis’s
efforts to emphasize global warming as a priority issue for the Catholic
Church,” and attitudes toward climate change were shown to be virtu-
ally unchanged (The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs
Research, 2015). Our point here is not that prosocial behaviors and sus-
tainable behaviors are uninfluenced by religiosity, but that the diffusion
of values is complex (Narayanan, 2001; Kidwell et al., 2018), and that
the religion is far too omnipresent as a socio-cultural phenomenon to
be ignored. This research shows, in the Colombian case, that religion
is pluriform and its relation with sustainable and prosocial behaviors is
possibly ambiguous.
The debate on the role of religions in sustainable behavior is not new
(Posey, 2000; Van Houtan, 2010; Mikusiński, et al., 2014) and many re-
ligions have already been involved in some pro-environmental action
(Bhagwat and Palmer, 2009; Mangunjaya, 2011). However, bigger par-
ticipation of religious communities in the biological conservation debate
and greater presence of sustainable issues in religious ethics could be
valuable for biodiversity. According to Christopher and Kidwell (2019),
additional efforts should be made to engage with religion for a practi-
cal reason, because such an engagement might enhance the community’s
adoptions of social and environmental values. Wilson (2006) stated: “Re-
ligion and science are the two most powerful forces in the world today. . . If
10
Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088
[they] could be united on the common ground of biological conservation, the
problem would soon be solved”.
Among the different religions, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox
Churches have the greatest potential to maintain sustainable behav-
iors, as they are the major religions in areas essential for global bio-
diversity. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, this potential
may be supported by the fact that it is central and thus the moral
guidance from its leaders could affect many people (Mikusiński, et al.,
2014). According to Shin and Preston (2019), the interpretation the
pro-environmental encyclical by Pope Francis increased the partic-
ipants’ belief in, and moralizing of, climate change. On the other
hand, Koehrsen (2015, 2017) and Geels and Schot (2007) investi-
gated how religion could theoretically operate as an instrument of
change and transitions (e.g., disseminating pro-environmental values).
In Colombia, although at present there is no significant participation
of the Church in environmental issues, the Roman Catholic religion
continues to be dominant, which constitutes an opportunity to en-
hance the role of this institution in shaping prosocial and sustainable
behaviors.
b. Influence of prosocial behaviors and environmental percep-
tions and knowledge on sustainable behaviors: At least in this
sample of Colombians surveyed, the prosocial behaviors and envi-
ronmental perception and knowledge are positively influencing the
configuration of sustainable behaviors in Colombia. These results are
in line with the theoretical proposals of Ebreo et al. (1999), Sober
et al. (2000), Gärling et al. (2003), Corral - Verdugo (2012), and the
findings of other contributions (for other countries), such as that of
Morrison et al. (2015), who revealed that relationships between reli-
gious affiliation and environmental attitude can be spurious and simply
reflect the effect of other socio-demographic and attitudinal variables.
In the same way, Chaves (2010) insists that we should not anticipate
tight coupling between religious institutional codes, personal beliefs,
and personal actions. Also, in line with our results, where religiosity
does not have the expected impact (theoretically) on sustainable be-
haviors, Narayanan (2001) cautions against overstating religious values
as an influencing behavior.
For the Colombian case, our results suggest that, for religious orga-
nizations that want to take environmental matters more seriously, it is
not enough to provide beliefs and principles; they should also promote
aptitudes, practices, and habits that are transferable outside religious
settings. According to Botero et al. (2014), the emergent picture is nei-
ther one of pure cultural diffusion, nor of simple ecological determinism,
but rather a complex combination of social, cultural, and environmental
effects.
On the other hand, our results show that environmental perceptions
and knowledge have a significant positive influence on sustainable be-
haviors. This in line with the theoretical proposals of Milbrath (1984),
Olsen et al. (1992), Stern et al. (1992), and Oreskes (2004). Although
the results indicate that Environmental knowledge is likely to increase
sustainable behaviors, the correct method of expanding knowledge is
not clear. According to Lenzen et al. (2012), Maxwell et al. (2016) and
Driscoll et al. (2018), human behavior is the most important driver of
biodiversity decrease and extinction. Modifying this trajectory requires
changing those behaviors with the biggest impact on biodiversity and
sustainability (Schultz, 2011; Steg and Vlek, 2009). The human behav-
iors that influence sustainable results are multidimensional, requiring
different types of engagement from a range of different stakeholders
(Larson et al., 2015). Our results also have important practical implica-
tions for educational programs design and environmental policymaking
in inner Colombia. Given the direct and mediation effects of EP and
PB on SB verified in this study, Colombian’ sustainable behaviors can
be promoted directly by strengthening altruistic values and individual
norms.
According to Dietz et al. (2009), an effective behavior change Colom-
bian program would incorporate multiple actions and include interven-
tions and messaging that strategically target audiences and their barriers
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez
to behavior change, whether they be structural, psychological, technical
(Heberlein, 2012), or some combination of these.
5. Conclusions
The results of this first research, in the Colombian case, reiterate and
provide empirical support to earlier theoretical studies that have pointed
out the contribution of religiosity and spirituality to sustainability and
prosocial behaviors. For this case, we show that acting sustainably is
not just a question of belief or unbelief, nor of being religious, spiritual,
or atheist. It is necessary to develop an improved knowledge about the
mechanisms and processes that clarify the interactions between religion
and sustainable behaviors.
It is also clear that, for this case, prosocial behaviors in combination
with environmental perception and knowledge have a clear influence
on sustainable behaviors. Colombia is a country of Roman Catholic ma-
jority and, although religion has been losing its historical importance,
it is still a determining factor in the Colombian society’s behavior. In
this sense, religious institutions have the challenge and the opportunity
to enhance their role in prosocial and sustainable behaviors shaping.
Working on processes, mechanisms, and strategies that allow promot-
ing prosocial behaviors and increasing environmental knowledge is an
additional challenge for Colombian institutions.
Declaration of Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We want to thank all the Colombians who contributed with their
responses to the survey. In addition, to the World Values Survey project
for the generation of key information to answer this research questions
about Colombian values and behaviors.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.envc.2021.100074.
References
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modelling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 3, 411–423.
Andrade, G., 2011. Estado del conocimiento de la biodiversidad en Colombia y sus
amenazas. Consideraciones para fortalecer la interacción ciencia-política. Rev. Acad.
Colomb. Cienc. 137, 491–507.
Armenteras, D., Cabrera, E., Rodríguez, N., Retana, J., 2013. National and regional deter-
minants of tropical deforestation in Colombia. Reg. Environ. Change 13, 1181–1193.
Armenteras, D., Espelta, J.M., Rodríguez, N., Retana, J., 2017. Deforestation dynam-
ics and drivers in different forest types in Latin America: Three decades of studies
(1980–2010). Glob. Environ. Change. 46, 139–147.
Armenteras, D., Rodríguez, N., Retana, J., Morales, M., 2011. Understanding deforestation
in montane and lowland forests of the Colombian Andes. Reg. Environ. Change. 11,
693–705.
Azimi, A.L., Vaziri, S., Kashani, F.L., 2012. Relationship between Maternal Parenting
Style and Child’s Aggressive Behavior. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci 69, 1276–1281.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.062.
Bailey, J.M., Sood, J., 1993. The effects of religious affiliation on consumer behavior: A
preliminary investigation. J. Manag. Issues. 3, 328–352.
Baugh, A.J., 2019. Explicit and embedded environmentalism. challenging normativities in
the greening of religion. Worldviews: global religions. Culture, and Ecology. 23 (2),
93–112. doi:10.1163/15685357-02301002.
Beltrán, W.M., 2013. Pluralización Religiosa y Cambio Social En Colombia. Theologica
xaveriana 63 (175)), 0120–3649 57-85. issn.
Bhagwat, S.A., Palmer, M., 2009. Conservation: the world’s religions can help. Nature 461,
37.
Botero, C.A., Gardner, B., Kirby, K.R., Bulbulia, J., Gavin, M.C., Gray, R.D., 2014. The
ecology of religious beliefs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111 (47), 16784–16789.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1408701111.
11
Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088
Chadid, M., Dávalos, L., Molina, J., Armenteras, D.A., 2015. Bayesian spatial model high-
lights distinct dynamics in deforestation from coca and pastures in an andean biodi-
versity hotspot. Forests. 6, 3828–3846.
Chaves, M.A., 2010. SSSR Presidential Address. Rain dances in the dry season: overcoming
the religious incongruence fallacy. J. Sci. Study. Relig. 49, 1–14.
Christopher, I.D., Kidwell, J., 2019. Religion and social values for sustainability. Sustain.
Sci. 14, 1355–1362. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00657-0.
Chua, K.B., Quoquab, F., Mohammad, J., Basiruddin, R., 2016. The mediating role of
new ecological paradigm between value orientations and pro-environmental personal
norm in the agricultural context. Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist. 28, 323–349.
Cook, C.C.H., 2004. Addiction and spirituality. Addiction 99, 539–551.
doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00715.x.
Corral-Verdugo, V., 2012. The positive psychology of sustainability. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
14, 651–666.
Corral, V., Pinheiro, J., 2004. Aproximaciones al estudio de la conducta sustentable. Medio
Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano 5, 1–26.
Corral-Verdugo, V., Montiel-Carbajal, M.M., Sotomayor-Petterson, M., Frías-Armenta, M.,
Tapia-Fonllem, C., Sing, F.B., 2011. Psychological wellbeing as correlate of sustainable
behaviors. Int. J. Hisp. Psychol. 8, 31–44.
Corral-Verdugo, V., Tapia-Fonllem, C., Fraijo-Sing, B., Mireles-Acosta, J., Márquez-Ul-
loa, P., 2008. Orientación a la sustentabilidad como determinante de los estilos de vida
sustentables: Un estudio con una muestra mexicana. Rev. Mex. Psicol. 25, 313–327.
de Jager Meezenbroek, E., Garssen, B., van den Berg, M., van Dierendonck, D.,
Visser, A., Schaufeli, W.B., 2010. Measuring spirituality as a universal human ex-
perience: a review of spirituality questionnaires. J. Relig. Health 51 (2), 336–354.
doi:10.1007/s10943-010-9376-1.
Dietz, T., Gardner, G.T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P.C., Vandenbergh, M.P., 2009. Household
actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 18452–18456.
Djupe, P.A., Hunt, P.K., 2009. Beyond the Lynn White thesis: Congregational effects on
environmental concern. J. Sci. Study. Relig. 48 (4), 670–686.
Driscoll, D.A., Bland, L.M., Bryan, B.A., Newsome, T.M., Nicholson, E., Ritchie, E.G., Do-
herty, T.S., 2018. A biodiversity- crisis hierarchy to evaluate and refine conservation
indicators. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 775–781.
Dunlap, R.E., 1995. Public opinion and environmental policy. In: Lester, J.P. (Ed.), Envi-
ronmental Politics and Policy. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 63–114 2nd
ed..
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., 1978. The “new environmental paradigm”: a proposed mea-
suring instrument and preliminary results. J. Environ. Educ. 9, 10–19.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., 1984. Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and
concern for environmental quality. Soc. Sci. Q. 65, 1013–1028.
Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., Vining, J., 1999. Reducing solid waste: Linking recycling to envi-
ronmentally responsible consumerism. Environ. Behav. 31, 107–135.
Eckberg, D.L., Blocker, T.J., 1996. Christianity, environmentalism and the theoretical
problem of fundamentalism. J. Sci. Study. Relig. 35, 343–355.
Ester, P., Seuren, B., 1992. Religious beliefs and environmental attitudes: an empirical test
of the Lynn White hypothesis in four- teen nations. Soc. Wetenschap. 35, 20–39.
Etter, A., McAlpine, C., Wilson, K., Phinn, S., Possingham, H., 2006. Regional patterns
of agricultural land use and deforestation in Colombia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114,
369–386.
Feygina, I., Jost, J.T., Goldsmith, R., 2010. System justification, the denial of global warm-
ing, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change. PERS. SOC. PSYCHOL. B. 36,
326–338.
Gärling, T., Fujii, S., Gärling, A., Jakobsson, C., 2003. Moderating effects of social value
orientation on determinants of proenvironmental behavior intention. J. Environ. Psy-
chol. 23, 1–9.
Geels, F.W., Schot, J., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition path-ways. Res. Policy.
36, 399–417. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
George, L.K., Larson, D.B., Koenig, H.G., McCullough, M.E., 2000. Spirituality and
health: What we know, what we need to know. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 19, 102–116.
doi:10.1521/jscp.2000.19.1.102.
Greeley, A., 1993. Religion and Attitudes toward the Environment. J. Sci. Study. Relig.
32, 19–28.
Gorsuch, R.L., Mylvaganam, G., Gorsuch, K., 1997. Perceived religious motivation. Int. J.
Psychol. Relig. 7 (4), 253–261. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0704_6.
Hadaway, C.K., LongMarler, P., Chaves, M.A., 1993. What the Polls Don’t Show: A Closer
Look at U.S. Church Attendance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 58, 741–751.
Haluza-Delay, R., 2014. Religion and climate change: varieties in viewpoints and practices.
Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change. 5, 261–279. doi:10.1002/wcc.268.
Hand, C.M., Van Liere, K.D., 1984. Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental con-
cern. Soc. Forces. 63, 555–570.
Hansen, J., 2004. Defusing the global warming time bomb. Sci. Am. 290, 68–77.
Hayes, B.C., Marangudakis, M., 2000. Religion and Environmental Issues within An-
glo-American Democracies. Rev. Relig. Res. 42, 159–174.
Heberlein, T.A., 2012. Navigating environmental attitudes. Conserv. Biol. 26, 583–585.
Hill, P.C., 2005. Measurement in the psychology of religion and spirituality: Current status
and evaluation. In: Paloutzian, RF, Park, CL (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of
Religion and Spirituality. The Guilford Press, London, pp. 43–61.
Huckfeldt, R.R., Sprague, J., 1995. Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Informa-
tion and Influence in an Election Campaign. Cambridge University Press.
Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., La-
gos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., Puranen, B. (Eds.), 2014a. World Values Survey:
Round Six - Country-Pooled Datafile Version, eds.. JD Systems Institute, Madrid
https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp.
Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., La-
gos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., Puranen, B. (Eds.), 2014b. World Values Survey:
C.A.R. Agudelo and A.M. Cortes-Gómez
All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile Version, eds.. JD Systems Institute, Madrid
https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp.
Jelen, T.G., 1992. Political christianity: a contextual analysis. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 36 (3),
692–714.
Jerolmack, C., Khan, S., 2014. Talk is cheap: ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy.
Sociol. Methods. Res. 43, 178–209.
Jost, J.T., Thompson, E.P., 2000. Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as in-
dependent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among
African Americans and European Americans. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 36 (3), 209–232.
doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1403.
Kay, A.C., Jost, J.T., 2003. Complementary justice: Effects of "poor but happy" and "poor
but honest" stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the
justice motive. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 85 (5), 823–837.
Kearns, L., 1996. Saving the Creation: Christian Environmentalism in the United States.
Sociol. Relig. 57, 55–70.
Khalid, F.M., 2002. Islam and the environment. Soc. Econ. Dimens. Global Environ.
Change 332–339.
Kidwell, J., Ginn, F., Northcott, M., Bomberg, E., Hague, A., 2018. Christian cli-
mate care: slow change, modesty and eco-theo-citizenship. Geo. Geograph. Environ.
doi:10.1002/geo2.59.
Kirchmaier, I., Prüfer, J., Trautmann, S.T., 2018. Religion, moral attitudes and economic
behavior. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 148, 282–300. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2018.02.022.
Kline, R.B., 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed. The
Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA.
Koehrsen, J., 2015. Does religion promote environmental sustainability? —Explor-
ing the role of religion in local energy transitions. Soc. Compass. 62, 296–310.
doi:10.1177/0037768615587808.
Koehrsen, J., 2017. Religious agency in sustainability transitions: between experimen-
tation, upscaling, and regime support. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 27, 4–15.
doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.09.003.
Kuhlman, T., Farrington, J., 2010. What is Sustainability? Sustainability. 2, 3436–3448.
Larson, L.R., Stedman, R.C., Cooper, C.B., Decker, D.J., 2015. Understanding the multi-di-
mensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 43, 112–124.
Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Foran, B., Lobefaro, L., Geschke, A., 2012. Interna-
tional trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112.
Lind, H.B., Nordfjærn, T., Jørgensen, S.H., Rundmo, T., 2015. The value-belief-norm the-
ory, personal norms and sustainable travel mode choice in urban areas. J. Environ.
Psychol. 44, 119–125.
Lizardo, O., 2017. Improving cultural analysis considering personal culture in its declar-
ative and nondeclarative modes. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82, 88–115.
Loewenthal, K.M., 2001. An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales, 2nd ed. Psy-
chology Press, Hove, UK.
Mangunjaya, F.M., 2011. Developing environmental awareness and conservation through
Islamic teaching. J. Islam. Stud. 22, 36–49.
Martin, J.L., 2010. Life’s a Beach but You’re an Ant, and Other Unwelcome News for the
Sociology of Culture. Poetics 38, 229–244.
Mathras, D., Cohen, A.B., Mandel, N., Glen Mick, D., 2015. The effects of religion on con-
sumer behavior: a conceptual framework and research agenda. J. Consum. Psychol.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.08.001.
Maxwell, S.L., Fuller, R.A., Brooks, T.M., Watson, J.E.M., 2016. Biodiversity: the ravages
of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145.
Mikusiński, G., Possingham, H.P., Blicharska, M., 2014. Biodiversity priority areas and
religions - a global analysis of spatial overlap. Oryx 48 (1), 17–22.
Milbrath, L.W., 1984. Environmentalists: Vanguard for a new society. State University of
New York Press, Albany, NY.
Miller, W.R., Thoresen, C.E., 2003. Spirituality, religion, and health—an emerging re-
search field. Am. Psychol. 58, 24–35. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.24.
Moberg, D.O., 2002. Assessing and measuring spirituality: Confronting dilem-
mas of universal and particular evaluative criteria. J. Adult. Dev 9, 47–60.
doi:10.1023/A:1013877201375.
Morrison, M., Duncan, R., Parton, K., 2015. Religion Does Matter for Climate Change
Attitudes and Behavior. PLoS. ONE. 10 (8), 1–16.
Moyano-Díaz, E., Cornejo, F.A., Gallardo, I., 2011. Creencias y conductas ambientales,
liberalismo económico y felicidad. Acta Colomb. Psicol. 14, 69–77.
Muldoon, M., King, N., 1995. Spirituality, health care, and bioethics. J. Relig. Health. 34,
329–349. doi:10.1007/BF02248742.
Muñoz-García, A., 2014. Religion and Environmental Concern in Europe. Arch. Psychol.
Relig. 36, 323–343.
Muñoz-García, A., Villena-Martínez, M.D., 2020. Sustainable behavior among spanish uni-
versity students in terms of dimensions of religion and spirituality. Sustainability 12,
470. doi:10.3390/su12020470.
Murray, R.B., Zenter, J.B., 1989. Nursing Concepts for Health Promotion. Prentice-Hall,
London.
Narayanan, V., 2001. Water, wood, and wisdom: ecological perspectives from Hindu tra-
ditions. Daedalus 4, 179–206.
Nordlund, A.M., Garvill, J., 2002. Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior.
Environ. Behav. 34, 740–756.
Olsen, M.E., Lodwick, D.G., Dunlap, R.E., 1992. Viewing the World Ecologically. West-
view, Boulder, CO.
Oman, D., Morello-Frosch, R., 2018. Environmental Health Sciences, Religion, and Spir-
ituality. In: Oman, D. (Ed.), Religion, Spirituality and Health: A Social Scientific Ap-
proach, Ed.. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland 139 152.
Oreskes, N., 2004. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306, 1686.
Pargament, K.I., Mahoney, A., Exline, J.J., Jones, J.W., Shafranske, E.P., 2013. Envision-
ing an integrative paradigm for the psychology of religion and spirituality. In: APA
12
Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100088
Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality (Vol.1): Context, Theory, and Re-
search, 2013. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3–19.
Pew Research Centre., 2017. The changing global religious landscape.
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-lands cape/.
Accessed 12 Feb 2019.
Pihkala, P., 2018. Death, the environment, and theology. DIALOG
doi:10.1111/dial.12437.
Posey, D.A., 2000. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, ed. Intermediate Tech-
nology, London, UK.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods. 40,
879–891.
Robina Ramírez, R., Pulido Fernández, M., 2018. Religious travellers’ improved attitude
towards nature. sustainability, MDPI. Open Access J. 10 (9), 1–23.
Rodríguez-Rad, C.J., Ramos-Hidalgo, E., 2018. Spirituality, consumer ethics, and sustain-
ability: The mediating role of moral identity. J. Consum. Mark. 35, 51–63.
Sabbaghi, O., Cavahangh, G.G., 2015. Jesuit, catholic, and green: evidence from Loyola
University Chicago. J. Bus. Ethics. 127, 317–326.
Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., Dernelle, R., 2004. Values and religiosity: a meta-
analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personal. Individ. Differ. 37, 721–734.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.005.
Saroglou, V., Muñoz, A., 2008. Individual differences in religion and spirituality: an issue
of personality traits and/or values. J. Sci. Stud. Relig. 47, 83–101.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J.A., Fokes, C., Walker, B., 2001. Catastrophic shifts in
ecosystems. Nature 413, 591–596.
Schultz, P.W., 2011. Conservation means behavior. Conserv. Biol. 25, 1080–1083.
Schwartz, S.H., Huismans, S., 1995. Value priorities and religiosity in four western reli-
gions. Soc. Psychol. Q. 58, 88–107.
Shaiko, R.G., 1987. Religion, politics and environmental concern. Soc. Sci. Q. 68, 244–262.
Shin, F., Preston, J.L., 2019. Green as the Gospel: The Power of Stewardship Messages
To Improve Climate Change Attitudes. Psycholog. Relig. Spiritual. Advance online
publication doi:10.1037/rel0000249.
Sober, E., Wilson, D.S., 2000. Altruistic Behavior. Evolution and Psychology. In El Compor-
tamiento Altruista. Evolución y Psicología; Siglo XXI Editores: Madrid, Spain, 2000.
Spreen, M., 1992. Rare populations, hidden populations and link-tracing designs: What
and why? Psycholog. Relig. Spiritual 36 (1), 34–58.
StataCorp, 2017. Stata Statistical Software: Release15. College Station. StataCorp LLC, TX.
Stark, R., Iannaccone, L., 1994. A Supply-Side Reinterpretation of the ‘Secularization’ of
Europe. Bull. Methodol. Sociol. 33 (3), 230–252.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review
and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317.
Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J.
Soc. Issues 56, 407–424.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L.A., 1999. value-belief-norm theory
of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6,
81–97.
Tadaki, M., Sinner, J., Chan, K.M.A., 2017. Making sense of environmental values: a ty-
pology of concepts. Ecol. Soc. 22, 7.
Tarakeshwar, N., Swank, A.B., Pargament, K.I., Mahoney, A., 2001. The sanctification
of nature and theological conservatism: a study of opposing religious correlates of
environmentalism. Rev. Relig. Res. 42, 387–404.
The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research., 2015. Speaking out on
global warming: public attitudes toward the papal encyclical on climate change.
http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/speakingout-on-global-warming-public-
attitudes-toward-the-papal-encyclical-on-climate-change.aspx. Accessed Feb. 2020.
Tjernström, E., Tietenberg, T., 2008. Do differences in attitudes explain differences in
national climate change policies? Ecol. Econ 65, 315–324.
Vaidyanathan, B., Khalsa, S., Ecklund, H.E., 2018. Naturally ambivalent: religion’s role in
shaping environmental action. Sociol. Relig 79 (4), 472–494.
Vaisey, S., 2009. Motivation and justification: a dual-process model of culture in action.
Am. J. Sociol. 114, 1675–1715.
Van Buren, H.J., Greenwood, M., 2013. The genesis of employment ethics. J. Bus. Ethics.
117, 707–719.
Van Houtan, K.S., 2010. Conservation, biology, and religion. In: Sodhi, N., Ehrlich, P.R.
(Eds.), Conservation Biology for All. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, p. 270.
van Riper, J.C., Landon, A.C., Kidd, S., Bitterman, P., Fitzgerald, L.A., Granek, E.F.,
Ibarra, S., Iwaniec, D., Raymond, C.M., Toledo, D., 2017. Incorporating sociocultural
phenomena into ecosystem-service valuation: the importance of critical pluralism.
Bioscience 67 (3), 233–244. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw170.
Van Riper, C.J., Winkler-Schor, S., Stamberger, L., Keller, R., Braito, M., Raymond, C.M.,
Eriksson, M., Golebie, E., Johnson, D., 2019. Integrating multi-scale values and pro-en-
vironmental behavior in a protected area. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1395–1408.
Vaughan, F., 1991. Spiritual issues in psychotherapy. J. T.P. 23, 105–119.
Wald, K.D., Owen, D.E., Hill, S.S., 1988. Churches as political communities. Am. Polit. Sci.
Rev. 82 (2), 531–548.
Webster, P.J., Holland, G.J., Curry, J.A., Chang, H.R., 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone
number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309, 1844–1846.
Weigel, R., 1977. Ideological and demographic correlates of proecology behavior. J. Soc.
Psychol. 103, 39–47.
Wilson, E.O., 2006. The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. Norton, New York,
USA.
Wu, M., 2009. Structural Equation Model: Operation and Application of AMOS. Chongqing
University Press, Chongqing, China, p. 2009.
Zimmerman, J.L., Reyna, C., 2013. The meaning and role of ideology in system justifica-
tion and resistance for high-and low-status people. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105, 1–23.
doi:10.1037/a0032967.