Understanding the environmental worldviews of Malaysian project managers

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the dimensionality of the environmental concern scale (NEP) and to understand the environmental worldviews of Malaysian project managers. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional survey was conducted among developer organisations registered with Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia in Klang Valley. Response was obtained from project managers and the final sample collected was 87 cases, representing a response rate of 24.5 per cent. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to investigate the underlying structure of the NEP items while frequency distribution for the data set was used to gauge the environmental worldviews of the respondents. In addition, face-to-face interviews were carried out to gather more information to complements the findings of quantitative analyses. Findings Five factors were extracted but due to heavy cross-loadings, two items from the original scale were dropped, reducing it to be a 13-item scale. The four factors retained explained 61.6 per cent of the variance and were duly named Human over nature, ecocrisis, rights of nature and limits of growth. High scores on both pro-NEP and pro-dominant social paradigm items revealed the co-existence of both ecological and utilitarian view of the environment among project managers. Similar outcome was obtained from interviews with project managers where they indicated efforts in finding compatibility between protecting the environment and exploiting natural resources for development. Research limitations/implications The sample was restricted to housing developers in Klang Valley, thus the findings cannot be generalised to all developer organisations or other construction occupational groups. Practical implications This research supported the multidimensionality claim of the environmental scale (NEP) where four distinctive dimensions were identified. The usage of individual subscales in understanding environmental beliefs may reveal interesting patterns in that each dimension could have positive and negative connotations on human behaviours. In addition, the co-existence of both an ecological and a utilitarian view of the environment revealed that these worldviews align well with sustainable development principles. Originality/value This study is one of the few local studies that attempt to understand the environmental worldviews of project managers.

A survey of perceived prevalence of selected environmental topics in product development, and their relationships with employee's ecological concern

“…The extent of ecological concern was found to be high similarly to studies in other types of populations (Hawcroft & Milfont 2010). These seven items in Publication 3 present more of the scale's pro-ecological dimensions in contrast to the scale's items measuring more of the beliefs on dimensions related to human dominance over nature (Lau et al 2016). It would be insightful to examine ecological concern in other populations representing people working in product development to learn potentially more on the facets of proponents and non-proponents.…”

“…This NEP measure seeks to capture the essence of an individual's beliefs on these relationships representing what is called an ecological worldview (ibid.). It taps into these relationships through two broader dimensions: one related to the role of humans influencing the natural environment, and the other one related to the current state of affairs in the natural environment (Lau et al 2016). Dunlap et el.…”

“…In addition, it is argued that the NEP might enable a deeper understanding of the differences between the proponents and non-proponents. As an example, Lau et al (2016) report findings on what researchers call "humans over nature", as a latent structure among project managers when investigating NEP measure in Malaysia.…”

Mediation analysis of the relationship between environmental concern and intention to adopt green concepts

“…Public sector, professional bodies and educational institutions should allocate more resources and efforts in heightening the awareness of their respective staff, members and students on environmental and developmental issues. In line with the existence of both eco-centric and anthropocentric views among local population (Lau et al, 2016), ongoing education through curriculums, campaigns, seminars and conferences is necessary to strengthen the eco-centric component to explore ways to support sustainability and to conserve the remaining environment.…”

“…The scale had good internal consistency (α ¼ 0.72). Factor analysis yielded four dimensions of EC (see Lau et al, 2016), namely humans over nature (α ¼ 0.78), eco-crisis (α ¼ 0.72), rights of nature (α ¼ 0.68) and limits of growth (α ¼ 0.53).…”