Religiosity and Environmental Stewardship: Psychometric Validation of the CRS-5 and Links to Sustainability

Castillo, Fides; Bugtai, Nilo; Castillo, Francisco

doi:10.25673/123141

Proceedings of International Conference on Applied Innovation in IT · 2025/12/22 · Vol. 13 · Issue 5 · pp. 985–990

Religiosity and Environmental Stewardship: Psychometric Validation of the CRS-5 and Links to Sustainability

Fides del Castillo, Nilo Bugtai, Francisco Emmanuel Munsayac Jr. and Clarence Darro del Castillo

📄 Download PDF DOI: 10.25673/123141

Abstract

This study evaluated the psychometric properties and structural validity of the five-item Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS-5) in a sample of Filipino university students. It examined implications for ecological attitudes and sustainability engagement. Descriptive statistics and CFA results indicated that CRS 5 is a brief, acceptable measure of centrality of religiosity. Private Practice and Religious Experience showed the strongest relations with the CRS 5 total, highlighting private devotion and experiential spirituality. Regarding the theoretical and empirical links between religiosity and environmental concern, we discuss how dimensions captured by the CRS-5 can support pro-environmental values, collective stewardship, and sustainable behaviors – particularly in societies where religion shapes community norms. The study recommends integrating religious institutions and experiential spirituality into ecological education and sustainability interventions on university campuses. Limitations and directions for research on measurement invariance and the CRS-5’s predictive validity for environmental outcomes are noted. Future research should explore longitudinal designs and cross-cultural comparisons to clarify causal pathways linking religiosity and sustainability engagement. Examining how faith-based narratives influence environmental decision-making may further strengthen strategies that harness moral motivation and community solidarity for global ecological responsibility and behavioral change.

Keywords

CRS-5 Religiosity Sustainability Environmental Attitudes Psychometrics Stewardship.

References

R. Gifford and A. Nilsson, “Personal and social factors that influence pro environmental concern and behaviour: A review,” International Journal of Psychology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 141-157, 2014, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034.
L. Agusalim and M. Karim, “Religiosity and climate change: An eco religious approach,” Environmental & Socio Economic Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 35-50, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2024-0004.
United Nations, “Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” 2015, [Online]. Available: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
S. Huber and O. W. Huber, “The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS),” Religions, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 710-724, 2012, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel3030710.
M. Ackert, E. Maglakelidze, I. Badurashvili, and S. Huber, “Validation of the Short Forms of the Centrality of Religiosity Scale in Georgia,” Religions, vol. 11, no. 2, 57, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11020057.
F. Del Castillo, C. D. del Castillo, M. A. Aliño, R. Nob, and M. Ackert, “Validation of the Abrahamic forms of the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS 5, CRS 10, and CRS 15): Evidence from selected university students in the Philippines,” Religions, vol. 12, no. 2, 84, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020084.
F. Del Castillo, C. D. del Castillo, M. A. Aliño, R. Nob, M. Ackert, and G. Ching, “Validation of the interreligious forms of the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRSi 7, CRSi 14, and CRSi 20): Salience of religion among selected youth in the Philippines,” Religions, vol. 11, no. 12, 641, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120641.
F. Del Castillo, C. D. del Castillo, G. Ching, and M. S. Campos, “Centrality of religiosity among select LGBTQs in the Philippines,” Religions, vol. 12, no. 2, 83, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020083.
F. Del Castillo, I. R. Edara, G. Ching, and C. D. del Castillo, “Validation of the interreligious forms of the Centrality of Religiosity Scale in Taiwan: Perspectives from selected university students,” Religions, vol. 12, no. 2, 77, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020077.
U. Riegel, “Religion and attitude towards sustainability: An analysis on the effects of individual religiosity and church membership on value orientation,” Journal of Empirical Theology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 69-83, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1163/15709256-20231140.
P. C. Stern, T. Dietz, T. Abel, G. A. Guagnano, and L. Kalof, “A value belief norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism,” Human Ecology Review, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 81-97, 1999.
M. Zafran, “Does religiosity drive sustainability? Analyzing the impact of religiosity on sustainability behaviors among Muslim consumers in Pakistan,” Discover Sustainability, vol. 6, no. 1, article 627, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00840-7.
W. T. Fang, U. Kaplan, Y. T. Chiang, and C. T. Cheng, “Is religiosity related to environmentally protective behaviors among Taiwanese Christians? A structural equation modeling study,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 21, article 8999, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218999.
L. White, Jr., “The historical roots of our ecological crisis,” Science, vol. 155, no. 3767, pp. 1203-1207, 1967, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.155.3767.1203.