Advertisement

A Multi-dimensional Measure of Environmental Behavior: Exploring the Predictive Power of Connectedness to Nature, Ecological Worldview and Environmental Concern

  • Anastasia GkargkavouziEmail author
  • George Halkos
  • Steriani Matsiori
Article

Abstract

In this study we examine the multi-dimensional structure of environmental behavior and its potential domains. Factor analysis reveals six behavioral domains: civic actions, policy support, recycling, transportation choices, behaviors in a household setting and consumerism. We use the Connectedness to Nature and Inclusion of Nature in Self scales to measure connection with nature, the New Environmental Paradigm to measure ecological worldviews, and Environmental Motives Scale to assess people’s environmental concern. We further explore the predictive power of connectedness to nature, ecological worldview, and environmental concern for explaining the diverse behavioral domains. Connectedness to nature and ecological worldview were more predictive of civic actions, recycling, household behaviors, and consumerism than were environmental concerns. In the case of policy support and transportation choices, environmental concerns explained more variance than the other constructs.

Keywords

Environmental behavior Connectedness to nature Ecological worldview Environmental concern 

Notes

Authors’ Contributions

Anastasia Gkargkavouzi contributed to conception and design, the collection of the data, analysis, and interpretation of data, and drafting the article. Professor George Halkos contributed to the drafting of the data. Assistant Professor Steriani Matsiori contributed to the drafting of the data and supervised the entire study procedure.

Funding

The present work is part of a Ph.D. study which is co-financed by the National Strategic Reference Framework (2014–2020), the European Social Fund and Greek Public Sector, through the action “Strengthening the human research potential” and the implementation of Operational Program “Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning” (MIS 5000432).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All author declare no conflict of intrest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alisat, S., & Riemer, M. (2015). The environmental action scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbaro, N., & Pickett, S. M. (2016). Mindfully green: Examining the effect of connectedness to nature on the relationship between mindfulness and engagement in pro-environmental behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 142–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaption of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beery, T. H., & Wolf-Watz, D. (2014). Nature to place: Rethinking the environmental connectedness perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 198–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Best, H., & Kneip, T. (2011). The impact of attitudes and behavioral costs on environmental behavior: A natural experiment on household waste recycling. Social Science Research, 40(3), 917–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binder, M., & Blankenberg, A.-K. (2016). Environmental concerns, volunteering and subjective well-being: Antecedents and outcomes of environmental activism in germany. Ecological Economics, 124, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, T. A. (2015). Methodology in the social sciences series (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, P. (2017). Narrative: An ontology, epistemology and methodology for pro-environmental psychology research. Social Science Research, 31, 215–222.Google Scholar
  11. Brügger, A., Kaiser, F. G., & Roczen, N. (2011). One for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. European Psychologist, 16(4), 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corral-Verdugo, V. (1997). Environmental dual “realities” of conservation behavior: Self-reports. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 135–145.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1997.0048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corral-Verdugo, V., Mireles-Acosta, J., Tapia-Fonllem, C., & Fraijo-Sing, B. (2011). Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: A study of pro-ecological, frugal, equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective wellbeing. Human Ecology Review, 18(2), 95–104.Google Scholar
  14. Cottrell, S. P. (2003). Influence of sociodemographic and environmental attitude on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environment and Behavior, 35, 347–375.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503035003003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, J. L., Le, B., & Coy, A. E. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Dominicis, S., Schultz, P. W., & Bonaiuto, M. (2017). Protecting the environment for self-interested reasons: Altruism is not the only pathway to sustainability. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1065.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Young, R. (1996). Some psychological aspects of reduced consumption behaviour: The role of intrinsic satisfaction and competence motivation. Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 358–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. Applied Social Research Methods Series (4th ed, vol. 26). Los Angeles: SAGE publications Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Dono, J., Webb, J., & Richardson, B. (2010). The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunlap, R. E., & Michelson, W. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of environmental sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  21. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 474–493.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506298794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gatersleben, B. (2013). Measuring environmental behavior. In L. Steg, A. E. Van den Berg, & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction (pp. 132–140). Chichester: British Psychological Society, BPS Blackwell by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 335–362.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034003004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gifford, R. (2008). Psychology’s essential role in alleviating the impacts of climate change. Canadian Psychology, 49(4), 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157.Google Scholar
  27. Givens, J. E., & Jorgenson, A. K. (2013). Individual environmental concern in the world polity: A multilevel analysis. Social Science Research, 42(2), 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper saddle River: Pearson Education International.Google Scholar
  29. Halkos, G. (2007). Econometrics: Theory and practice: Instructions in using eviews, minitab, SPSS and excel. Athens: Gutenberg.Google Scholar
  30. Halkos, G. (2011). Nonparametric modelling of biodiversity: Determinants of threatened species. Journal of Policy Modelling, 33(4), 618–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Halkos, G., & Jones, N. (2012). Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection. Ecological Economics, 78, 90–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Halkos, G., & Matsiori, S. (2012a). Assessing the economic value of protecting artificial lakes. MRPA Munich Personal RePEc Archive 59211.Google Scholar
  33. Halkos, G., & Matsiori, S. (2012b). Determinants of willingness to pay for coastal zone quality improvement. The Journal of SocioEconomics, 41, 391–399.Google Scholar
  34. Halkos, G., & Matsiori, S. (2013). The relationship between people’s attitude and willingness to pay for river conservation. MPRA—Munich Personal RePEc Archive 50560.Google Scholar
  35. Halkos, G., & Matsiori, S. (2014). Exploring social attitude and willingness to pay for water resources conservation. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 49, 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Halkos, G. E. (2006). Econometrics: Theory and practice. Athens: Giourdas Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Halkos, G. E. (2015). Climate change actions for sustainable development. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 9, 118–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huddart-Kennedy, E., Beckley, T. M., McFarlane, B. L., & Nadeau, S. (2009). Rural-urban differences in environmental concern in Canada. Rural Sociology, 74(3), 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1526/003601109789037268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jacob, J., Jovic, E., & Brinkerhoff, M. B. (2009). Personal and planetary well-being: Mindfulness meditation, pro-environmental behavior and personal quality of life in a survey from the social justice and ecological sustainability movement. Social Indicators Research, 93(2), 275–294.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9308-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaida, N., & Kaida, K. (2016). Facilitating pro-environmental behavior: The role of pessimism and anthropocentric environmental values. Social Indicators Research, 126(3), 1243–1260.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0943-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaiser, F. G., Hubner, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10), 2150–2170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 242–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific composition of a general performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 1531–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ. Behav., 31(2), 178–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people behave environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Cooper, C. B., & Decker, D. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 112–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lokhorst, A. M., Hoon, C., le Rutte, R., & de Snoo, G. (2014). There is an I in nature: The crucial role of the self in nature conservation. Land Use Policy, 39, 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McFarlane, B. L., & Boxall, P. C. (2003). The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: an example of the forest sector. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2011). Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(2), 303–322.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462–483.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505286012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pienaar, E. F., Lew, D. K., & Wallmo, K. (2013). Are environmental attitudes influenced by survey context? An investigation of the context dependency of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale. Social Science Research, 42(6), 1542–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Poortinga, N. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior—A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 70–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L., & Weiler, B. (2013). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach. Tourism Management, 36, 552–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Robinson, G. M. (2011). The influence of place attachment, and moral and normative concerns on the conservation of native vegetation: A test of two behavioral models. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 323–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Restall, B., & Conrad, E. (2015). A literature review of connectedness to nature and its potential for environmental management. J Environ Manage, 159, 264–278.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Riemer, M., Lynes, J., & Hickman, G. (2013). Engaging youth in environmental change. A model for developing and assessing youth-based environmental engagement programmes. Journal of Environmental Education Research, 20, 1–23.Google Scholar
  61. Ruepert, A., Keizer, K., Steg, L., Maricchiolo, F., Carrus, G., Dumitru, A., et al. (2016). Environmental considerations in the organizational context: A pathway to pro-environmental behaviour at work. Social Science Research, 17, 59–70.Google Scholar
  62. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schultz, P. W., & Kaiser, F. G. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental behavior. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 661–691). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schultz, W. P. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schultz, W. P. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In P. Schmuck & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61–78). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J. W., Keizer, K., & Perlaviciute, G. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Steg, L., & De Groot, J. I. M. (2012). Environmental values. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 81–92). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmental concern. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81–97.Google Scholar
  72. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  73. Thøgersen, J., & Olander, F. (2006). The dynamic interaction of personal norms and environment-friendly buying behavior: A panel study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1758–1780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., & Oates, C. J. (2010). Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development, 18(1), 20–31.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zidan, A., Awaisu, A., Hasan, S., & Kheir, N. (2016). The living with medicines questionnaire: Translation and cultural adaptation into the arabic context. Value in Health Regional Issues, 10, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ichthyology and Aquatic Environment, School of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of ThessalyVolos, Nea IoniaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Laboratory of Operations ResearchUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural Sciences, Ichthyology and Aquatic Environment, School of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of ThessalyVolos, Nea IoniaGreece
  4. 4.Department of Economics, Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece

Personalised recommendations