Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 1, 2017

39

Role of Climate Change Awareness and Pro-Environmental Behaviour in

Subjective Wellbeing
By: JohnBosco Chika Chukwuorji, Steven Kator Iorfa, Thaddeus Chidi Nzeadibe, and Chuka Mike Ifeagwazi

ABSTRACT: This study examined the contributions of climate change awareness and pro-environmental
behaviour in subjective wellbeing (SWB) of university students. Respondents were 435 students (female
=198, male =237), selected from University of Nigeria (Nsukka and Enugu campuses). The average
respondent’s age was 21.48 years (SD = 3.54) ranging from 16 to 38 years. They completed the
Multidimensional Climate Change Awareness Questionnaire, Pro-ecological Behaviour Scale and the
Brief Inventory of Thriving. Climate change awareness is composed of domains: mitigation,
consequences, general knowledge and causes. Hierarchical multiple regression using the step-wise method
was used in analyzing the data. It was found that only the mitigation domain of climate change awareness
significantly and positively predicted SWB (β = .15, t = 2.68, p< .01). Other domains showed positive
correlations with SWB but did not significantly predict it. Pro-environmental behaviour positively
predicted SWB (β = .19, t = 6.18, p < .001). The findings were consistent with recent developments in
environmental and positive psychology indicating the reciprocity between the natural environment and
human welfare. Implications were drawn across research, education, practice and policy frameworks.

Keywords: climate change, awareness, mitigation, pro-environmental behaviour, subjective wellbeing, policy

Introduction
Scholars (Myers & Diener, 1995; Ryff, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Dolan & White, 2007) have defined subjective
wellbeing as a pleasant emotional experience, virtue or holiness, actualization of human potential, subjective evaluation
of life in positive terms, global sense of satisfaction with life and optimal psychological functioning. Covering a wide
range of concepts, subjective wellbeing (SWB) does not just imply the absence of negative feelings but the
personal/subjective experiences of more positive feelings over the negative ones. Subjective wellbeing actually includes
an individual’s cognitive judgment of how satisfied he or she is with life from birth to present; or with specific areas of
their life. These are known as global assessments of life satisfaction and domain specific life satisfaction respectively
(Cooke, Melchert & Connor, 2016; Diener, et al., 2010; Western & Tomaszewski, 2016). The basic components
identified in the measurement of subjective wellbeing include life evaluation (Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffin, 1985)
affect (Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999), and eudaimonia (psychological flourishing) (Waterman, et al., 2010).
As a representative of good mental states, subjective wellbeing includes all of the various evaluations, positive
and negative, that people make of their lives and the affective reactions of people to their experiences (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, 2013). In the present study, SWB is conceptualized as the individual’s
evaluation of their general level of thriving and life satisfaction. Thriving represents a shift towards wellbeing. It is
acknowledging the presence of wellbeing yet, not denying the possible presence of ill-being. Thus an individual is said to
be thriving when he/she makes effort aimed at achieving optimal wellbeing.
Life evaluations capture a reflective assessment on a person’s life or some specific aspect of it. This can be an
assessment of “life as a whole” or something more focused. Such assessments are the result of subjective judgments by
the individual rather than the description of an emotional state. Pavot and Diener (1993) describe the process of making
an evaluation of this sort as involving the individual constructing a “standard” that they perceive as appropriate for
themselves, and then comparing the circumstances of their life to that standard.
The rise in studies and attention given to the phenomena of subjective wellbeing coincided with the move in
psychology known as positive psychology. This and other surrounding circumstances have made the study of subjective
wellbeing a legitimate area of enquiry in psychology and other related disciplines. In particular, there is a substantial
literature focused on the concept of good psychological functioning, sometimes also referred to as flourishing or
eudaimonic well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Su, Tay & Diener, 2014). The current research, situated in environmental
psychology, examines the contributions of climate change awareness and pro-environmental behaviour in subjective
wellbeing of university undergraduates.
Climate change, the first predictor variable of interest in this study, refers to a change which is attributable
directly or indirectly to human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere and which are in addition to
natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC, 1992). Current global climate change is one of the most serious environmental threats to human
mental health and general quality of life. Researches cutting across the field of environmental psychology, geography
and other environmental sciences have explored the relationships between climate change and human health and
wellbeing. Most of these researches however, have paid more attention to the physical health and wellbeing ignoring the
mental health aspects of wellbeing. Consequently, there is a large dearth of literature concerning climate change
awareness in itself and its relationship with subjective wellbeing or wellbeing in general. However, taking climate
change to be one of the most prevailing current environmental risks (Odjugo, 2013), the review will cut across awareness
and perception of risk and wellbeing.
Climate change effects on human beings have ranged from disasters, loss of property and lives, internal
displacements, etc. (see Chukwuorji & Iorfa, 2014). Moreover, mental health impacts of climate change are being felt
Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 1, 2017
40

such as climate change induced-traumas (see Onyishi, 2012), depression, anxiety, etc. (see Chukwuorji, Ifeagwazi &
Iorfa, 2015). The knowledge and perception of these effects and not necessarily the effects in themselves would also
have considerable effects on individual’s wellbeing. Unfortunately, researchers across Nigeria, have shown that majority
of the Nigerian populace seem to be unaware of the causes and consequences of climate change (e.g., Nzeadibe, Egbule,
Chukwuone & Agu, 2011; Odjugo, 2011; 2013).
Upham, Whitmarsh, Poortinga, Purdam, Darnton, McLachlan and Devine–Wright (2009) reported that
environmental risk perception vary by experience, broader environmental values/beliefs, demographic and other factors.
Thus it is expected that in observing the change in subjective wellbeing of individuals due to awareness of risks, other
factors should be accounted for. In a research by Rishi and Mudaliar (2014), significant positive correlation was found
between climate change awareness and emotional anxiety which indicated that the more respondents gained knowledge
and awareness regarding climate change, the greater the chances of their becoming more emotionally anxious about the
situation with consequences on their perceived satisfaction with life. In another research by Di Tella and MacCulloch
(2008), using data from around 350,000 people between 1975 and 1997, SWB was found to be negatively affected by
awareness of environmental degradation. Welsch (2002) used cross-sectional data from 54 countries and identified a
negative impact of the awareness of urban air pollution (measured as nitrogen dioxide levels) on SWB.
The second variable that can predict subjective well-being in this study is pro-environmental behaviour (PEB).
Broadly defined, pro-environmental behaviour is all types of behaviour that change the availability of materials or
energy from the environment or alter the structure and dynamics of ecosystems or the biosphere (see Stern, 2000). It
refers to a behaviour which consciously seeks to minimise the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural or built
world (Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002), or even benefits the environment (Steg & Vlek, 2009). Examples of such behaviour
include minimising resource and energy consumption, and the use and disposal of toxic substances and waste (Whitburn,
2014). Engaging in pro-environmental behaviour is associated with not just conservation of the natural environment but
gains to personal wellbeing (e.g., Brown & Kasser, 2005). Thus it is only reasonable that humans should engage in
behaviour that preserves the earth on which they live even if it were not threatened by climate change. It is expedient that
people thrive to engage in environmental friendly and preserving behaviours at a time when the earth’s climate is
adversely changing and human health and security is being threatened.
Reviews on pro-environmental behaviour and subjective wellbeing consistently highlight the complexity
involved in determining the relationship between the two variables. Pro-environmental behaviour is a product of both
internal (psychological) and external (social, economic, physical, etc.) factors. Thus the concept has been investigated
through the role of the physical/natural environment in a person’s identity (Clayton & Opotow, 2003), people’s
emotional attachment to the physical and natural environment (Mayer & Frantz, 2004), the extent to which a person sees
himself/herself as part of nature (Schultz, 2002), as a combination of affective, cognitive and experiential aspects
(Nisbet, Zelensky & Murphy, 2009) and as an attitude/behavioural intentions and observable behaviour (Brügger, Kaiser
& Roczen, 2011).
Researchers have focused on the determinants of PEB (see McDonald, 2014), but one goal of environmental
psychology is also to understand the psychological consequences of pro-environmental actions. Some authors suggest
that participating in behaviour that benefits the environment can be associated with personal cost and deprivation, which
implies a certain loss of personal happiness (e.g., Brown & Kasser, 2005; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). However, Bamberg
and Möser (2007) proposed an integrative model where PEB is driven by a combination of both self-interest and pro-
social motives. People with a more anthropocentric orientation may take action to protect the environment but are
motivated by nature’s value in enhancing the quality of life for humans. The values underlying anthropocentrism are
more human centred and utilitarian (Whitburn, 2014). Brown and Kasser (2005) found a positive relationship between
subjective wellbeing and ecologically responsible behaviour. This is confirmed by other studies, such as those by De
Young (1996, 2000), who found that environmentally responsible behaviours provide intrinsic satisfaction, improving
personal well-being. Empirical evidence also suggests that involvement in environmental activism improves individual’s
well-being (Sohr, 2001; Eigner, 2001).
In Whitburn’s (2014) study, people who participated in the RRP scheme also reported higher levels of mental
health. This is supported also by Bechtel & Corral-Verdugo's (2010) findings that happiness was higher in those who
practiced environmentally sustainable behaviour. Miles, et al. (1998) studied the psychological benefits of volunteering
in a Chicago-based, prairie ecological restoration project. Those who were regularly involved had higher levels of life
satisfaction and life functioning than those involved less often. The psychological benefits that rated most highly were
being involved in a meaningful activity and fascination with nature. Pillemer, et al.'s (2010) 20-year epidemiological
study found that mid-life volunteering in environmental projects correlated with better self-reported health and fewer
depressive symptoms. In Kingsley, Townsend and Henderson-Wilson’s (2009) study of Australian community gardens,
participants reported benefits to their health, wellbeing and increased sense of worth.
Marks, Simms, Thompson and Abdallah (2006) presented evidence showing that a happy life is higher in
countries that are more sustainable in terms of their consumption of natural resources. Corral-Verdugo, Mireles-Acosta,
Tapia-Fonllem and Fraijo-Sing (2011) obtained a positive relationship between pro-ecological behaviour and happiness.
Van Dillen, Vries, Groenewegen and Spreeuwenberg (2012) linked the quality and quantity of green space and pro-
environmental behaviour to general and mental health and the number of symptoms of illness. Recently, Kaida and
Kaida (2015) investigated structural associations between psychological states, pro-environmental behaviour, and
Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 1, 2017
41

present and future subjective well-being. Results of path analysis suggest that pro-environmental behaviour could
enhance not only present subjective well-being but expectations of future subjective well-being; and expectations of
future subjective well-being are negatively associated with current pro-environmental behaviour.
However, other researchers have reported either negative correlation or no correlation at all between PEB and
wellbeing. For instance, Luck, Davidson, Boxall and Smallbone (2011) found a very weak relationship between
environmentally friendly behaviours and psychological wellbeing. Also, Dallimer et al. (2012) found no association
between environmentally friendly behaviours and psychological wellbeing of visitors to riparian zones in Sheffield,
England.
Despite the clear evidence that climate change is a global threat, researches have echoed the substantial gaps in
the mental health literature on SWB among an African sample and Nigeria in particular. This study seeks to bridge the
gap between research and practice by drawing upon practical lessons and implications of the study which would cut
across everyday life of the individual to policy implementation by the government. The nature of the association between
climate change awareness, PEB and SWB particularly in a Nigerian sample has not been investigated. To the knowledge
of the researchers, this study appears to be the first investigation of the roles of the various dimensions of climate change
awareness and pro-environmental behaviour in SWB of students.

Hypotheses
1. Climate change awareness will not significantly predict subjective wellbeing of university undergraduates
2. Pro-environmental behaviour will not significantly predict subjective wellbeing of university
undergraduates
Participants

Participants for the present study were 435 students (male = 237, female = 198) drawn from the two campuses of the
University of Nigeria, Nsukka (Nsukka, n = 103; Enugu, n = 332). The average respondent age was 21.48 (SD = 3.54)
ranging from 16 to 38 years. With respect to marital status, 7.6% were married while 92.4% were single. Majority
(99.5%) were Christians, while other religions were marginally represented (0.5%). With regard to the various
denominations of the Christians, the categorization given by the Christian Association of Nigeria was adopted: 41.9%
were Roman Catholics, 30.2% belonged to churches grouped under Christian Council of Nigeria (CCN) e.g. Anglicans,
Methodists, etc.), 22.8% belonged to churches grouped as Christian Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (CPFN); and
5.1% were Jehovah’s Witnesses. The composition of the sample with regard to educational attainment was as follows:
SSCE (60.2%), OND/NCE (13.1%), HND/Bachelor’s degree (26.0%), Masters’ degree (0.7%).

Instruments
A total of three scales were used in this present study: The Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT); Pro-ecological Behaviour
(PEB) Scale and the Multidimensional Climate Change Awareness Questionnaire (MCCAQ).
Brief Inventory of Thriving

The BIT (Su, Tay & Diener, 2014) was used to assess participants’ perceived levels of subjective wellbeing. It is a 5-
point Likert-type scale, consisting of 10 items, responded to on a response format ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. It consists of items such as “There are people who appreciate me as a person”, “I feel a sense of
belonging to my community”, “I feel good most of the time”, etc. All items are directly scored. Possible range of scores
was from 10-50. High scores indicate the presence of subjective wellbeing while low scores reflect a negative evaluation
of one’s life and consequently low levels or possible absence of wellbeing. The validity and reliability of the BIT has
been demonstrated in various studies. For example, Su, Tay and Diener (2014) reported a reliability coefficient α of .90.
In the current study, the convergent validity for the BIT was established using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et
al., 1985). The BIT registered a strong positive correlation with the SwLS (r = .29, p < .001), indicating convergent
validity. We obtained a Cronbach’s α of .87.
Pro-ecological Behaviour Scale
Pro-environmental behaviour was measured using the 16 items from Kaiser’s General Ecological Behaviour Scale
(Kaiser, 1998), which have was previously adapted by Tapia-Fonllem, Corral-Verdugo, Fraijo-Sing and Duron-Ramos
(2013). The self-report instrument was designed to measure individuals’ environmentally-friendly actions across a series
of behaviours including the report of actions such as reuse, recycling, energy conservation, etc. Sample items include, “I
look for ways to reuse things”, “I collect and recycle used paper”, etc. Item-12 on the scale was the only reversed item.
Respondents are required to indicate their level of agreement with each item on a 5-point likert scale response format
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Researchers have reported high and relevant psychometric
properties for the scale. For example, Tapia-Fonllem, et al. (2013) reported a Cronbach’s α = .72. To check the validity
of the PEB scale, convergent validity was established using the Connectedness with Nature Scale (r = .21, p<.05). The
present researchers modified item 2 on the PEB scale which formerly was phrased “I drive/ride at speeds below 100km/s
on freeways”, to become “If I had opportunity to drive, I’d drive at speeds below 100km per hour on highways”. This
was done considering that there is a possibility that some respondents would never have driven before and that most
Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 1, 2017
42

Nigerians are used to the ‘kilometer per hour system’ rather than ‘kilometer per second’ and ‘highways’ instead of
‘freeways’. In the present study, the reliability coefficient obtained was a Cronbach’s α = .70. Total scores ranges from
5-80, and higher scores indicate greater pro-environmental behaviour.
Multidimensional Climate Change Awareness Questionnaire (MCCAQ)

The MCCAQ (Chukwuorji, Iorfa, Nzeadibe & Ifeagwazi, 2015) was used to assess respondents’ knowledge and
awareness of the phenomenon of climate change. The scale is a 27-item instrument designed to measure climate change
awareness in individuals along four dimensions (General Knowledge, Causes, Consequences and Mitigation). Sample
items include “I have heard about climate change”, “Bush burning does not cause climate change”, “Climate change can
stir up violence and disputes”, “In my own little way, I can contribute to mitigating climate change”, etc. Respondents
were required to indicate the extent of their agreement on a 5-point response format ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. Items 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 were reversed scored to obtain consistency of scoring. The range of possible
scores was from 27-140 and higher scores mean greater awareness of climate change issues. The developers reported a
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .93, which was highly adequate.

Procedure
Participants were approached in their classrooms by the second author and other trained research assistants and asked to
participate in the study. Those who gave consent were given the questionnaires to fill. They explained the nature of the
study to the participants, what they were required to do and who was undertaking the research. Participants were
informed that they were free to withdraw at any stage of the study, without any prejudice, and that their personal
information would remain confidential. They were also encouraged to answer the questions as honestly as possible. It
was observed that the length of questionnaire items was not a problem to the respondents in the current research as there
were no such complaints during the study. The researcher examined the completed questionnaires and encouraged
participants to respond to all the items in order to obtain complete data. In total, 450 questionnaires were distributed, and
a response rate of 96.7% was recorded. This was because 15 questionnaires were discarded due to incompletion of items
by participants.

Design and Statistics

This is primarily a survey research, and cross-sectional design was adopted. Pearson’s correlation (r) analysis was
conducted among the study variables while hierarchical multiple regression was employed to statistically test the
hypotheses for the study. The reason for the choice of correlation and regression analysis is based on Urbina’s (2014)
assertion that correlations allow researchers to make predictions by implying a certain amount of common or shared
variance. Regression play a major role in demonstrating linkages between (a) scores on different tests, (b) test scores and
non-test (demographic) variables, (c) scores on parts of tests and scores on whole tests , etc. (Urbina, 2004). Also, some
authors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013; Mendenhall, Beaver & Beaver, 2009), multiple regression analysis allows
researchers to simultaneously use several predictor variables. By so doing, one would be able to explain better the
variation in the dependent variable and hence make more accurate predictions. The data obtained from respondents were
analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS®) version 20 by computing the means, standard deviations
and variance of the study variables. A correlation analysis was also conducted to reveal the relationships that exist
between the variables. Thereafter, to test the hypotheses, a hierarchical Multiple (Sequential) Regression analyses was
conducted in which SWB was inputted as the criterion variable while PEB and climate change awareness were the
predictors.
Results

Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of study variables

Variable Mean SD
Age 21.48 3.54
Mitigation 28.08 3.81
Consequences 34.51 4.05
General knowledge 27.77 3.03
Causes 16.04 2.58
Pro-environmental behaviour 51.66 9.96
Subjective wellbeing 43.50 7.61

Mean and standard deviation of study variables are presented in Table 1.

Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 1, 2017
43

Table 2: Bivariate correlation of study variables (N= 435)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Age __
Gender -.14** __
Marital Status -.32** -.05 __
Denomination -.06 .08 .01 __
LOE .18** -.02 -.05 -.05 __
Mitigation -.04 .01 -.01 -.04 .07 __
Consequences .06 -.03 .04 -.09 .09 .48** __
General Knowledge .01 -.03 .01 .01 .03 .38** .39** __
Causes -.02 -.07 -.01 -.01 .03 .26** .41** .36** __
PEB -.00 .03 .07 .07 -.01 .04 .06 .09 -.02 __
SWB -.02 .05 .02 -.06 .01 .21** .20** .11* .12* .20** __

**p < .01; *p < .05

Note: CCA (climate change awareness), PEB (pro-environmental behaviour), SWB (subjective wellbeing), Gender
(0=male, 1=Female); Marital status (0=married, 1=single, 2=separated, 3=divorced); Denomination (0=catholic,
1=Christian fellowship of Nigeria, 2=Christian Pentecostal fellowship of Nigeria, 3=Jehovah’s Witness); Level of
education (0=SSCE, 1=OND/NCE, 2=HND/BSc, 3= Master’s degree, 4= PhD, 5= others) Mitigation, Consequences,
General Knowledge, Causes, PEB and SWB were coded as continuous data.
Pearson’s correlation revealed high positive correlations within the dimensions of climate change awareness which is
theoretically expected since they are all domains under one construct. Weak positive correlations were also seen between
age and level of education. The analysis also revealed moderate positive relationships between mitigation and SWB (r =
.21), consequences and SWB (r = .20), general knowledge and SWB (r = .11), causes and SWB (r = .12). PEB was also
shown to be moderately positively correlated with SWB (r =.20).
Table 3: Hierarchical multiple regression results predicting subjective wellbeing from climate change awareness
and pro-environmental behaviour
Predictors Step 1 Step 2
B SE Β T B SE β t
CC Mitigation .21 .08 .15 2.75*
CC Consequences .15 .08 .11 1.97
CC General Knowledge -.01 .10 -.00 -.08
CC Causes .08 .11 .04 .70
Pro-Environ. Behaviour .19 .03 .28 6.16*
AR2 .05 .13
ΔR2 .06 .08
ΔF 6.67 38.01
Key: *p< .001; CC= Climate Change

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis to investigate the predictability of climate change awareness on SWB
was conducted by entering the various dimensions in step one of the equation. The overall model explained a significant
5.8 % variance in SWB, R2= .06, F(9, 424)=3.23, p=.001. The demographic variables were not controlled for because
they did not significantly correlate with SWB.
Awareness of climate change mitigation strategies as a domain of CCA showed to be particularly significant in
predicting SWB (β= .15, t=2.68, p< .01). The positive prediction of SWB by climate change mitigation strategies
(B=.21) indicated that for every one unit rise in awareness of climate change mitigation strategies, SWB increases by
.21. All the other domains of climate change awareness, i.e. awareness of climate change consequences (β= .11, t=1.97),
general knowledge of climate change (β= -.00, t=-.08, p< .01) and awareness of climate change causes (β= .04, t=.70)
failed to significantly predict subjective wellbeing.
The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis show that after controlling for the possible effects of
CCA, pro-environmental behaviour accounted for 8% variance in SWB, ΔR2 = .077, F(5, 429)=13.39, p=.000. PEB was
Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 1, 2017
44

found to be significant in predicting SWB (β= .19, t= 6.16, p< .001). This prediction (B= .19) indicates that for every
unit rise in pro-environmental behaviour, SWB increases by .19.

Discussion
This study examined the predictive role of climate change awareness and pro-environmental behaviour on
subjective wellbeing of Nigerian students. The contributions of both climate change awareness and pro-environmental
behaviour to wellbeing was investigated. The current study revealed that of all the dimensions of climate change, only
awareness mitigation strategies predicted subjective wellbeing of students. Thus, the first hypothesis which stated that
awareness of climate change will not significantly predict SWB of students was partly supported. Research in
environmental sciences has shown that awareness about environmental problems exerts a strong influence on SWB
(Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Gowdy, 2007). Awareness of climate change mitigation strategies refers to knowledge of the
possible steps that could be taken to avert the adverse effects of climate change.
This finding supports previous research findings (e.g., Welsch, 2002; Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Gowdy, 2007;
MacKerron & Mourato, 2009) that if an individual was aware of a threat, there would be low levels of SWB. If that same
individual became aware of possible things to do in order to avert the threat and impending doom, there would be hope
that the individual would thrive further and experience high levels of SWB again. This also is congruent with set-point
theories of SWB which suggest that individuals are born with a certain level of optimal functioning, thriving and SWB.
But that this optimal level can be altered due to life-threatening and similar events. Climate change impacts are life
threatening and as such can alter levels of SWB, but with awareness of mitigation strategies, levels of SWB rise to the
optimal or equilibrium again.
The findings also indicated that neither awareness of climate change consequences nor awareness of causes nor
general knowledge significantly predicted SWB of Nigerian students. This means that none of the remaining three
dimensions of climate change awareness significantly predicted SWB in the current study, even though they had
relatively moderate correlations with it. Awareness of consequences, however, had the next closest significant
correlation to SWB after awareness of mitigation strategies. Therefore, it can be deduced from the results that individuals
who are aware of climate change mitigation strategies experience higher levels of wellbeing than individuals who are
not.
With respect to action, pro-environmental behaviours have also been described to be positively associated with
people’s SWB (De Young 1996, 2000; Sohr, 2001; Eigner, 2001; Brown & Kasser, 2005; Meier &Stutzer, 2008). Thus
the hypotheses which stated that pro-environmental behaviour will not significantly predict SWB was rejected. This
means that the more individuals engaged in pro-environmental behaviours, the more their levels of subjective wellbeing
rose. Gap theory approaches to SWB (Diener, 1984) serve as theoretical bases that confirm this association between PEB
and SWB. These theories hold the basic assertion that subjective wellbeing results from “gaps” or perceived differences
between an individual’s aspiration or goals and what they have currently achieved. Smaller gaps between aspiration
levels and achieved levels result in higher SWB. People who engage in pro-environmental behaviour have narrowed the
gap between pro-environmental intent (individual’s aspiration) and actual PEB (current achievement) and therefore
experience higher levels of SWB.
Consistent with research, a good number of the respondents reflected overly high scores in reporting subjective
wellbeing, with majority of the respondents scoring higher on item 5, “I can succeed if I put my mind to it”. However,
the mean score of respondents on the BIT (X = 43.50) was below average. This could have implications for the BIT as a
better tool for tapping into respondents levels of subjective wellbeing since the high scores usually obtained by other
measures have been questioned.

Implications of the Findings

The findings of the present study have clear implications for the new environmental movement both in practice
and in theory. Policy making and implementations are implicated in this study as well. The government should enact
laws that create awareness of climate change mitigation strategies and foster PEB so as to attain an optimum level of
wellbeing among the citizens of a country. Consequently, awareness of climate change mitigation and involvement in
pro-environmental behaviours could raise a country’s level of quality of life. Since SWB is the pursuit of almost every
individual, persons in the general public could achieve it by mere concern for the environment and engagement in pro-
environmental behaviours. In planning cities, the government should include much of natural landscapes seeing that this
promotes PEB and fosters wellbeing. The educational sector should incorporate climate change awareness into the
curriculums of schools as mere awareness of climate change mitigation strategies will not only give rise to knowledge of
the phenomenon but help in buffering subjective wellbeing among students.
The government should also take more seriously laws prohibiting deforestation, open defecation, depletion of
natural life and exploitation of the natural and physical environment seeing that they are anti-environmental behaviours
and would consequently have adverse effects on individual’s wellbeing. The positive relationship between PEB and
SWB has implications in the clinical settings as well. Pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) training (just like
assertiveness training) could be developed and incorporated into therapies aimed at reducing depression and enhancing
levels of subjective wellbeing. If the PEB training would find expression, it might also be used as a technique for
reduction of neuroticism in individuals.
Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 1, 2017
45

Limitations of the study

The cross-sectional and correlational nature of the design for this present research prevents conclusions
regarding causal relations between the variables. The sample size, although a little bit conventionally large, may not be
very useful in making generalisations for the whole Nigerian public. There is therefore need for caution in making such
generalisations. The sample population of the current study was limited to only students thereby limiting conclusions that
could be made regarding the general public. The research was not funded and this issue affected the geographical spread
of the data collection. We acknowledge our sample revolved around university students and therefore the generalisability
of our results are limited. However
this sample was homogenous across conditions, giving assurance to
the reliability of results noted. In addition, given that a relatively young and
well educated sample is already likely to be more aware of climate change, we would suggest that climate change
awareness effects observed might be much more reliable and stronger in a broader cross-section of the society.

Suggestions for further research

The study of SWB can be best approached using temporal frames in order to understand how well or often
statements made by individuals can be generalized as being true over a period of time. It is only through a longitudinal
approach and prospective studies that one can delineate the causal relationship between climate change awareness, pro-
environmental behaviour and SWB. Future studies should consider using more representative samples that cut across
different occupations and experiences. We suggest the adoption of the newly developed MCCAQ in order to give greater
validity to the assessment of climate change awareness. We are currently looking into ways of incorporating measures of
detecting climate change awareness denial on the Multidimensional Climate Change Awareness Questionnaire.
However, we also suggest that further researches should be geared at a more standardized and reliable measure that can
detect the presence of denial. This may not just be for the MCCAQ but also for other awareness questionnaires.
Also, further research should look into the relationship between climate change awareness and pro-
environmental behaviour and the direction of such relationship. For instance, Spence, Leygue, Bedwell and O’Malley
(2014) have established that increased salience of climate change results in increased intentions to undertake sustainable
behaviour.

Conclusion
The present study examined the role of climate change awareness and pro-environmental behaviour on
subjective wellbeing of Nigerian students. The peculiarity of this present research lies in its inquiry into the influence on
SWB from people’s awareness or concern about the environment as well as people’s actions to preserve it. However, as
is known to the researchers, no previous studies have considered the various dimensions of climate change, examining
their influence on subjective wellbeing. The study integrated psychological, ecological and geographical science to
further understand the relationship between humans and the natural world, and it shows the importance of climate change
awareness and pro-environmental behaviour on human subjective wellbeing. It is expected that since most people in
Nigeria still consider climate change a distant threat, it might not have very significant impacts on their wellbeing;
neither will it translate into concern for the environment and consequent pro-environmental behaviour.
There is a general dearth of literature concerning the influence on SWB from people’s awareness or concern
about the environment as well as people’s actions to preserve it especially in countries where the impacts of climate
change have not been directly felt like Nigeria. However, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) warns that climate change is a global threat and is not limited to certain countries alone. Its impacts will be
felt all through the world. Implications of this study therefore transcend the academia and spread across facets such as
policy implementations and practical day-to-day living.

References
Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-
social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14–25.

Bechtel, R. B., & Corral Verdugo, V. (2010). Happiness and sustainable behaviour. In V. Corral Verdugo, C. H., Garc a
Cadena, and M. Frias Armenta (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability: Current trends in theory,
research and applications, environmental science, engineering and technology series. New York: Nova Science
Publisher.

Brown, K. W., & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values,
mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74, 349–368.

Brügger, A., Kaiser, F. G., & Roczen, N. (2011). One for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature,
environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. European Psychologist, 16, 000-000.
Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 1, 2017
46

Chukwuorji, J. C., & Iorfa, S. K. (2014). Disaster resilience: The strength’s based perspective to climate change
adaptation and health. In B. T. Tyubee, M. I. Ocheri, and J. O. Mage (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014
International conference of Nigerian Meteorological Society (NMetS) (pp. 160-167). Makurdi: Seron Press.

Chukwuorji, J. C., & Iorfa, S. K. (2014). Disaster resilience: The strength’s based perspective to climate change
adaptation and health. In B. T. Tyubee, M. I. Ocheri, and J. O. Mage (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014
International conference of Nigerian Meteorological Society (NMetS) (pp. 160-167). Makurdi: Seron Press.

Chukwuorji, J. C., Ifeagwazi, C. M., & Iorfa, S. K. (2015). Mental health emergency of climate change: Consequences
and vulnerabilities. International Journal of Communication, 16(March, 2015), 110-131.

Chukwuorji, J. C., Iorfa, S. K., Nzeadibe, T. C., & Ifeagwazi, M. C. (2015). Development and reliability of a
multidimensional climate change awareness questionnaire: An initial assessment. Paper presented at the 2015
International conference of Association of Nigerian Geographers (ANG), Osun State University, Osogbo, Osun
state, Nigeria.

Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003). Identity and the natural environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cooke, P. J., Melchert, T. P., & Connor, K. (2016). Measuring well-being: A review of instruments. The Counseling
Psychologist, 44(5), 730–757.

Corral-Verdugo, V., Mireles-Acosta, J., Tapia- Fonllem, C., & Fraijo-Sing, B. (2011). Happiness as correlate of
sustainable behaviour: a study of pro-ecological, frugal, equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective
wellbeing. Human Ecology Review, 18(2), 95-104.

Dallimer, M., Irvine, K. N., Skinner, A. M. J., Davies, Z. G., Rouquette, J. R., Maltby, L. L. Warren, P. H., Armsworth,
P. R., & Gaston, K. J. (2012). Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-
reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience, 62(1), 47-55.

De Young, R. (1991). Some psychological aspects of living lightly: Desired lifestyle patterns and conservation
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Systems, 20, 215-227.

De Young, R. (1996). Some psychological aspects of a reduced consumption lifestyle: The role of intrinsic satisfaction
and competence motivation. Environment & Behaviour, 28, 358-409.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains.
Canadian Psychology, 49, 14–23.

Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. J. (2008). Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin Paradox? Journal of
Development Economics, 86, 22-42.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575.

Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being
measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research,
97(2), 143-156.

Dolan, P., & White, M. P. (2007). How can measures of subjective wellbeing be used to inform public policy?
Perspective on Psychological Science, 2(1), 71-85.

Eigner, S. (2001). The relationship between “protecting the environment” as a dominant life goal and subjective well-
being. In P. Schmuck and K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of
human striving (pp. 182–201). Seattle: Hogrefe and Huber.

Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Gowdy, J. M. (2007). Environmental degradation and happiness. Ecological Economics, 60,
509-516.
Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 1, 2017
47

Kaida, N., & Kaida, K. (2015). Pro-environmental behaviour correlates with present and future subjective well-being.
Environment, Development and Sustainability. Advance online publication. Available at
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10668-015-9629-y

Kaiser, F. A. (1998). A general measure of ecological behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 195–220.

Kingsley, J. “Yotti,” Townsend, M., & Henderson‐Wilson, C., (2009). Cultivating health and wellbeing: Members’
perceptions of the health benefits of a Port Melbourne community garden. Leisure Studies, 28, 207–219.

Kollmus, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-
environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.

Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behaviour. Journal
of Social Issues, 63, 117–137.

Luck, G. W., Davidson, P., Boxall, D., & Smallbone, L. (2011). Relations between urban bird and plant communities
and human well-being and connection to nature. Conservation Biology, 25, 816–826.

MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2009). Life satisfaction and air quality in London. Ecological Economics, 68, 1441–
1453.

Marks, N., Simms, A., Thompson, S. & Abdallah, S. (2006). The Happy Planet Index: an index of human well-being and
environmental impact. Londres: New Economics Foundation and Friends of Earth.

Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in
community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.

McDonald, F. V. (2014). Developing an integrated conceptual framework of pro-environmental behaviour in the

workplace through synthesis of the current literature. Administrative Sciences, 4, 276–303.

Mendenhall, W., Beaver, R. J., & Beaver, B. M. (2009). Introduction to probability and statistics (13th edition). Belmont,
CA: Brooks/Cole.

Miles, I., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F.E., (1998). Ecological restoration volunteers: the benefits of participation. Urban
Ecosystems, 2, 27–41.

Myers, D., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10-19.

Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A., (2009). The Nature Relatedness scale linking individuals' connection
with nature to environmental concern and behaviour. Environment and Behaviour, 41, 715–740.

Nzeadibe, T. C., Egbule, C. L., Chukwuone, N. A., & Agu, V. C. (2011). Climate change awareness and adaptation in
the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. Nairobi, Kenya: African Technology Policy Studies Network.

Odjugo, P. A. O, (2011). Shift in crops production as a means of adaptation to climate change in the Semi-arid region of
Nigeria. Journal of Meteorological Climate Science, 8(1), 1-6.

Odjugo, P. A. O, (2013). Analysis of climate change in Nigeria. Scientific Research Essays, 8(26), 1203-1211. doi
10.5897/SRE11.2018

Onyishi, I. E., (2012). Adaptation strategies for managing climate change-induced trauma: Lessons for individuals and
communities. A paper presented at the ministry of Foreign Affairs’ organised workshop on climate change
adaptation in Nigeria in Enugu, Nigeria.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD (2001), Participatory decision-making for
sustainable consumption. General Distribution Document ENV/EPOC/WPNEP, 17/FINAL, Paris: OECD,
Commissioned from Coenen, F., Huitema, D. And Woltjer, J., Center for Clean Technology and Environmental
Policy (CSTM), University of Twente, The Netherlands.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E., (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life scale. Psychological Assessment 5, 164–172.
Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 1, 2017
48

Pillemer, K., Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Reid, M. C., Wells, & N. M. (2010). Environmental volunteering and health outcomes
over a 20-year period. The Gerontologist, 50, 594–602.

Rishi, P., &Mudaliar, R. (2014) Climate stress, behavioural adaptation and subjective wellbeing in coastal cities of India.
American Journal of Applied Psychology, 2(1), 13-21.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001).To be happy or to be self-fulfilled: A review of research on hedonic and eudemonic
wellbeing. In S. Fiske (Ed.), Annual review of psychology, 52, 141-166. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 99-104.

Sohr, S. (2001). Eco-activism and well-being: between flow and burnout. In P. Schmuck and K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life
goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 202–215). Seattle: Hogrefe and
Huber.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),
407–424.

Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The development and validation of comprehensive inventory of thriving (CIT) and
brief inventory of thriving (BIT). Applied Psychology: Health and Wellbeing, 43, 201-234.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, (6th ed). Boston: Pearson Education.

Tapia-Fonllem, C., Corral-Verdugo, V., Fraijo-Sing, B., & Durón-Ramos, M. F. (2013). Assessing sustainable
behaviour and its correlates: A measure of pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic and equitable actions. Sustainability, 5,
711-723.

UNFCCC (2007). Decision/CP.8 New Delhi work program on Article 6 of the Convention. Retrieved from
http://unfccc.int/cop8/latest/14_cpl3_sbstal23add1.pdf on 24th April, 2015.

Upham, P., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Purdam, K., Darnton, A., McLachlan, C., & Devine –Wright, P. (2009).
Public attitudes to environmental change: A selective review of theory and practice. A research synthesis for the
living with Environmental Change Programme. UK: Research Councils.

Urbina, S. (2004). Essentials of psychological testing. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Van Dillen, S.M.E., De Vries, S., Groenewegen, P. P., &Spreeuwenberg, P. (2012). Greenspace in urban
neighbourhoods and residents' health: adding quality to quantity. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health, 66, 28-43.

Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Bede- Agocha, V., . . . Brent-
Donnellan, M. (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic
comparisons, and evidence of validity. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41-61.

Welsch, H. (2002). Preferences over prosperity and pollution: Environment valuation based on happiness surveys.
Kyklos, 55(4), 473–494.

Western, M., & Tomaszewski, W. (2016). Subjective wellbeing, objective wellbeing and inequality in Australia. PLoS
ONE, 11(10): e0163345. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163345

Whitburn, J. (2014). Urban vegetation, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviour: A socio-ecological experiment in
Wellington City, New Zealand. Master of Science degree thesis. Victoria University of Wellington