IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i4p3210-d1063658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Greening to Meaning: Understanding the Content of Catholic Attitudes towards the Ecological Crisis

Author

Listed:
  • Roland Daw

    (Faculty of Business and Law, St. Mary’s University, Twickenham, London TW1 4SX, UK)

  • Gherardo Girardi

    (Faculty of Business and Law, St. Mary’s University, Twickenham, London TW1 4SX, UK)

  • Silvia Riva

    (Department of Psychology and Pedagogic Science, Faculty of Sport, Allied Health and Performance Science, St. Mary’s University, Twickenham, London TW1 4SX, UK)

Abstract

The contribution of faith organisations to public discourse on the ecological crisis appears to be intensifying, leading some to conjecture that Christians are becoming more concerned with the environment. In social science research, this observation is generally understood as the greening of religion hypothesis. Empirical studies have tried to confirm this hypothesis for over three decades, but have generally returned the same, negative results. In this paper, we argue that the ill-fated preoccupation with quantifying the extent of Christian environmental concern has overlooked the more substantive investigation of how environmentally engaged Christians think, feel about, and perform the relationship between Christianity and the environment. The purpose of this study was to investigate environmental attitudes within a parish community. We surveyed 254 parishioners in the Catholic diocese of Salford, U.K. We used cluster analysis to identify groups of parishioners within the sample who exhibited especially pro-environmental attitudes. We then conducted a regression analysis on the relationships between the individuals’ beliefs and the number of pro-environmental actions they performed. We found that, on the one hand, belief in the importance of caring for the environment to the Catholic faith does not result in parishioners being more ecologically active, consistent with existing findings in the literature. On the other hand, however, the importance of care for the environment to one’s own religious practice results in parishioners being more ecologically active, consistent with the greening of religion hypothesis. These results point to the need for a much subtler analysis that considers the precise meaning of faith for Christian parishioners. We conclude with recommendations for further investigation of the greening of religion that can generate more detailed hypotheses from the greater level of detail afforded by this study.

Suggested Citation

  • Roland Daw & Gherardo Girardi & Silvia Riva, 2023. "From Greening to Meaning: Understanding the Content of Catholic Attitudes towards the Ecological Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3210-:d:1063658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3210/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3210/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew B. Arbuckle & David M. Konisky, 2015. "The Role of Religion in Environmental Attitudes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1244-1263, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benjamin S. Lowe & Susan K. Jacobson & Glenn D. Israel & Anna L. Peterson, 2023. "Association of Religious End Time Beliefs with Attitudes toward Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maryam Dilmaghani, 2018. "Which is greener: secularity or religiosity? Environmental philanthropy along religiosity spectrum," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(2), pages 477-502, April.
    2. Charles Caldwell & Natalie Probstein & Tanhum Yoreh, 2022. "Shades of green: environmental action in places of worship," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(3), pages 430-452, September.
    3. Adongo, Charles A. & Taale, Francis & Adam, Issahaku, 2018. "Tourists' values and empathic attitude toward sustainable development in tourism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 251-263.
    4. Benjamin S. Lowe & Susan K. Jacobson & Glenn D. Israel & Anna L. Peterson, 2023. "Association of Religious End Time Beliefs with Attitudes toward Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Xixiong Xu & Lingling Duan & Youliang Yan, 2019. "The Influence of Confucianism on Corporate Environmental Investment: Evidence from Chinese Private Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Zhengyan Li & David M. Konisky, 2023. "Personal attributes and (mis)perceptions of local environmental risk," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 119-152, January.
    7. Sharma, Swati & Ang, James B. & Fredriksson, Per G., 2021. "Religiosity and climate change policies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. Amanda Kennard, 2021. "My Brother’s Keeper: Other-regarding preferences and concern for global climate change," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 345-376, April.
    9. Briguglio, Marie & García-Muñoz, Teresa & Neuman, Shoshana, 2020. "Environmental Engagement, Religion and Spirituality in the Context of Secularization," IZA Discussion Papers 13946, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Boto-García, David & Bucciol, Alessandro, 2020. "Climate change: Personal responsibility and energy saving," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. Yalin Mo & Junyu Zhao & Thomas Li-Ping Tang, 2023. "Religious Beliefs Inspire Sustainable HOPE (Help Ourselves Protect the Environment): Culture, Religion, Dogma, and Liturgy—The Matthew Effect in Religious Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 665-685, May.
    12. Mercedes Varela-Losada & Pedro Vega-Marcote & María Lorenzo-Rial & Uxío Pérez-Rodríguez, 2021. "The Challenge of Global Environmental Change: Attitudinal Trends in Teachers-In-Training," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, January.
    13. Adam T. Jones & Lester Hadsell & Robert T. Burrus, 2019. "Capitalist Views and Religion," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 384-414, June.
    14. Denni Arli & Patrick Esch & Yuanyuan Cui, 2023. "Who Cares More About the Environment, Those with an Intrinsic, an Extrinsic, a Quest, or an Atheistic Religious Orientation?: Investigating the Effect of Religious Ad Appeals on Attitudes Toward the E," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(2), pages 427-448, June.
    15. Lewis Davis & Dolores Garrido & Carolina Missura, 2023. "Inherited Patience and the Taste for Environmental Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-10, February.
    16. Xun Gong & Shenggang Yang & Min Zhang, 2017. "Not Only Health: Environmental Pollution Disasters and Political Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-28, April.
    17. Robin G. Veldman & Dara M. Wald & Sarah B. Mills & David A. M. Peterson, 2021. "Who are American evangelical Protestants and why do they matter for US climate policy?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), March.
    18. Steven T. Yen & Ernest M. Zampelli, 2021. "Political Ideology, Political Party, and Support for Greater Federal Spending on Environmental Protection in the United States: Evidence from the General Social Surveys, 1993–2018," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 6-30, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3210-:d:1063658. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.