Testing a tridimensional model of sustainable behavior: self‑care, caring for others, and caring for the planet

(1)

Testing a tridimensional model of sustainable behavior:

self‑care, caring for others, and caring for the planet

Víctor Corral‑Verdugo¹ · Claudia Pato² · Nissa Torres‑Soto¹

Received: 28 April 2020 / Accepted: 21 December 2020 / Published online: 2 January 2021

Abstract

This paper investigates the dimensions of sustainable behavior, with a particular focus on the aspects of self-care, caring for others, and caring for the environment. Its aim was to test the assumption that sustainable behavior not only encompasses pro-social and pro- environmental actions, as the current research acknowledges, but also behaviors that are directed toward self-preservation and care. A subscale of self-care specifically developed for this research was added to a series of previously validated instruments assessing altruistic, equitable, pro-ecological, and frugal behaviors to examine the personal, social, and physical environmental aspects of sustainable behavior. Responses from a sample of 290 participants confirmed the three-dimensional structure of sustainable behavior. Results suggest sustainability, understood as a chain of interdependences between the individual, society, and nature, begins with self-care and continues with caring for others, and with caring for the biosphere, which, in turn, affords for a more sustainable environment for the individual.

Keywords Self-care · Altruism · Equitability · Pro-ecological behavior · Frugal behavior

1 Introduction

Environmental issues have historically been addressed from the perspective of ecological degradation, stressing the role of human activity as the primary agent of environmental deterioration. From this perspective, solutions for averting the ecological crisis are to be found at the global and local levels. This avenue of research has identified contex- tual (social dominance, inequity) and psychological (egoistic tendencies, anti-ecological

* Víctor Corral-Verdugo victorcorralv@gmail.com

Claudia Pato claudiap@unb.br

Nissa Torres-Soto nisita_ts90@hotmail.com

1 Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, México

2 Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

(2)

attitudes, consumerism) barriers that hinder pro-ecological behaviors (Gifford 2011; Ro et al. 2017).

Alternatively, a promising and emergent line of research has focused on the positive aspects associated with environmental protection and human connection with nature.

Researchers examined the role of positive emotions on sustainability, linked to factors such as well-being and affectivity toward nature, and the systemic perception of interdependence between individuals, society, and nature (Broek et al. 2017; Corral-Verdugo et al. 2008;

Lumber et al. 2017). Moreover, sustainability, as a lifestyle, is considered virtuous behavior (Hilbig et al. 2013; Vucetich and Nelson 2010). The association between virtues and sustainability evidences a coherence between positive (virtuous) traits and the disposition to adopt sustainable lifestyles (Corral-Verdugo et al. 2015; Jordan and Kristjánsson 2017, Van Lange 2000). Self-care is also understood as a virtue in a general scheme of virtues of care directed toward others and oneself (Gregory 2000). Therefore, from one perspective, society is seen as experiencing an increasing ecological crisis aggravated by individualistic, egoistic human behaviors that degrade the environment. Another perspective is that many people exhibit positive actions that protect nature and the sociocultural milieu in which they live. These actions are labeled as sustainable behavior (SB).

SB is defined as the set of ‘‘actions aimed at conserving the integrity of the socio-physical resources of this planet’’ (Corral-Verdugo et al. 2010, p. 8). This approach acknowledges the interconnectedness and interrelatedness of social and environmental issues (Jordan and Kristjánsson 2017) and that environmental problems cannot be solved without solving social problems (and vice versa). Recent data show that a link exists between anthropogenic climate change, loss of biodiversity induced by humans, and the outbreak of pandemics, confirming that environmental destruction also means human destruction (Hinz et al. 2019; Young et al. 2017).

1.1 Indicators of sustainable behavior

A number of SB classifications exist in the literature. Some include values, norms, beliefs, responsibility, and actions as indicators of SB (for instance, Anđić and Vorkapić 2014), while others only include pro-environmental actions (Kaiser and Wilson 2004; Tapia et al.

2013). Although some classifications only consider actions aimed at protecting the natural environment (Kaiser and Wilson 2004, for example), most SB schemas accept that sustainable behavior encompasses both pro-social and pro-environmental behaviors (Juárez- Nájera et al. 2010; Neaman et al. 2018; Nolan and Schultz 2015).

Previous research suggests that sustainable behavior possesses at least four interconnected dimensions: pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic, and equitable (Tapia-Fonllem et al.

2013). Pro-ecological behaviors such as recycling, conserving water and energy, and protecting nonhuman species are actions intended at directly protecting natural resources and ecosystems. Frugal actions are characterized by responsible use of resources as well as avoidance of consumerism and wasteful consumption (such as reuse, responsible resource consumption, and living an ecologically low-impact lifestyle). The altruistic dimension is made up of pro-social actions aimed at caring for others without the expectation of reciprocity, as manifest in behaviors such as supporting charities, helping others in need, donating blood, and visiting the sick. Finally, equitable behaviors include actions that promote respect, fairness toward others, and the avoidance of discrimination (Corral-Verdugo et al. 2013; Corral Verdugo 2012; Konow 2003). These four dimensions can be further compiled into a bidimensional classification comprised of pro-sociality (including altruism

(3)

and equity) and pro-environmentalism (i.e., pro-ecological and frugal behaviors). The for- mer encompasses actions directed at caring for others, while the latter includes activities aimed at protecting the biosphere (Neaman et al. 2018).

1.2 Self‑caring behavior

Although inclusive to some extent, the above-mentioned classification lacks a fundamental component of sustainable behavior: self-caring behavior. It seems logical to assume that individuals acting in favor of both other humans and nature (i.e., giving without expecting reciprocity) should also act in favor of themselves. After all, nobody can give what is not possessed, which is to say that persons must care for themselves before they can care for others and the environment. If individuals demonstrate an ecocentric systemic worldview and are oriented toward the common good (Kaiser and Byrka 2011), those individuals should perceive themselves as a part of nature and humankind, feel deeply connected to both (Schultz 2001, 2002), and look to care for themselves to the same degree. Further- more, an individual with a pro-social and pro-environmental orientation should understand that they firstly must sustain themselves in order to be able to support/sustain others and the environment.

Schultz (2001) tested the assumption that environmental concern would form three dis- tinct, yet correlated factors. Results of his studies indicated the presence of egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric environmental concerns. Thus, it is possible to distinguish between a concern for self, others, and the biosphere as it relates to attitudes. Yet, these studies did not generalize this distinction toward sustainable behavior and its dimensionalities. From this behavioral perspective, it can be assumed that a person exhibiting a pro-ecological and pro-social orientation (i.e., a pro-sustainable individual) should engage in behaviors that are consistent with such pro-sustainable orientation (taking care of others, nature, and the self). This means that a pro-sustainable person would practice daily private and public actions, with the simultaneous goal of benefiting their own interest, the interest of others, and the interest of the environment.

According to Hansmann (1997, p. 21), individuals “who recognize and satisfy their natural needs are able to establish a connection with everything that makes up the world:

other human beings, animals, plants, and know how to contribute in protecting life in all its manifestations.” From this perspective, it is the responsibility of every individual to meet their own health and happiness needs in the pursuit of positivity and meaning in life.

If individuals practice self-care, they will be in a better position to care for others and protect the environment (De Young 2000). Self-care consists of a series of measures adopted by individuals in order to seek personal well-being in its corporeal, mental, spiritual, and intellectual dimensions (Tobón 2015). In this regard, an individual’s health not only depends on personal care, but also on the social system determining the relations between self-care and the protection of the socio-physical environment (Orem 1993).

2 Literature review

2.1 Sustainable behavior as a tridimensional construct

Sustainable behavior not only encompasses the intersubjective pro-ecological and pro- social dimensions previously mentioned (Carfora et al. 2017; Davis et al. 2009; Lulfs and

(4)

Hahn 2014; Tapia-Fonllem et al. 2013), but also an intrasubjective dimension capturing the consistency between a sustainable behavior directed toward others and toward oneself.

From this perspective, sustainability can be graphically represented by three concentric circles as expressed by Schultz (2001). Human beings are represented by the inner core circle, the middle circle corresponds to the social environment, and the outermost circle represents nature. From the individual’s perspective, those circles expand, irradiate, and surround other dimensions including other people, life forms, society, and nature. Each circle is a whole, whilst complementing the inter-relationships with other dimensions. In this way, sustainability is comprised of the three interconnected ecologies of the individual, society, and nature (Guattari 2001).

The assumption of a person-society-nature triad in which the three dimensions are interdependent is not always matched by a corresponding research effort. The personal dimension tends to be neglected in the dominant tradition of environmental research, particularly lines of study focused on the diverse facets of sustainable behavior. Self-care research has primarily been conducted within the fields of medicine, nursing, and other health-related disciplines (Riegel et al. 2017). Interestingly, health psychology has tended to focus more on the self-care practices of clinical psychologists than the self-care activities of the general population (Wise et al. 2012). No studies of the role self-care plays in pro-sustainability practices are detected. Given this apparent gap in the literature, the present study examined a personal dimension of sustainable behavior, self-care, and its relationship with other facets of sustainable behavior that have already been investigated. The study tested the assumption that a third dimension of self-care can be added to the existing bidimensional model of sustainable behavior so to produce a coherent and more realistic represen- tation. The aim of this study was to test the assumption that sustainable behavior not only encompasses pro-social and pro-environmental actions, as the current research acknowledges, but also behaviors that are directed toward self-preservation and care. This hypoth- esis was tested using a structural model, which specifies that self-care, caring for others, and caring for the environment are three latent indicators of a higher-order factor that can be recognized as sustainable behavior. A special objective of this study was to provide a new instrument assessing self-care behavior, which could be used in subsequent research on sustainable behavior and related areas.

3 Materials and methods 3.1 Participants

Two-hundred-ninety inhabitants of Hermosillo, a northwestern Mexican city, were interviewed. They came from three socioeconomic (low, N = 96; middle, N = 99; and high, N = 95) strata.

Socioeconomic strata of Hermosillo were determined by consulting The Mexican Council on Population (CONAPO 2010) statistics, which classify high, middle, and low marginalization, according to socioeconomic deficiencies (education, health, housing, among others). From this stratification, the number of households by social strata (low, medium, and high) was determined. Subsequently, maps of the lots in these areas were obtained from local maps office. These lots received a number, from which houses were randomly selected from the three social strata. One hundred and eighty-six participants were females and 104 were males. Their age ranged from 18 to 71 years (mean = 38.9,

(5)

S.D. = 11.41), and their schooling averaged 13.8 years. The family monthly income produced a mean = $850.00 US Dollars. Most interviewees (87%) were married. This sample was randomly selected using the formula for finite or known population (Gerstman, 2014), considering a 1.96 confidence coefficient, with a 0.05 probability of success and a 0.05 margin of error. The number of households suggested by this formula was 218 (low, n = 72;

middle, n = 73, and high, n = 73), yet it was decided to increase the sample to n = 290. One member of every household was interviewed. Because of the limited sample size, the study offers a preliminary test of the tridimensional structure of SB and does not intend to represent neither the psychological sustainable practices of a whole country nor the determinants of such practices.

3.2 Instruments

Sustainable behavior was assessed through five subscales. A self-care subscale specifically developed for this study evaluated the frequency of respondent involvement in activities that promote physical and psychological health as well as spirituality. The subscale elicits responses on behaviors such as physical exercise, healthy food intake, promoting positive emotions, good relationships with others, and the practice of meditation through options ranging from “never” to “everyday.”

Altruism was evaluated through self-report frequency of 10 behaviors including visiting the sick at hospitals, participation in charities, and blood donation (Tapia et. al. 2013).

Additionally, Kaiser’s brief version of the General Ecological Behavior instrument (1998) was administered, which included actions focused on caring and conserving natural resources, such as recycling objects, buying environmentally friendly products, acquiring local and seasonal products, water preservation, energy saving, use of organic fertilizers, and other behaviors aimed at conserving the natural environment. Both instruments are measured through four response options ranging from “never” to “I always participate in this action.”

The frugality subscale examines waste minimization and consumption reduction and elicits responses on behaviors such as product reuse, walking or cycling instead of using a vehicle, and commuting by public transportation. The equitable behavior subscale focuses on the fair and unbiased treatment of others and targets impartial actions like equality in the performance of domestic duties and equal access to educational opportunities regardless of physical, racial, gender, or socioeconomic status. Items include five response options ranging from “completely agree” to “completely disagree.”

The previously published subscales reported adequate psychometric properties (reliability and validity) as indicated by their internal consistency and convergent and construct validity. However, the self-care subscale was developed for this study, and as such, its reliability and validity have yet to be evaluated. Participants were also asked to provide demographic information such as age, gender, educational level, and family economic income.

3.3 Procedure

Following a brief explanation of study aims, informed consent was obtained from every participant (all over 18). Participants were likewise informed that they could interrupt the survey or decline to respond to any item at any time. Surveys took approximately 30 min to administer.

(6)

3.4 Data analysis

The statistical package SPSS version 18.0 was used for processing univariate statistics (means and standard deviations) of each item, including socio-demographic variables.

Cronbach alpha indexes were utilized to estimate the reliability of the scales as well as their internal consistency. A confirmatory factor analysis testing the validity of the self-care scale was performed. Subsequently, a structural equation model (SEM) was specified and tested using the EQS statistical package (Bentler 2006). In the context of our study, a SEM offers advantages over conventional analyses (multiple regression, path analysis, etc.) because it allows the specification and testing of relations between latent variables, such as the ones here investigated. In the tested model, parcels were constructed to indicate a series of first-order factors, which represented self-care, altruistic, equitable, frugal, and pro-ecological behaviors. Two of these factors (altruistic and equitable behaviors) were the indicators of a two second-order latent variable labeled

“caring for others,” while two other factors (frugal and pro-ecological behavior) were the indicators of the second-order factor “caring for the environment.” In turn, the two second-order factors along with self-care behavior were used to build a third-order latent variable denoted “sustainable behavior.” Thus, according to this model sustainable behavior should be a higher-order factor subsuming the significant interrelations between self-care, caring for others and caring for the environment. If these interrelations resulted significant and the model was to produce goodness of fit, then the hypoth- eses of a three-dimensional structure of sustainable behavior would receive empirical support.

A matrix of correlations between the five specific types of sustainable behavior was computed to visualize the differential influence of those demographic variables on every behavioral facet. Additionally, a phi matrix of interrelations between the five first-order factors was obtained to test the strength of the association between each possible pair of sustainable behaviors.

4 Results

4.1 Scales reliability and univariate statistics

Table 1 shows the univariate statistics of sustainable behavior scales as well as their reliability scores. Cronbach’s alpha values were acceptable: self-care = 0.94, altruism = 0.76, equity = 0.78, frugality = 0.64, and pro-ecological behavior = 0.93. Results revealed that equitable (mean = 3.8, max = 4, min = 0), self-care (mean = 2.69, min = 0, max = 4), and frugal (mean = 2.67, min = 0, max = 4) behaviors were the most frequently reported, while altruistic (mean = 1.64, min = 0, max = 3) and pro-ecological (mean = 1.50, min = 0, max = 3) behaviors were less common.

4.2 Confirmatory factor analysis of the self‑care scale

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the validity of the self- care scale. All factor loadings resulted significant (p < 0.05) and oscillated between

(7)

Table 1 Reliability and univariate statistics for the sustainable behavior scales

Scale/items Min Max Mean SD Alpha

Self-care 2.69 0.94

Does physical activity regularly to maintain health 0 4 2.81 1.05 Engages in activities that help to know him/herself better 0 4 2.52 1.05 Pays more attention to mind than to emotions (reversed) 0 4 2.64 0.94

Tries to consume healthy food 0 4 2.70 1.03

Does activities to rest mind from daily worries 0 4 2.28 1.17

Does things that (s)he likes 0 4 3.07 0.86

Tries to maintain balance between body, mind and emotions 0 4 2.80 1.04 Participates in activities that help to be a better person 0 4 2.51 1.16

Does things that bring well-being 0 4 2.61 1.11

Tries to know him/herself better everyday 0 4 2.82 1.09

Does things that give pleasure 0 4 2.82 0.97

Engage in activities that promote spirituality 0 4 2.22 1.21

Every day tries to be fine with her/himself 0 4 3.02 1.01

Alternates body position to preserve health 0 4 2.64 1.12

Emphasizes more on activities that use mind (reversed) 0 4 2.73 1.11

Meditates to keep mind relaxed and alert 0 4 2.34 1.14

After work, any pleasant activity 0 4 2.51 1.07

When stressed, tries to calm mind 0 4 2.72 1.09

Altruism 1.64 0.76

Gives clothes to the poor 0 3 1.98 0.97

Assists people who fall or get hurt 0 3 2.45 0.73

Contributes financially with the Red Cross 0 3 1.79 0.99

Visit the sick at hospitals/homes 0 1 0.44 0.49

Helps elders or handicapped crossing street 0 3 2.04 0.96

Guides persons asking for direction 0 3 2.36 0.75

Provides some money to homeless 0 3 1.92 0.95

Participates in fund-collection rallies 0 3 0.92 0.94

Donates blood in response to campaigns 0 3 0.42 0.81

Cooperates with colleagues 0 3 2.16 1.01

Equity 3.80 0.78

Wife has the same rights that husband at home 3 4 3.87 0.33

Treats his/her subordinate fellows like her/his equals 3 4 3.73 0.44 Children have the same rights as adults in making decisions 3 4 3.68 0.46 Men and women have same cleanup chores in his/her family 3 4 3.80 0.39 Treats indigenous people without discrimination 3 4 3.81 0.39

Treats rich and poor people equally 3 4 3.83 0.37

Girls and boys have same educational opportunities 3 4 3.88 0.32

Frugality 2.67 0.64

Does not buy a new car if old functions 1 4 2.70 0.85

Wears same clothing 1 4 2.82 0.72

Wouldn’t buy jewelry 0 4 2.85 0.87

Buys lots of shoes (reversed) 0 4 2.64 1.00

Buys more food than needed (reversed) 1 4 2.54 0.91

(8)

0.58 and 0.82. The goodness-of-fit indicators of this model included a X² = 346.859, 123 g.l., p < 0.0001; BBNFI = 0.91; BBNNFI = 0.92; CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.07 (see Figs. 1, 2).

4.3 Sustainable behavior structural model

Figure 2 shows the results of the measurement model for the indicators of sustainable behavior. Five first-order factors were considered: self-care, altruism, equity, frugality, and pro-ecological behavior. The correlation between altruism and equity formed the “caring for others” second-order factor, while the covariance between frugality and pro-ecological behavior formed another second-order factor, “caring for the environment.” A third-order factor identified as “sustainable behavior” emerged from the interrelation among self-care, caring for others, and caring for the environment. Sali- ent and significant (p < 0.05) factor loadings indicated convergent construct validity for all factors. The Cronbach’s alpha for the whole set of sustainable behavior indicators was 0.87. The goodness-of-fit indicators included a nonsignificant X² = 91.396 (77 df), p = 0.125, and practical goodness-of-fit indicators close to 1 (BBNFI = 0.97, BBNNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.02). These results confirm that the theoretical model is supported by the data.

Table 1 (continued)

Scale/items Min Max Mean SD Alpha

Uses most earnings for buying clothing (reversed) 0 4 2.82 1.09

Always takes meals at home 0 4 2.83 1.09

Rather walks than drives 1 3 2.76 0.44

Reuse notebooks and paper 0 4 2.33 1.04

Lives lightly 0 3 2.49 0.86

Pro-Ecological behavior 1.50 0.93

Waits until having a full load for laundry 0 3 2.17 1.23

Drive at speeds below 100 on freeways 0 3 2.13 1.26

Collects and recycles used paper 0 3 1.23 1.06

Brings empty bottles to a recycling bin 0 3 1.06 0.98

Has pointed out unecological behavior 0 3 1.65 0.97

Buys convenience foods (reversed) 0 3 1.58 0.94

Buys products in refillable packages 0 3 1.42 0.84

Buys seasonal product 0 3 1.37 0.91

Uses a clothes dryer (reversed) 0 3 1.32 0.89

Reads about environmental issues 0 3 1.30 1.00

Talks to friends about environmental problems 0 3 1.30 0.97

Kills insects with a chemical insecticide (reversed) 0 3 1.72 0.92

Turn down air conditioning when leaving place 0 3 2.03 0.94

Looks for ways to reuse things 0 3 1.97 0.95

Encourages friends and family to recycle 0 3 1.16 1.05

Conserves gasoline by walking or bicycling 0 3 1.89 0.96

(9)

4.4 Covariances between sustainable behaviors

Table 2 exhibits the covariances between each pair of sustainable behavior. The phi matrix was obtained from the same data set used for the structural model. All correlations resulted significant (p < 0.05) except for frugal and self-care behavior (0.12). The highest

Self-care

Physical activity Activities to get to know me better More attention to the mind than to

emotions Healthy food Activities to rest the mind

Do things that please Balance between body, mind and

emotions

Activities to be a better person Activities that generate well-being

Get to know me better every day

Try to alternate body position Use mind more than physical activity

Meditation state Pleasant activity after work or study

Calm the mind to stress Do things that produce pleasure

Promote your spirituality Be well with yourself

.66 .73 .66 .61 .65 .72 .75 .77 .82 .73 .68 .62 .77 .70 .70 .58 .67 .70

Fig. 1 Confirmatory factor analysis of the self-care scale. Goodness of fit: X² = 346.859 (123 d.f.), p = 0.000. BBNFI = 0.91, BBNNFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.07

(10)

Self-care

Altruism

Equity

Frugality

Proecolo- gical

Caring others

Caring environment

Sustainable Behavior Sfc 1

Sfc 2 Sfc 3

Altr 1 Altr 2 Altr 3

Equi 1 Equi 2 Equi 3

Frug 1 Frug 2 Frug 3

Ecol 1 Ecol 2 Ecol 3

.93 .96 .94

.80 .74 .77

.76 .69 .72

.86 .71 .75

.92 .98 .89

.70 .75

.38

.32

.98

.97

.75

Fig. 2 Sustainable behavior measurement model. All factor loadings are significant (p < .05). Goodness of fit: X² = 91.396 (77 df), p = 0.125, BBNFI = 0.97, BBNNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.02

Table 2 Phi matrix of covariances and squared average variance extracted

(SAVE, bold numbers in diagonal) among the first-order factors of sustainable behavior AVE in italics

*Significant covariances (p < 0.05)

Self-care Altruistic Equitable Frugal Pro-ecological

Self-care .94

Altruistic .53* .77

Equitable .17* .25* .73

Frugal .12 .15* .26* .77

Pro-ecological .50* .52* .37* .32* .92

AVE .89 .59 .53 .60 .86

(11)

covariances were those between altruistic and self-care behaviors (0.53), between altruistic and pro-ecological behaviors (0.52) and between pro-ecological and self-care behaviors (0.50). The remainder of the covariances were moderately low (equitable and pro-ecological = 0.37, frugal and pro-ecological = 0.32, equitable and frugal = 0.26, and altruistic and equitable = 0.25) and lower (self-care and equitable = 0.17, frugal and altruistic = 0.15).

The matrix includes the average variance extracted (AVE) and a diagonal with the squared average variance extracted (SAVE) for every construct. All the AVE values resulted higher than 0.50, indicating convergent construct validity. Also, all the SAVE values were higher than the values of the correlation of every construct with the other factors, which indicates an appropriate discriminant validity for our measures (see Henseler et al. 2009).

5 Discussion

Our results suggest that self-care, caring for others, and the biosphere work in concert to shape pro-sustainable orientations. The structural model demonstrated that self-care, pro- social (altruistic, equitable), and pro-environmental (frugal, pro-ecological) behaviors seem to be components of a higher-order construct of sustainable behavior. This finding confirms our assumption that self-care constitutes a sustainable practice and that this type of behavior is required to develop the subsequent pro-social and pro-environmental practices involved in sustainability. Our results are in accordance with the findings of Schultz (2001) in support of the three-factorial structure of environmental concern, which includes concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Yet, our model represents the structure of environmental behavior.

This study administered previously validated instruments to assess four commonly accepted dimensions of sustainable behavior: altruism, equitability, frugality, and pro-ecological behavior. Additionally, a new instrument measuring self-care was developed and its psychometric properties were evaluated. The scale produced acceptable reliability (Cron- bach’s alpha = 0.94) and a confirmatory factor analysis produced high (ranging from 0.58 to 0.82) and significant ( p < 0.05) factor loadings, indicating convergent construct validity.

The scale likewise demonstrated discriminant validity as the covariances between self-care and the remainder of the sustainable behavior factors were lower (from 0.12 to 0.53) than the values of the factor loadings. Values of AVE and SAVE reinforced the presumption of validity for our measures since AVE values were higher than 0.50, and the SAVE of all factors exceeded the value of covariances among factors (Henseler et al. 2009).

As predicted, self-care correlated significantly with pro-social and pro-environmental behaviors. Frugality was the only sustainable behavior that did not significantly covariate with self-care. A possible explanation for this unexpected finding is that individuals do not necessarily believe that living frugal and a moderating resource consumption can enhance their physical and psychological health. In fact, “the social ideal… depicts austere behaviors as implying personal sacrifice and no benefit at all” (Bechtel and Corral-Verdugo 2013, p. 440). Yet, the remaining sustainable behaviors did significantly correlate with self-care.

One way to interpret these positive results is that individuals who practice self- protective behaviors understand that those actions allow them to positively impact not only on their own physical and mental well-being but also the well-being of others and the quality of the physical environment. Healthy eating (e.g., reducing meat intake and increasing vegetable consumption), exercising, and monitoring one’s health contribute to both mental/physical balance and comfort (and in some cases spiritual satisfaction)

(12)

as well as avoiding consumerism and minimizing the carbon footprint and depredation of natural resources (that can then be used by other people in need). As such, self-care directly and indirectly benefits the individual, society, and the natural environment.

In turn, the practice of pro-social (altruistic, equitable) behaviors is beneficial not only for others in need but also for the physical environment and the individual practic- ing them. Although altruistic and equitable behaviors are aimed at helping and empow- ering others without expecting reciprocation, engaging in those behaviors contributes to self-care by producing feelings of happiness, satisfaction, and pleasure (Moll et al. 2006; Zaki and Mitchell 2011). Protecting the social environment aids self-care through gains in mental well-being. Equitable and altruistic behaviors help reduce the negative impacts of poverty (such as deforestation, violence, and anti-ecological use of resources), which suggests pro-social behaviors help protect the natural environment (Jordan and Kristjánsson 2017). Moreover, conserving the natural environment helps the sustenance of society and the individual well-being. Pro-ecological and frugal behaviors provide feelings of psychological well-being, personal satisfaction, motiva- tion, sense of competence, and happiness to those who engage in such behaviors (Brown and Kasser 2005; De Young 2000) in addition to the benefits that a conserved environment provides to individuals and society. This suggests that pro-environmental actions likewise contribute to self-care and caring for others.

This fabric of complex interrelations among the different types of sustainable behavior seems to reveal, on the one hand, the unicity of individuals, society, and nature, while at the same time, unveils the diversity of earth’s ecologies: intrasubjective, human, and plan- etary. They are different and unique, but ultimately they are united by chains of interdependence. If one of those ecologies is affected, the rest are as well. Sustainability, as seen from the perspective of a chain of interdependences between the individual, society and nature, begins with self-care, is followed by caring for others, and concludes with caring for the biosphere.

We assessed self-care as an array of behaviors aimed at protecting one’s integrity and searching for health and well-being. This condition sometimes is interpreted as self-love but, as Kopnina et al. (2018) suggest, it is necessary to be cautious in assuming that self- love is always a precondition of loving others (Carnegie 2004). Narcissistic and consumer- oriented individuals and societies enhance the value of self-love, but this often results in a goal in and of itself, and not in actions that promote caring for others and the environment.

Therefore, in order to be considered a sustainable behavior, self-care should be accompa- nied by, and balanced with, pro-social and pro-environmental behaviors. The internal consistency of the whole set of indicators of sustainable behaviors (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) seems to support this conclusion, indicating a coherence and balance between self-care and the other indicators.

The same can be said about the remainder of the sustainable behavior dimensions: as much as self-love can degenerate into narcissism, an exacerbated anthropocentrism can be turned into human exceptionalism, the belief that humans are an exceptional and superior species, resulting in depredation of the natural environment (Williams 2007). Conversely, an exaggerated ecocentrism, sole concern for natural preservation regardless of human needs, can also result in human harm (Fuentes-George 2016). Thus, as our findings suggest, a balance has to be maintained within, and between, the three levels of sustainable behavior (individual, society, biosphere) while avoiding the predominance of one dimension at the expense of the others and maintaining the interdependence between these dimensions. Such a balance is sustainability and sustainable behavior is the way of achiev- ing it at the psychological level.

(13)

6 Public policy implications

If confirmed, this multidimensional structure of person-environment interrelations would have implications for environmental education as well as public health and environmental policy. Environmental education has so far failed to sufficiently emphasize the crucial role of self-care in sustainability. As Young et al. (2010) establish, environmental educators should pay attention to how self-care can grow into caring for others and the environment. Furthermore, Lloro-Bidart and Semenko (2017) discuss the need to develop a feminist ethic of self-care in environmental education, which has been neglected by dominant ideologies.

Public policies involving environmental protection and the promotion of peace and justice would also benefit from including self-care into its contents. Environmental protection campaigns that promote self-protective behaviors would be reinforced by foster- ing healthy habits and psychological well-being. A number of activities incorporating self-care in educational settings have been proposed, but most of them are directed to teachers; for instance, a program implemented to teach self-care as a core practice skill (Grise-Owens et al. 2018). Yet, some efforts aiming at students are also detected: for example, a course developed to teach self-care to students through mindfulness practices, which produced significant changes in stress levels, personal lives, and training (Christopher et al. 2006). More interventions of this kind are required, and public policy developers should pay attention to them. Programs seeking to develop peaceful coexistence, solidarity, and social justice would likewise benefit from incorporating aspects of self-care (Ortiz 2018). This assumption is supported by a number of authors and scientific evidence: Self-care activities leading to health improvement are acknowledged as central in the achievement of social justice (Ruger 2004), an indicator of sustainability. Self-care is essential for both caring others and a peaceful coexistence among people (Fopka-Kowalczyk & Krajnik 2019). The conjunction of self-care with mutual care and social solidarity is an alternative to the provision of care services, specially to the elderly (Sudo et al. 2018). Our results also suggest that self-care may influence environmental protection. Therefore, educational programs promoting self-care should result in an enhanced pro-ecological behavior.

6.1 Study’s limitations

Our study is not without limitations. Sustainable behavior was assessed through self- report measures, which are subject to some degree of subjectivity and social desirabil- ity. Although the use of alternative measures is not as easy and convenient as self-report, future studies should implement other methods to confirm our results. Additionally, the study was conducted with a sample of people living in northwestern Mexico making it dif- ficult to generalize the results to other contexts or the general Mexican population. Because of the limited sample size, the study is preliminary and does not intend to represent either the psychological sustainable practices of a whole country or the determinants of such practices. Yet, since we used an appropriate sampling technique, we could claim that our sample size and procedure is representative of, at least, the population of the city we investigated. Although significant differences are not expected across samples, it is necessary to conduct studies in a variety of contexts throughout the world to test the three-dimensional structure of sustainable behaviors.

(14)

7 Conclusion

Despite the abovementioned limitations, our study suggests sustainable behavior may be three-dimensional and that self-care behavior is a fundamental component therein. This paper contributes with advancing the idea that sustainable behavior does not only include care for others and the biosphere but also a more basic aspect of sustainability: self-care as the primordial element of sustainable behavior, which had not been previously considered as a dimension of such behavior. Self-care implies an individual dimension of sustainable behavior driven by an ecocentric view of the way in which a person perceives her/his/their self as a part of an open and interconnected system. As a result, the individual simultane- ously directs actions toward their own protection, the care of others (pro-sociality), and the protection of nature (pro-ecology). The continued examination of this interdependent system of relations between behaviors benefiting the self, society, and the biosphere will be of critical importance for future research, education, and public policy endeavors.

References

Anđić, D., & Vorkapić, S. T. (2014). Interdisciplinary approaches to sustainable development in higher education a case study from Croatia. In K. Thomas & H. E. Muga (Eds.), Handbook of research on peda- gogical innovations for sustainable development (pp. 67–115). Hershey PA: IGI Global.

Bechtel, R., & Corral-Verdugo, V. (2013). Happiness and sustainable behavior. In V. Corral, C. García, &

M. Frías (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.

Den Van Broek, K., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2017). Individual differences in values determine the rela- tive effectiveness of biospheric, economic and combined appeals. Journal of Environmental Psychol- ogy, 53, 1–39. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp .2017.07.009.

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. https ://doi.org/10.1007/

s1120 5-004-8207-8.

Carfora, V., Caso, D., Sparks, P., & Conner, M. (2017). Moderating effects of pro-environmental self-iden- tity on pro-environmental intentions and behaviour: A multi-behaviour study. Journal of Environmen- tal Psychology, 53, 92–99. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp .2017.07.001.

Carmi, N., & Arnon, S. (2014). The role of future orientation in environmental behavior: Analyzing the relationship on the individual and cultural levels. Society and Natural Resources, 27(12), 1304–1320.

https ://doi.org/10.1080/08941 920.2014.92839 3.

Carnegie, D. (2004). How to stop worrying and start living. New York: Simon and Schuster.

CONAPO (2010). Metodología de estimación del índice de marginación urbana. Retrieved from: http://

www.conap o.gob.mx/work/model s/CONAP O/Resou rce/862/4/image s/06_C_AGEB.pdf.

Christopher, J. C., Christopher, S. E., Dunnagan, T., & Schure, M. (2006). Teaching self-care through mindfulness practices: The application of yoga, meditation, and qigong to counselor training. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 46(4), 494–509.

Corral-Verdugo, V., Carrus, G., Bonnes, M., Moser, G., & Sinha, J. (2008). Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principles in water conservation: towards a new human interdependence paradigm scale. Environment and Behavior, 40, 703–725. https ://doi.org/10.1177/00139 16507 30878 6.

Corral-Verdugo, V., Frías, M., & García, C. (2010). Introduction to the psychological dimensions of sustainability. In V. Corral, C. García, & M. Frías (Eds.), Psychological approaches to sustainability. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Corral-Verdugo, V., Tapia-Fonllem, C., & Ortiz-Valdez, A. (2015). On the Relationship between char- acter strengths and sustainable behavior. Environment and Behavior, 47, 877–901. https ://doi.

org/10.1177/00139 16514 53071 8.

Corral-Verdugo, V. (2012). The positive psychology of sustainability. Environment, Development and Sus- tainability, 14(5), 651–666. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1066 8-012-9346-8.

(15)

Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 173–180. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp .2008.11.001.

De Young, R. (2000). Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior.

Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 509–526. https ://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00181 .

Fopka-Kowalczyk, M., & Krajnik, M. (2019). Expectations and self-care of family members in pallia- tive care. The analysis of needs and workshop plan. Przegląd Badań Edukacyjnych, 2(29), 91–110.

Fuentes-George, K. (2016). Between preservation and exploitation. Transnational advocacy networks and conservation in developing countries. London: MIT Press.

Gerstman, B. (2014). Basic biostatistics (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290. https ://doi.org/10.1037/a0023 566.

Gregory, M. (2000). Care as a goal of democratic education. Journal of Moral Education, 29(4), 445–

461. https ://doi.org/10.1080/71367 9392.

Grise-Owens, E., Miller, J., Escobar-Ratliff, L., & George, N. (2018). Teaching note: Teaching self-care and wellness as a professional practice skill: A curricular case example. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(1), 180–186.

Guattari, F. (2001). As três ecologias. Campinas. São Paulo, 1–56. Retrieved from http://schol ar.googl e.com/schol ar?hl=en&btnG=Searc h&q=intit le:As+tr?s+ecolo gias#0

Hansmann, B. L. (1997). Con los pies en el suelo. Forma del cuerpo y visión del mundo [With your feet on your ground. Body shape and worldview]. Barcelona: Icaria Milenrama.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. New challenges to international marketing (pp. 277–319). Bingley UK:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Hilbig, B. E., Zettler, I., Moshagen, M., & Heydasch, T. (2013). Tracing the path from personality:

via cooperativeness—to conservation. European Journal of Personality, 27, 319–327. https ://doi.

org/10.1002/per.1856.

Hinz, R., Frickmann, H., & Krüger, A. (2019). Climate change and infectious diseases. In M. Palocz- Andresen, D. Szalay, A. Gosztom, L. Sípos, & T. Taligás (Eds.), International climate protection (pp. 269–276). Cham: Springer.

Jordan, K., & Kristjánsson, K. (2017). Sustainability, virtue ethics, and the virtue of harmony with nature. Environmental Education Research, 23, 1205–1229.

Juárez-Nájera, M., Rivera-Martínez, J. G., & Hafkamp, W. A. (2010). An explorative socio-psychological model for determining sustainable behavior: Pilot study in German and Mexican universities.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 686–694.

Kaiser, F. G., & Byrka, K. (2011). Environmentalism as a trait: Gauging people’s prosocial personality in terms of environmental engagement. International Journal of Psychology, 46(1), 71–79. https ://

doi.org/10.1080/00207 594.2010.51683 0.

Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific 766 composition of a general performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(767), 1531–1544.

Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Eco- nomic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239. https ://doi.org/10.1257/00220 51037 71800 013.

Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B., & Piccolo, J. J. (2018). Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(1), 109–127.

Lloro-Bidart, T., & Semenko, K. (2017). Toward a feminist ethic of self-care for environmental educators. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(1), 18–25. https ://doi.org/10.1080/00958 964.2016.12493 24.

Lulfs, R., & Hahn, R. (2014). Sustainable behavior in the business sphere: A comprehensive overview of the explanatory power of psychological models. Organization and Environment, 27(1), 43–64.

https ://doi.org/10.1177/10860 26614 52263 1.

Lumber, M., Richardson, R., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, com- passion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS ONE, 12(5), e0177186.

https ://doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pone.01771 86.

Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zahn, R., Pardini, M., Oliveira, R., & Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto-mesolim- bic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 15623–15628.

Neaman, A., Otto, S., & Vinokur, E. (2018). Toward an integrated approach to environmental and prosocial education. Sustainability, 10(3), 583. https ://doi.org/10.3390/su100 30583 .

(16)

Nolan, J. M., & Schultz, P. W. (2015). Prosocial behavior and environmental action. In D. A. Schroeder

& W. G. Graziano (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of prosocial behav- ior (pp. 626–652). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Orem, D. E. (1993). Modelo de Orem: Conceptos de enfermería en la práctica [Orem’s model: Concepts of nursing in practice]. Barcelona: Masson Salvat.

Ortiz, N. (2018). Sustaining spirit. Self-care for social justice. Berkeley, CA: Reclamation Press.

Riegel, B., Moser, D., Buck, H., Dickson, V., Dunbar, S., et al. (2017). Self-Care for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease and stroke. A scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Journal of the American Heart Association, 6(9), 1–27.

Ro, M., Brauer, M., Kuntz, K., Shukla, R., & Bensch, I. (2017). Making Cool Choices for sustainability:

Testing the effectiveness of a game-based approach to promoting pro-environmental behaviors. Jour- nal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 20–30. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp .2017.06.007.

Ruger, J. P. (2004). Health and social justice. The Lancet, 364(9439), 1075–1080.

Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339. https ://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227.

Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In P. Schmuck &

P. W. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61–78). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Aca- demic Publishers.

Sudo, K., Kobayashi, J., Noda, S., Fukuda, Y., & Takahashi, K. (2018). Japan’s healthcare policy for the elderly through the concepts of self-help (Ji-jo), mutual aid (Go-jo), social solidarity care (Kyo-jo), and governmental care (Ko-jo). Bioscience trends, 12(1), 7–11.

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

Sustainability, 5(2), 711–723. https ://doi.org/10.3390/su502 0711.

Tobón, O. (2015). El Autocuidado, una Habilidad para Vivir [Self-care, a skill for living]. Hacia la Pro- mocion de la Salud, 8(1), 38–50.

Van Lange, P. A. M. (2000). Cooperation and competition. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psy- chology (Vol. 2, pp. 296–300). Washington, DC, New York: American Psychological Association &

Oxford University Press.

Vucetich, J., & Nelson, M. (2010). Sustainability: Virtuous or vulgar? BioScience, 60, 539–544. https ://doi.

org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.7.9.

Williams, J. (2007). Thinking as natural: Another look at human exemptionalism. Human Ecology Review, 14(2), 130–139.

Wise, E. H., Hersh, M. A., & Gibson, C. M. (2012). Ethics, self-care and well-being for psychologists:

Reenvisioning the stress-distress continuum. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(5), 487–494.

Young, J., Haas, E., & McGown, E. (2010). Coyote’s guide to connecting with nature. Shelton, WA:

OWLink Media.

Young, H. S., Wood, C. L., Kilpatrick, A. M., Lafferty, K. D., Nunn, C. L., & Vincent, J. R. (2017). Conser- vation, biodiversity and infectious disease: Scientific evidence and policy implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 372, 20160124. https ://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0124.

Zaki, J., & Mitchell, J. P. (2011). Equitable decision making is associated with neural markers of intrinsic value. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(49), 19761–19766.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.