Māori Cultural Identity Linked to Greater Regard for Nature: Attitudes and (Less So) Behavior

Abstract

A sense of connectedness to the natural environment is intrinsic to ways of being for many Indigenous peoples. This is particularly evident in the Indigenous Māori of Aotearoa New Zealand, whose cultural beliefs, values, and practices are inextricably linked to te taiao—the natural environment. Few studies have investigated the interaction between this inherent connection to the wider ecosystem and the proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors of Indigenous peoples. Having proenvironmental cultural values may not necessarily translate to proenvironmental behaviors. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a greater sense of environmental connectedness (proenvironmental attitudes) as indicated by higher Māori cultural identity scores was related to increased proenvironmental behaviors. A low-risk institutional notification was obtained, and data collection occurred through an online questionnaire comprising a series of developed measures assessing Māori cultural identity, environmental connectedness, and proenvironmental behaviors. In total, 110 participants (N = 82 females, N = 24 males, N = 2 nonbinary , N = 2 non-specified), with a median age of 46–55 years, completed the survey. Participants with higher cultural identity scores demonstrated significantly greater positive regard for the environment. A positive and significant correlation with strong effect was also found for environmental connectedness and reoccurring proenvironmental behavior. Our study provides further insight into the meaning of “connectedness with nature” for contemporary Māori, and what aspects of cultural identity might foster these relationships. Findings also suggest, irrespective of strength of cultural identity, that the social context of proenvironmental behaviors is important.

Introduction

Substantial and immediate human behavioral changes are necessary to address the environmental crises faced by the global community (Lauren, Fielding, Smith, & Louis, 2016). A promising way of determining the effectiveness of any changes is through assessing attitudes held toward the environment and how these translate to actions aimed at addressing environmental problems. Proenvironmental attitudes refer to a predisposition to hold positive values, ideas, and beliefs about the environment, whereas proenvironmental behaviors are aimed at intentionally reducing the negative impact of one's actions on the environment (Dono, Webb, & Richardson, 2010). Research suggests although people may hold particular attitudes, they do not necessarily engage in behaviors aligning with those attitudes (Laroche, Tomiuk, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2002).

The translation of proenvironmental attitudes to proenvironmental behaviors is a function of social norms (Stern, 2000), and collective group orientation (Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Fritsche, Barth, Jugert, Masson, & Reese, 2017). Social context has a powerful influence over a person's attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. Group members adopt similar attitudes and beliefs and often exhibit behaviors overtly aligned with in-group norms, thereby conveying their membership status. For example, people who identify strongly with environmentalists are more likely to engage in recycling (Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999; White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, & McKimmie, 2009) or take part in environmental activism (Dono et al., 2010). This becomes important to consider in Aotearoa New Zealand, where sociohistorical context influences contemporary issues related to the environment, including perceived “tensions” and opposing beliefs between the Indigenous Māori and non-Indigenous Pākehā populations (Cowie, Greaves, Milfont, Houkamau, & Sibley, 2016; Harmsworth, Awatere, & Robb, 2016; Mills, 2009).

Although previous research notes a disconnect between proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors among historically marginalized groups (Pearson, Ballew, Naiman, & Schuldt, 2017), with few exceptions (Reihana, Taura, & Harcourt, 2019) a dearth of studies has investigated the interaction between this inherent connection to the natural environment and the proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors of Indigenous peoples (Wang et al., 2016). Within an Aotearoa New Zealand context, empirical research on the influence of cultural identity of Indigenous Māori on proenvironmental attitudes is still developing. Whether proenvironmental attitudes and beliefs among Māori effectively translate to positive environmental behavior, as yet, remains unknown.

Māori cultural beliefs, values, and practices are intimately connected to te taiao—the natural environment (Durie, 2012; Harris & Tipene, 2006; Hikuroa, 2017), and are a function of one of the most important ontological assumptions of Māori, that of whakapapa. Although often referred to as genealogy, whakapapa translates as the “layers of descent from one point to another,” and denotes a system of organization that binds all living beings together through a common lineage that descends back to the creation of the universe from a primordial energy known as Io. Whakapapa infers there is no separation between humans, the natural environment, the celestial spheres, and the entire universe, and all things exist in a state of intimate interconnectedness with each other (Harmsworth & Awatere, 2013).

Examples of the importance and relevance of whakapapa in te taiao can be observed in multiple contexts. Seemingly contradictory in contemporary profit-driven times are the examples shared by Māori enterprises. Awatere et al. (2017) examine the cultural efficacy of five Māori Asset Holding Institutions (MAHI), enterprises charged with managing tribal assets. A key finding was the importance of a strong connection between organizational policy and strategy to reflecting Māori values (e.g., whānau and whakapapa). Such connections enabled maximizing community well-being and minimizing externalities to the natural environment, while ensuring social justice is paramount (Awatere et al., 2017).

A deep kinship with the natural world is also evident in whakataukī (proverbs), such as “Tiakina te taiao, tiakina te iwi,” which translates to look after the environment and it will look after the people (Henwood et al., 2019, p. 105). Another example relates to the people of the Whanganui region of Aotearoa New Zealand and their inseparable connection to the river that runs through their landscape: “Mai i kāhui maunga ki Tangaroa. Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au,” which translates to “The river flows from the mountain to the sea. I am the river and the river is me.” In March 2017, the Aotearoa New Zealand government passed special legislation, giving the same rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person to the Whanganui River, recognizing it as a living being, in accordance with beliefs of the local iwi (New Zealand Parliament, 2017).

Pūrākau (narratives) refer to the primacy of nature and humanity's place within it (Lee, 2009). Traditionally, atua [deities or energetic forces], such as Tangaroa (manifests as sea life), Tāne-Mahuta (manifests as forest life), Tāwhirimātea (manifests as wind and storms), and Papatūānuku (manifests as the Earth Mother), held authority over the natural domains, with many cultural practices deriving from a reverence for Papatūānuku in particular (Durie, 1997; Marsden, 1992; Reed, 1999). For example, the burying of placenta and the dead signifies that all things derived from Papatūānuku should be returned to her as part of a cycle of regeneration. Importantly, atua bestowed upon humans the roles and responsibilities of kaitiakitanga [guardianship], which is an intergenerational obligation to protect and preserve the natural environment (Lockhart, Houkamau, Sibley, & Osborne, 2019). The land must be treated with deep respect and certain practices, known as tikanga, exist to govern the sustainable use of earth's resources.

Combined, these cultural institutions that have been carried out over multiple preceding generations not only reflect the core assumptions of the contemporary field of ecopsychology (Kahn & Hasbach, 2012) and place theory (Schroder, 2008), but also suggest Māori social norms are those emphasizing an intimate interconnectedness between humans and the larger ecosystem, as denoted by whakapapa. Equally, the notion of human well-being for Māori is intimately linked to the well-being of the ecosystem (Harmsworth & Awatere, 2013; Panelli & Tipa, 2007). Although contemporary Māori live in “diverse realities” (Durie, 1994) and not all endorse the values, beliefs, and practices epitomizing Māori culture, an assumption up until now has been those individuals with a stronger sense of affiliation to their Māori cultural identity are more likely to have stronger (pro-) attitudes toward the environment.

Initial research by Cowie et al. (2016) suggests this may be the case. A study using nationally representative survey data (N = 9269) investigated the association between Māori cultural identity and value for the environment. Results revealed Māori were more likely than non-Māori to endorse positive attitudes toward the environment, and cultural identity was significantly and positively related to environmental regard. Using the Multidimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement (MMM-ICE2; Houkamau & Sibley, 2015a), the authors found proenvironmental values were specifically related to sociopolitical consciousness, or the extent participants support social justice and political rights for Māori.

Lockhart et al. (2019) extended this research further, demonstrating valuing nature was positively correlated with the MMM-ICE2 dimension of spirituality. The authors found that sociopolitical consciousness was associated with valuing environmental protection, whereas Māori spiritual beliefs correlated positively to valuing unity with nature, which is perhaps unsurprising given that Māori spiritual beliefs are intertwined with the natural world (Roberts, Norman, Minhinnick, Wihongi, & Kirkwood, 1995).

Recent research in Aotearoa New Zealand reinforces the deep connection Māori have to the wider ecosystem, refuting recent political commentary that this association is overinflated and romanticized (Cowie et al., 2016; Lockhart et al. 2019). Nevertheless, both studies assessed regard for the environment using only one or two items (e.g., “Rate the extent to which you value unity with nature”). Positive regard for the environment is a multifaceted issue, spanning dimensions such as environmental connectedness, environmental activism, and enjoyment of nature. Thus, unidimensional approaches offer limited insight into the complexity of this concept.

This study built on past research by administering a series of multi-item measures assessing environmental attitudes and identity. We also further examined whether these attitudes translated to self-reported proenvironmental behaviors, such as recycling, transportation use, household and energy consumption, and meat and dairy consumption. We hypothesized those scoring higher on cultural identity would have a greater sense of environmental connectedness and exhibit more proenvironmental behaviors. We were also interested in identifying aspects of cultural identity facilitating this relationship.

Methods

Procedure

A low risk institutional notification was obtained before recruitment (application number 4000020569). Data collection occurred through an online questionnaire, comprising measures assessing Māori cultural identity, environmental connectedness, and proenvironmental behaviors. The questionnaire was developed using the Qualtrics software, and accessible through a weblink embedded within a website developed specifically for the research. Informed consent was electronically obtained through the website before participants proceeded to complete the questionnaire.

Participants

The sample comprised members of the general New Zealand population, aged 18 years and older, who self-identified as Indigenous Māori. Recruitment occurred for a 3-month period through a snowball effect utilizing our acquaintanceship networks. In total, 110 participants, with a median age of 46–55 years, successfully completed the survey (N = 82 females, N = 24 males, N = 2 nonbinary, N = 2 non-specified). The majority of participants (55.2%) had a postgraduate degree, 21.9% had an undergraduate degree, 14.4% had a high school diploma, and 10.5% specified “other” for highest educational qualification. The median personal income range was $50,000–$75,000 per annum. Just over half the sample (51.9%) resided in an urban environment and the remainder (47.1%) in a rural location.

Measures

Māori cultural identity was assessed using the 54-item revised MMM-ICE2 (Houkamau & Sibley, 2015a), the only available Indigenous-developed tool utilized in our study. Example items include “I try to kōrero (speak) Māori whenever I can” and “My Māori ancestry is important to me.” Responses are through a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and summed to yield a total score. Items can be grouped into subscales representing seven facets of identity: group membership evaluation, cultural efficacy and active identity engagement, interdependent self-concept, spirituality, sociopolitical consciousness, authenticity, and perceived appearance. These dimensions have successfully predicted material, psychological, and cultural outcomes for Māori (Houkamau & Sibley, 2015b; Houkamau & Sibley, 2010; Muriwai, Houkamau, & Sibley, 2015). Cronbach's alpha for this study was 0.82.

Environmental connectedness was assessed using the 24-item environmental identity scale (EID; Clayton, 2003). Using a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), a total score is calculated with higher scores indicative of a stronger sense of connectedness. Five subscales assess environmental identity, enjoying nature, appreciation of nature, social concerns, and environmentalism. Psychometric analyses demonstrate high reliability and consistent construct validity (Olivos & Aragonés, 2011). In this study, minor modifications were made to the wording of two items to increase relevance for New Zealanders. For item 1, the examples “woods, mountains, desert, lakes, ocean” were replaced with “bush, mountains, rivers, lakes, oceans.” For item 6, the word “wildlife” was substituted with the word “natural places.” Psychometrics for this study were excellent at α = 0.94.

The 21-item Recurring Pro-Environmental Behaviour Scale (RPEB; Brick, Sherman, & Kim, 2017) assessed frequency of environmental actions, such as recycling, use of environmentally friendly products, composting, and environmentally friendly transportation choices (e.g., “How often do you walk, bicycle, carpool, or take public transportation instead of driving a vehicle by yourself?”). Measures of visibility, effectiveness, and difficulty were also included in this study, and each contained the same 21 items, with the preface to each changed slightly to reflect what was being measured (e.g., “How effective is each behaviour…” and “How difficult is each action…”). Responses are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Cronbach's alphas for the RPEB were 0.80, and 0.91, 0.90 and 0.95, respectively, for the visibility, difficulty, and effectiveness scales.

Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25. Pearson correlation coefficients, t-tests, and analysis of variances (ANOVAs) assessed associations between MMM-ICE2 scores and EID and RPEB scores, and the association between all scales and demographic variables. Multiple linear regressions and moderated regressions analyzed the relationship between cultural identity, environmental connectedness, and proenvironmental behavior.

Results

Table 1 outlines the range, means, standard deviations, and Cronbach's alphas for each measure.

Table 1.

Range, Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach's Alphas for Measures

MEASURE	RANGE	TOTAL MEAN (SD)	α
MMM-ICE2 (N = 109)	207–335	274.72 (24.07)	0.82
Group membership evaluation	32–56	51.68 (5.72)	0.79
Cultural efficacy and active identity engagement	24–55	41.49 (6.36)	0.64
Interdependent self-concept	9–49	31.98 (8.51)	0.85
Spirituality	28–56	48.49 (6.44)	0.83
Sociopolitical consciousness	34–56	50.71 (5.37)	0.80
Authenticity beliefs	8–50	23.77 (8.75)	0.81
Perceived appearance	15–37	26.59 (3.95)	0.77
Environmental identity (N = 109)	40–120	99.65 (13.80)	0.94
Environmental identity	6–20	16.66 (2.80)	0.84
Enjoying nature	6–30	23.98 (4.35)	0.84
Appreciation of nature	14–25	21.72 (2.79)	0.71
Environmental concern	1–5	4.19 (.81)	n/a
Environmentalism	10–35	29.17 (4.27)	0.83
Recurring Pro-Environmental Behaviour (N = 106)	36–96	74.11 (9.48)	0.80
Visibility	25–147	81.03 (24.13)	0.91
Difficulty	21–121	56.21 (20.29)	0.90
Effectiveness	54–147	111.66 (23.61)	0.95

SD, standard deviation.

Demographics and potentially confounding variables

One-way ANOVAs, t-tests, and Pearson's correlations assessed relationships between demographic variables and the MMM-ICE2, EID, and RPEB scores. No significant differences in mean scores were found for gender and socioeconomic status on any of the measures. A significant difference was found for place of residence (rural vs. urban) and overall scores on the MMM-ICE2, t(101) = −0.355, p = 0.001, with participants residing in rural areas scoring higher on authenticity beliefs, t(101) = −2.12, p = 0.029, and cultural efficacy and active identity engagement, t(101) = −3.07, p = 003. A significant positive correlation was also found for age and cultural efficacy and active identity engagement, with moderate effect, r = 0.447, p < 0.000.

A significant difference was found between environmental connectedness and place of residence, with those residing in rural areas demonstrating stronger environmental connectedness, t = 0.193, p = 0.047, as indicated by higher scores on environmental appreciation, t = 0.2.47, p = 0.015, and environmental concern, t = 2.23, p = 0.028. A significant positive (although weak) correlation was also found for environmental identity and education level, r = 0.194, p = 0.047.

A significant moderate negative correlation was observed between RPEB and perceived difficulty, r = −0.552, p < 0.000, whereas a significant positive correlation was observed between RPEB and perceived effectiveness, r = 0.332, p = 0.001. Visibility also positively correlated with proenvironmental behavior, r = 0.465, p < 0.000. No other correlations between demographic variables and RPEB were evident.

Cultural identity and environmental connectedness

A one sample t-test assessed statistical differences between the sample mean of the EID and chance (a mean score of 72), t(108) = 23.26, p < 0.000. Significant differences were also observed for all subscales, with environmental appreciation demonstrating the most significant mean difference, t(108) = 25.21, p < 0.000.

Significant positive correlations were found for total scores on the MMM-ICE2 and the EID, r = 0.331, p < 0.000. Table 2 outlines the correlations between each facet of cultural identity and EID subscales. As detailed, significant associations were evident between the dimensions of spirituality, interdependent self-concept, and sociopolitical consciousness, and all environmental identity subscales except enjoying nature.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations Between the Multidimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement and Environmental Identity Subscales

MEASURES	ENVIRONMENTAL IDENTITY	ENJOYING NATURE	APPRECIATION OF NATURE	SOCIAL CONCERNS	ENVIRONMENTALISM
MMCI total	0.255^**	0.121	0.390^**	0.265^**	0.353^**
Group membership evaluation	0.018	−0.013	0.163	−0.002	0.075
Cultural efficacy and active identity engagement	−0.045	−0.074	0.111	0.059	0.050
Interdependent self-concept	0.263^**	0.122	0.275^**	0.139	0.294^**
Spirituality	0.179	0.059	0.270^**	0.226^*	0.152
Sociopolitical consciousness	0.258^**	0.162	0.342^**	0.245^*	0.355^**
Authenticity beliefs	0.099	0.103	0.177	0.172	0.201^*
Perceived appearance	0.039	0.128	0.178	0.104	0.125

N = 110. ^*p < 0.05. ^**p < 0.001.

Multiple linear regressions were performed with sociopolitical consciousness, interdependent self-concept, and spirituality (previous significant results at the bivariate level) entered as independent variables. Because place of residence (i.e., rural living) and level of education were significantly associated with environmental connectedness, these demographic variables were included in analyses. Results indicated these variables explained 36.7% of the variance in environmentalism scores, R² = 0.16, F(5,100) = 2.97, p < 0.016, and 38.3% of the variance for appreciation of nature R² = 0.15, F(5,100) = 3.27, p < 0.009. The overall regression model for environmental identity was nonsignificant; however, interdependent self-concept remained a significant predictor variable. Table 3 gives the factors that contributed significantly to each model.

Table 3.

Multiple Linear Regression for Environmental Connectedness Subscales and the Multidimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement and Demographic Variables

PREDICTORS	B	STANDARD ERROR	β	t	p
Environmentalism
Residential status (urban)^a	−0.085	0.385	−0.021	−0.222	0.825
Education	0.366	0.503	0.070	0.727	0.469
Sociopolitical consciousness	0.178	0.082	0.221	2.175	0.032
Interdependent self-concept	0.132	0.050	0.262	2.642	0.010
Spirituality	−0.058	0.069	−0.086	−0.847	0.399
Appreciation of nature
Residential status (urban)^a	−0.004	0.251	−0.001	−0.014	0.989
Education	0.578	0.329	0.169	1.757	0.082
Sociopolitical consciousness	0.094	0.053	0.178	1.759	0.082
Interdependent self-concept	0.068	0.033	0.207	2.100	0.038
Spirituality	0.035	0.045	0.078	0.774	0.441
Environmental identity
Residential status (urban)^a	−0.021	0.250	−0.008	−0.082	0.935
Education	0.415	0.327	0.126	1.270	0.207
Sociopolitical Consciousness	0.061	0.053	0.119	1.139	0.258
Interdependent self-concept	0.068	0.032	0.212	2.084	0.040
Spirituality	0.002	0.045	0.004	0.041	0.967

N = 110.

0 = urban, 1 = rural.

MMM-ICE2 = Multidimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement.

Environmental connectedness and proenvironmental behavior

A positive and significant correlation with strong effect was found for environmental connectedness and reoccurring proenvironmental behavior (RPEB), r = 0.646, p < 0.000, controlling for the potential confounds of education, residential status, visibility, effectiveness, and difficulty. All EID subscales were positively and significantly correlated with the RPEB, in particular environmentalism r = 0.629, p < 0.000, and enjoyment of nature, r = 0.606, p < 0.000.

Cultural identity and proenvironmental behavior

A marginal correlation for MMM-ICE2 and RPEB was observed, r = 0.186, p = 0.055. However, partial correlations controlling for the potential confounds of age, region, effectiveness, visibility, and difficulty yielded a significant result for global scores on the MMM-ICE2 and RPEB with small effect, r = 0.220, p = 0.042. RPEB items yielding significant correlations with global MMM-ICE2 scores were those related to environmentalism, such as engaging in environmental discussions, educating oneself about the environment, or taking part in environmental activism. Significant positive correlations with small effect were observed for the RPEB and the subscales of authenticity, r = 0.247, p = 0.017, and interdependent self-concept, r = 0.241, p = 0.020. When the additional variable of visibility was controlled for, the relationship between interdependent self-concept and RPEB was no longer significant.

A multiple linear regression was performed with environmental connectedness (EID scores), interdependent self-concept, authenticity, visibility, difficulty, and effectiveness (previous significant results at the bivariate level) entered as independent variables. Results indicated these variables explained 79.0% of the variance in RPEB scores, R² = 0.62, F(5,92) = 28.85, p < 0.000. Environmental connectedness was a significant predictor of RPEB, b = 0.43, t(92) = 7.54, p < 0.000, as was perceived difficulty, b = −0.12, t(92) = −3.35, p = 0.001. No other variables were significant predictors.

Associations between cultural identity and proenvironmental behavior were assessed using multiple moderated regressions (Hayes, 2018), to examine the effects of visibility, difficulty, and effectiveness. Each was included as moderators, with age and region entered as covariates. When moderating for difficulty, the overall model was significant, F(5,92) = 11.51, p < 0.000, R² = 0.34. Difficulty was a significant negative predictor of RPEB, b = −0.26, t(92) = −6.54, p < 0.000, conditional on cultural identity = 0. Cultural identity was a significant predictor, b = 0.08, t(92) = 0.12, p = 0.04, conditional on difficulty = 0. However, the interaction term was not significant, indicating perceived difficulty was not a significant moderator of the effect of cultural identity on RPEB.

When perceived effectiveness was included as a moderator, the overall model was significant, F(5,85) = 2.85, p = 0.02, R² = 0.14. The effect of perceived effectiveness on RPEB was positive and significant, B = 0.12, SE = 0.03, p = 0.05, when controlling for cultural identity. The effect of cultural identity on RPEB when perceived effectiveness = 0 was not significant. The interaction term was not significant, indicating perceived effectiveness was not a significant moderator of the effect of cultural identity on RPEB.

The model assessing the effects of visibility was also significant, F(5,92) = 7.93, p < 0.000, R² = 0.25. Visibility was a significant predictor of RPEB, b = 0.18, t(92) = 4.27, p < 0.000, when cultural identity = 0. Residential status was also a significant predictor of RPEB, b = 1.04, t(92) = −2.89, p = 0.005. Cultural identity was not a significant predictor of RPEB when visibility = 0, and the interaction between variables was not significant.

Discussion

Our results strongly support a sense of connectedness with te taiao linked to Māori cultural beliefs and values. Consistent with our hypothesis and findings of previous research, those with higher cultural identity scores demonstrated significantly greater positive regard for the environment. Although the relationship between Māori and the environment has been articulated both anecdotally and in some scholarly literature (Lyver et al., 2017; Panelli & Tipa, 2007), our study provides further insight into what “connectedness with nature” means for contemporary Māori, and what aspects of cultural identity might foster these relationships.

Positive regard for the environment is a multidimensional construct with a diverse range of interpretations. It cannot be fully understood from a unitary point of view, and individuals define their personal relationship with nature and humans' role within it in a variety of different ways (Clayton, 2003). For example, one person may enjoy nature for recreational purposes such as hunting and fishing; another may engage in environmental activism to limit activities or impose rāhui (restrictions) upon natural resources. Both express positive regard for the natural world, but in fundamentally different ways.

The findings suggest that proenvironmental values for those more strongly affiliated with Māori culture are related to an appreciation or heightened reverence for nature, such as feeling a particular geographic location impacted on his or her development, feeling parts of nature (e.g., certain trees, storms, or mountains) have a personality, and receiving spiritual sustenance from nature. These findings align with place attachment theory (Schroder, 2008), which emphasizes the emotional attachment individuals have to a natural resource, as well as suggesting a tendency to anthropomorphize nature (Gillespie, 1998) or aspects of nature rather than the entire ecosystem (Gebhard, Nevers, & Billman-Mahecha, 2003). Although we acknowledge the heterogeneity of Māori identity, our results imply that beliefs pertaining to the environment are of considerable importance for many Māori. By contrast, strength of cultural identity did not have a significant impact on the time spent in and enjoyment of nature. All participants appeared equally likely to enjoy spending time in natural environments.

Positive regard for nature also manifested as environmentalism. Those with stronger cultural affiliation were more interested in environmental causes, including devoting time and money (given the means) to environmental issues, and also felt behaving responsibly toward the earth was part of their moral code. These findings imply the position of Māori and environmentalists often overlap, despite commentary in popular media suggesting they do not always coincide, and may even be at odds with one another (Gillespie, 1998; Mills, 2009). Conservationists, for example, tend to advocate for minimal human intervention, whereas Māori cultural beliefs are more utilitarian in nature, with an emphasis on sustainability (Awatere et al., 2017; Cowie et al., 2016; Harmsworth et al., 2016; Mills, 2009). Still, whether the specific environmental causes advocated by Māori and environmentalists align, and whether proposed actions taken to address these problems have commonalities or any points of departure, requires further examination. The positive (although small) relationship between belief in effectiveness of proenvironmental actions and cultural identity suggests there may be a degree of commonality.

In keeping with previous research, proenvironmental attitudes and beliefs were related to certain aspects of cultural identity, notably sociopolitical consciousness, spirituality, and interdependent self-concept. The strong association with sociopolitical identity corresponds with findings reported by Lockhart et al. (2019) and Cowie et al. (2016). Both studies concluded value for the environment was largely motivated by the desire for tino rangatiratanga (authority and self-determination), as part of Māori political aspirations to reclaim lands lost during the process of Pākehā colonization. Thus, value for the land is enmeshed within a wider political ideology (Cowie et al., 2016; Houkamau & Sibley, 2010; Mills, 2009), but also speaks of a much wider context that reflects the ongoing systemic trauma and discrimination that continues to be perpetuated in contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand society (Pihama et al., 2014). We concur that sociopolitical identity plays an important role in shaping environmental values, particularly those related to environmentalism. An equally viable explanation, however, is those with a strong sense of environmental connectedness may develop heightened sociopolitical awareness, motivated perhaps, in part, by concerns regarding the use (and misuse) of natural resources. If value for the land primarily stems from a broader sociopolitical ideology, this may partially explain why in this study proenvironmental attitudes did not always directly translate to proenvironmental actions, outside of those behaviors relating to environmental activism.

Some inconsistencies with prior research were found in this study. For example, Lockhart et al. (2019) noted spirituality was positively correlated with valuing unity with nature. We found no links between the dimension of environmental identity and spirituality. Instead, spirituality was related more closely to a heightened appreciation for the natural world (e.g., receiving spiritual sustenance from nature), rather than specific feelings of unity. Also, positive environmental regard was associated strongly with interpersonal self-concept, which measures the extent one's concept of self is defined by interactions and relationships with other Māori (Houkamau & Sibley, 2014). This aspect of identity was a significant predictor of environmentalism, appreciation for nature, and environmental identity. Again, the interdependence of all things is deeply ingrained in the social organization of Māori culture. Expanding the individual self-concept to encompass relationships, not just with other humans but also with the natural world (and indeed the entire cosmos), may simply be a logical extension.

Alternatively, when findings are located within a “Western” psychological framework, they might be most closely interpreted according to the social identity theory, whereby attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are strongly influenced by social groups. For example, those who identify with environmentalists or those who hold proenvironmental attitudes will adopt similar views and exhibit “identity signaling” behavior (e.g., driving an ecofriendly vehicle or taking part in environmental activism) (Brick et al., 2017). It follows that those with stronger interdependent self-concept may spend more time with other Māori, and as an additional facet of cultural identity may exhibit positive regard for the environment. Thus, the two constructs will interact in a mutually reinforcing manner. Equally, those with higher interdependent self-concept who do not initially display green attitudes and behavior may acquire these values as a result of regular interactions with Māori who do hold the environment in high regard.

Interestingly, when visibility was held constant, the association between interdependent self-concept and environmentally sound behavior disappeared, indicating actions differed when in private. These results reinforce the importance of social context to environmentally responsible behavior. This is perhaps especially pertinent for Māori, who tend to have high collectivist value orientations compared with Pākehā (Podsiadlowski & Fox, 2011). Within collectivist societies, the self is construed as an inseparable part of a larger collective. Group harmony and the desire to “fit in” is often paramount (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Petrova, Cialdini, & Sills, 2007). Thus, the finding that those with high interdependent self-concept endorsed greener attitudes and behavior is logical.

Although cultural identity positively correlated with proenvironmental behaviors, several barriers were apparent. Previous literature notes discrepancies between positive environmental attitudes and behavior, particularly among socially or economically disadvantaged groups (Pearson et al., 2017), who may not have the economic resources to engage in proenvironmental behaviors. Although difficulty negatively impacted frequency of RPEBs, it did not significantly moderate the relationship between green behavior and Māori cultural identity. Furthermore, no correlations for income level or education and reoccurring pre-environmental behavior were evident. This suggests that social and economic circumstances, which may be tied to cultural identification (Houkamau & Sibley, 2017), were not particularly influential. Irrespective of cultural identity and despite being perceived as “clean and green,” proenvironmental behavior appears difficult to carry out in Aotearoa New Zealand. The higher cost of green products, organic food, and the unavailability of public transport in many areas are some potentially contributing factors (Gan, Wee, Ozanne, & Kao, 2008; Tan, Johnstone, & Yang, 2016).

Similarly, perceived effectiveness did not significantly moderate the relationship between cultural identity and RPEB. Perceived effectiveness measures the extent individuals believe meaningful change is possible. Belz and Dyllik (1996) propose that the benefit of environmental actions is considered negligible when others are perceived as not behaving accordingly. Individuals may also consider themselves incapable of effecting environmental change or that specific actions (e.g., recycling) are ineffectual (Gifford, 2011; Pelletier, Dion, Tuson, & Green-Demers, 1999). The issue of effectiveness has special significance in Aotearoa New Zealand, where the sociohistorical milieu of colonization and its continuing deleterious effects mean the motivating environmental concerns and interests of Māori may not necessarily align with other ethnic groups, including Pākehā (Gillespie, 1998). Historically disenfranchised or marginalized groups have demonstrated lower self-efficacy and higher learned helplessness with respect to environmental engagement (Landry, Gifford, Milfont, Weeks, & Arnocky, 2018; Pearson et al., 2017). Low priority, institutional barriers, and lack of visible representation in the environmental sector are proposed contributing factors (Landry et al., 2018). However, our findings demonstrate that although perceived effectiveness is positively correlated with reoccurring proenvironmental actions, it did not moderate the relationship with cultural identity. This suggests that differing interpretations of environmentally sound behaviors, dependent upon strength of Māori cultural affiliation, did not influence results.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognize the RPEB is based on Western understandings of environmentalism. The survey assumes a certain level and type of knowledge about “green” and “not so green” personal behavior, primarily normed on Western populations. Although many of these actions were endorsed by the current sample, there may be other practices compatible with mātauranga (Māori knowledge) deemed more effective (e.g., such as those based on the principle of kaitiakitanga). Although our findings indicate that cultural identity correlates with Western ideals of sustainable environmental practices, exploring the efficacy of behaviors based on Māori conceptualizations is necessary in future studies.

Although analyses controlled for level of education, another important consideration when interpreting the findings is a large proportion of our participants held “Western” educational qualifications typically obtained through Aotearoa New Zealand's British modeled university system. Equally, such participants were in higher proportion than the general population of Aotearoa New Zealand Māori, with 77.1% holding a bachelor's degree or higher, which is considerably greater than the population average of 7.5% (NZ Census, 2013).

Summary

Higher scores on cultural identity correlated with increased environmental connectedness, confirming that Māori worldviews are intertwined with positive environmental regard. Cultural identity also related positively with increased proenvironmental actions, although this relationship was less pronounced, signaling the presence of a belief–behavior gap. The relationship between proenvironmental attitudes and behavior for Māori is complex. Even a strong positive cultural orientation toward nature might be an insufficient driver of proenvironmental behavior. Although cultural identity influences behaviors to some extent, it is not a direct predictor. Instead, degree of environmental connectedness, which can be situated within or without a supporting cultural framework, seems to wield the most influence. Finding ways to bridge the gap between belief and behavior within Te Ao Māori, perhaps by exploring the attitudinal and behavioral effects of traditional approaches to environmental protection and sustainability and collective interaction, represents a promising avenue for future exploration.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No completing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

This research was funded by a grant from the Massey University Research Fund (ref: 1000021436).

References

Awatere

, Mika

, Hudson

, Pauling

, Lambert

, & Reid

(2017). Whakatipu rawa ma ngā uri whakatipu: Optimising the “Māori” in Māori economic development. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 13, 80–88.

Belz

, & Dyllik

(1996). Ecological Positioning Strategies [in German]. In T. R. Tomczak, & A. Roosdorp (eds.), Positionierung—Kernentscheidung des Marketing (pp. 170–179). St Gallen: Thexis Verlag.

Brick

, Sherman

D. K.

, & Kim

H. S.

(2017). “Green to be seen” and “brown to keep down”: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 226–238.

Clayton

(2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 45–66). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cowie

L. J.

, Greaves

L. M.

, Milfont

T. L.

, Houkamau

C. A.

, & Sibley

C. G.

(2016). Indigenous identity and environmental values: Do spirituality and political consciousness predict environmental regard among Māori?. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 5, 228.

Dono

, Webb

, & Richardson

(2010). The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 178–186.

Durie

(1997). Te aka matua: Keeping a Māori identity. In P. Te Whaiti, M. McCarthy, & A. Durie (eds.), Mai i rangiātea. Māori wellbeing and development (pp. 142–162). Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Durie

(2012). Ancestral laws of Māori: Continuities of land, people and history. In D. Keenan (ed.), Huia Histories of Māori: Ngā tāhuhu kōrero (pp. 2–11). Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Durie

M. H.

(1994). Whaiora. Māori health development. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

10.

Fielding

K. S.

, & Hornsey

M. J.

(2016). A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Insights and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 121.

11.

Fritsche

, Barth

, Jugert

, Masson

, & Reese

(2017). A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 125, 245–269.

12.

Gan

, Wee

H. Y.

, Ozanne

, & Kao

(2008). Consumers' purchasing behavior towards green products in New Zealand. Innovative Marketing, 4, 93–102.

13.

Gebhard

, Nevers

, & Billman-Mahecha

(2003). Moralizing trees: Anthropomorphism and identity in children's relationships to nature. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 91–112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

14.

Gifford

(2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290.

15.

Gillespie

(1998). Environmental politics in New Zealand/Aotearoa: Clashes and commonality between Māoridom and environmentalists. New Zealand Geographer, 54, 19–26.

16.

Harmsworth

G. R.

, & Awatere

(2013). Indigenous Māori knowledge and perspectives of ecosystems. Ecosystem services in New Zealand—Conditions and trends (pp. 274–286). Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press.

17.

Harmsworth

, Awatere

, & Robb

(2016). Indigenous Māori values and perspectives to inform freshwater management in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Ecology and Society, 21, 9.

18.

Harris

G. F.

, & Tipene

(2006). Māori land development. In M. Mulholland (ed.), State of the Māori Nation: Twenty-First Century issues in Aotearoa. Auckland: Reed Publishing Limited.

19.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85, 4–40.

20.

Henwood

, Brockbank

, Moewaka Barnes

, Moriarty

, Zammit

, & McCreanor

(2019). Enhancing drinking water quality in remote Māori communities. MAI Journal, 8, 97–109.

21.

Hikuroa

(2017). Mātauranga Māori—The ūkaipō of knowledge in New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 47, 5–10.

22.

Houkamau

C. A.

, & Sibley

C. G.

(2010). The multi-dimensional model of Māori identity and cultural engagement. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 39, 8–28.

23.

Houkamau

C. A.

, & Sibley

C. G.

(2014). Social identity and differences in psychological and economic outcomes for mixed and sole-identified Māori. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 40, 113–125.

24.

Houkamau

C. A.

, & Sibley

C. G.

(2015a). The revised multidimensional model of Māori identity and cultural engagement (MMM-ICE2). Social Indicators Research, 122, 279–296.

25.

Houkamau

C. A.

, & Sibley

C. G.

(2015b). Looking Māori predicts decreased rates of home ownership: Institutional racism in housing based on perceived appearance. PLoS One, 10, e0118540.

26.

Houkamau

C. A.

, & Sibley

C. G.

(2017). Cultural connection predicts perceptions of financial security for Māori. Social Indicators Research, 133, 395–412.

27.

Kahn

P. H.

, & Hasbach

P. H.

(eds.) (2012). Ecopsychology: Science, totems, and the technological species. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

28.

Landry

, Gifford

, Milfont

T. L.

, Weeks

, & Arnocky

(2018). Learned helplessness moderates the relationship between environmental concern and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 18–22.

29.

Laroche

, Tomiuk

M. A.

, Bergeron

, & Barbaro-Forleo

(2002). Cultural differences in environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of Canadian consumers. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19, 267–282.

30.

Lauren

, Fielding

K. S.

, Smith

, & Louis

W. R.

(2016). You did, so you can and you will: Self-efficacy as a mediator of spillover from easy to more difficult pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 191–199.

31.

Lee

(2009). Decolonising Māori narratives: Pūrākau as method. MAI Review, 2, 1–12.

32.

Lockhart

, Houkamau

C. A.

, Sibley

C. G.

, & Osborne

(2019). To be at one with the land: Māori spirituality predicts greater environmental regard. Religions, 10, 427.

33.

Lyver

, O'B., Timoti

, Gormley

A. M.

, Jones

C. J.

, Richardson

S. J.

, Tahi

B. L.

, & Greenhalgh

(2017). Key Māori values strengthen the mapping of forest ecosystem services. Ecosytem Services, 27(part A), 92–102.

34.

Markus

H. R.

, & Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224.

35.

Marsden

(1992). God, man, and universe: A Māori view. In M. King (ed.), Te ao hurihuri. Aspects of Māoritanga (pp. 117–137). Auckland: Reed Publishing.

36.

Mills

(2009). The changing relationship between Māori and environmentalists in 1970s and 1980s New Zealand. History Compass, 7, 678–700.

37.

Muriwai

E. M.

, Houkamau

C. A.

, & Sibley

C. G.

(2015). Culture as cure? The protective function of Māori cultural efficacy on psychological distress. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 44, 14–24.

38.

New Zealand Parliament (2017). Innovative bill protects Whanganui River with legal personhood. Retrieved from https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/innovative-bill-protects-whanganui-river-with-legal-personhood/

39.

NZ Census (2013). 2013 Census QuickStats about education and training. Retrieved from http://archive.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/qstats-education-training/highest-qualification.aspx

40.

Olivos

, & Aragonés

J. I.

(2011). Psychometric properties of the Environmental Identity Scale (EID) [in Spanish]. Psyecology, 2, 15–24.

41.

Panelli

, & Tipa

(2007). Placing well-being: A Māori case study of cultural and environmental specificity. EcoHealth, 4, 445–460.

42.

Pearson

A. R.

, Ballew

M. T.

, Naiman

, & Schuldt

J. P

. (2017). Race, class, gender and climate change communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.412.

43.

Pelletier

L. G.

, Dion

, Tuson

, & Green-Demers

(1999). Why do people fail to adopt environmental protective behaviors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental amotivation 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2481–2504.

44.

Petrova

P. K.

, Cialdini

R. B.

, & Sills

S. J.

(2007). Consistency-based compliance across cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 104–111.

45.

Pihama

, Reynolds

, Smith

, Reid

, Smith

L. T.

, & Nana

R. T.

(2014). Positioning historical trauma theory within Aotearoa New Zealand. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 10, 248–262.

46.

Podsiadlowski

, & Fox

(2011). Collectivist value orientations among four ethnic groups: Collectivism in the New Zealand context. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40, 5–18.

47.

Reed

A. W.

(1999). Māori myths and legendary tales. Auckland: New Holland Publishers.

48.

Reihana

, Taura

, & Harcourt

(2019). He tohu o te wā—Hangarau pūtaiao/Sings of our times—Fusing technology with environmental sciences. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 43, 3382–3391.

49.

Roberts

, Norman

, Minhinnick

, Wihongi

, & Kirkwood

(1995). Kaitiakitanga: Maori perspectives on conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology, 2, 7–20.

50.

Schroder

(2008). Attachment to place in New Zealand. New Zealand Population Review, 33/34, 177–212.

51.

Stern

P. C.

(2000). Theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.

52.

Tan

L. P.

, Johnstone

M. L.

, & Yang

(2016). Barriers to green consumption behaviours: The roles of consumers' green perceptions. Australasian Marketing Journal, 24, 288–299.

53.

Terry

D. J.

, Hogg

M. A.

, & White

K. M.

(1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225–244.

54.

Wang

, Tu

, Yang

, Guo

, Yuan

, & Liu

(2016). Determinants of pro-environmental consumption intention in rural China: The role of traditional cultures, personal attitudes and reference groups. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 215–224.

55.

White

K. M.

, Smith

J. R.

, Terry

D. J.

, Greenslade

J. H.

, & McKimmie

B. M.

(2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 135–158.