Page 64 - EER-1-1

Explora: Environment
and Resource COVID-19 impact on forest biodiversity attitudes

study, the CR values of all the constructs were significantly (HTMT), suggested by Henseler et al. Based on the
61
>0.70. Thus, by taking together the values of AVE and CR, statistical values shown in Tables 3 and 5, it can be noted that
it can be confirmed that convergent validity is established almost all the values of HTMT are lower than the proposed
for the measurement model used in this study. The values values of 0.90 all these values confirmed the discriminant
62
of Cronbach’s alpha are also above the cut-off value of 0.70 validity of the measurement model constructs.
(Table 2), signifying high construct reliability. 60
5.5. Hypotheses testing
5.4. Discriminant validity
The statistical values shown in Figure 2 and hypotheses
Following the completion of the convergent validity depicted in Table 5 (i.e., H1, H2, and H3) suggest that,
test, the discriminant validity test was conducted. The for instance, deforestation has a significant positive
measure wherein the uniqueness of said variables adopted relationship with not only the bird extinction (b = 0.558,
in this research is known as discriminant validity. 59,61 t = 13.082 and P = 0.000) but also the mammal extinction
Tables 3 and 4 illustrate that all the constructs have (b = 0.561, t = 12.663 and P = 0.000) and the plant
satisfactory values for the discriminant validity. 57 extinction (b = 0.574, t = 14.559 and P = 0.000). Therefore,
The other most preferred approach to measure the our hypotheses (H1, H2, H3) are supported.
discriminant validity is the heterotrait–monotrait ratio
In contrast, statistical results for hypotheses (H4 and
Table 2. Construct reliability and validity H5) show that bird extinction and plant extinction do
not significantly affect public attitude toward biodiversity
Constructs Cronbach’s Composite Average variance conservation (b = 0.094, t = 1.737 and P = 0.083, and
alpha reliability extracted b = 0.128, t = 1.837 and P = 0.067, respectively). To
Attitude 0.885 0.920 0.743 further study the relationship between bird extinction and
Bird extinction 0.818 0.892 0.734 plant extinction with public attitude, the indirect effect is
COVID-19 impact 0.841 0.887 0.612 calculated using SMART-PLS.
Deforestation 0.857 0.903 0.700 The result of the indirect effect is exhibited in Figure 3,
Mammal extinction 0.879 0.912 0.675 with COVID-19 being kept as a moderator for bird
Plant extinction 0.851 0.894 0.628 extinction and plant extinction. Table 6 does not show
Abbreviation: COVID-19: Coronavirus disease 2019. any significant moderating relationship of COVID-19

Table 3. Fornell‑Larcker criterion (discriminant validity)
Attitude Bird extinction COVID‑19 impact Deforestation Mammal extinction Plant extinction
Attitude 0.862
Bird extinction 0.504 0.856
COVID-19 impact 0.564 0.460 0.783
Deforestation 0.485 0.558 0.545 0.837
Mammal extinction 0.559 0.683 0.478 0.561 0.821
Plant extinction 0.559 0.672 0.490 0.574 0.785 0.792
Note: Bold values indicate HTMT is lower than the proposed values of 0.90, and all these values confirmed the discriminant validity of the
measurement model constructs.
Abbreviation: COVID-19: Coronavirus disease 2019.
Table 4. Heterotrait‑monotrait ratio
Constructs Attitude Bird extinction COVID‑19 impact Deforestation Mammal extinction Plant extinction
Attitude --
Bird extinction 0.592
COVID-19 impact 0.648 0.553
Deforestation 0.552 0.659 0.633
Mammal extinction 0.631 0.805 0.553 0.637
Plant extinction 0.637 0.798 0.573 0.666 0.524 --
Note: Diagonal bold values proposed that all these values confirmed the discriminant than the other constructs.

Volume 1 Issue 1 (2024) 9 doi: 10.36922/eer.3615