Sustainability Science

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 1395–1408 | Cite as

Integrating multi-level values and pro-environmental behavior in a U.S. protected area

  • Carena van RiperEmail author
  • Sophia Winkler-Schor
  • Lorraine Foelske
  • Rose Keller
  • Michael Braito
  • Christopher Raymond
  • Max Eriksson
  • Elizabeth Golebie
  • Dana Johnson
Special Feature: Original Article Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability


Human behavior is influenced by an array of psychological processes such as environmental values. Despite the importance of understanding the reasons why people engage in activities that minimize environmental degradation, empirical research rarely integrates different types of values simultaneously to provide more complete and multi-faceted insights on how values contribute to environmental sustainability. Drawing from on-site survey data collected in Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska (n = 641), we used two-step structural equation modeling to test how variation in behavioral patterns was explained by the cultural, individual, and social values of visitors to a national park. We fused various disciplinary perspectives on the value concept to demonstrate how individual- and group-level dynamics were integral for predicting behavior and better understanding aggregated preferences for environmental conditions in the context of a U.S. protected area.


Pro-environmental behavior Values Eudaimonia Hedonia Sustainability Protected areas 


Supplementary material

11625_2019_677_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 17 kb)


  1. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 84(5):888–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J (eds) Action-control: from cognition to behavior. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. Allport GW, Vernon PE, Lindzey G (1960) Study of values: manual and test booklet. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagstad KJ, Reed JM, Semmens DJ, Sherrouse BC, Troy A (2016) Linking biophysical models and public preferences for ecosystem service assessments: a case study for the Southern Rocky Mountains. Reg Environ Change 16:2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ban NC, Adams V, Pressey RL, Hicks J (2011) Promise and problems for estimating management costs of marine protected areas. Conserv Lett 4(3):241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Battaglia MP, Link MW, Frankel MR, Osborn L, Mokdad AH (2008) An evaluation of respondent selection methods for household mail surveys. Public Opin Quart 72:459–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107(2):238–246Google Scholar
  9. Braito M, Flint C, Muhar A, Penker M, Vogel S (2017) Individual and collective socio-psychological patterns of photovoltaic investment under diverging policy regimes of Austria and Italy. Energy Policy 109:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown TC (1984) The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ 60:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown G, Reed P (2000) Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. For Sci 46(2):240–247Google Scholar
  12. Bujacz A, Vittersø J, Huta V, Kaczmarek LD (2014) Measuring hedonia and eudaimonia as motives for activities: cross-national investigation through traditional and Bayesian structural equation modeling. Front Psychol 5:984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callicott JB (1984) Non-anthropocentric value theory and environmental ethics. Am Philos Quart 21:299–309Google Scholar
  14. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18Google Scholar
  15. Chan KM, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E et al (2016) Opinion: why protect nature? rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:1462–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chan KM, Gould RK, Pascual U (2018) Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 35:A1–A7Google Scholar
  17. Dake K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross-cult Psychol 22(1):61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dake K (1990) Technology on trial: orienting dispositions toward environmental and health standards. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Berkeley, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  19. Deci EL, Ryan RM (2008) Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction. J Happiness Stud 9:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:335–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dietz T (2015) Environmental values. Oxford handbook of valuesGoogle Scholar
  22. Douglas M (1970) Natural symbols: explorations in cosmology. Barrie & Rockliff the Cresset Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1983) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  24. Ebreo A, Vining J (2001) How similar are recycling and waste reduction? future orientation and reasons for reducing waste as predictors of self-reported behavior. Environ Behav 33:424–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Enengel B, Penker M, Muhar A (2014) Landscape co-management in Austria: the Stakeholder’s perspective on efforts, benefits and risks. J Rural Stud 34:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fischer J, Dyball R, Fazey I, Gross C, Dovers S, Ehrlich PR et al (2012) Human behavior and sustainability. Front Ecol Environ 10:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fordam A, Robinson G (2019) Identifying the social values driving corporate social responsibility. Sust SciGoogle Scholar
  28. Gastil J, Braman D, Kahan D, Slovic P (2005) The ‘Wildavsky Heuristic’: the cultural orientation of mass political opinion. Polit Sci Polit 44(4):711–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibson JI (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  30. Gifford R, Nilsson A (2014) Personal and social factors that influence proenvironmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J Psychol 49:141–157Google Scholar
  31. De Groot JI, Steg L (2009) Mean or green: which values can promote stable proenvironmental behavior? Conservation Letters 2(2):61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grønhøj A, Thøgersen J (2017) Why young people do things for the environment: the role of parenting for adolescents’ motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 54:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  34. Heberlein TA (1977) Norm activation and environmental action: a rejoinder to R. E. Dunlap and K. D. Van Liere. J Soc Issues 33:207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howell RA (2013) It’s not (just)“the environment, stupid!” Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Glob Environ Change 23:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 6(1):1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huta V, Waterman AS (2014) Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. J Happiness Stud 15(6):425–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huta V (2015) The complementary roles of eudaimonia and hedonia and how they can be pursued in practice. In: Positive psychology in practice: promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 159–184Google Scholar
  40. Huta V (2016) An overview of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being concepts. Handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects. In: Reinecke L and Oliver MB (eds), handbook of media use and well-being. Chapter 2. Routledge, New York, pp 14–33Google Scholar
  41. Inglehart RF, Basanez M, Moreno A (1998) Human values and beliefs: a cross-cultural sourcebook. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ives CD, Fischer J (2017) The self-sabotage of conservation: reply to Manfredo et al. Conserv Biol 31(6):1483–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ives CD, Kendal D (2014) The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J Environ Manag 144:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jöreskog KG (1999) How large can a standarized coefficient be?. Scientific Software International, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  45. Kahan DM (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds), Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 725–759Google Scholar
  46. Kahan DM, Braman D (2003) More statistics, less persuasion: a cultural theory of gun- risk perceptions. Univ Pa Law Rev 151(4):1291–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. J Empir Legal Stud 4(3):465–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith HC, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kaiser FG (1998) A general measure of ecological behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 28:395–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kellert SR (1996) The value of life: biological diversity and human society. Island Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  51. Kendal D, Raymond C (2019) Understanding pathways to shifting values over time in the context of social-ecological systems. Sust SciGoogle Scholar
  52. Kenter JO, Jobstvogt N, Watson V, Irvine KN, Christie M, Bryce R (2016) The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling. Ecosyst Serv 21:270–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N, Ravenscroft N, Fazey I, Irvine KN, Reed MS, Christie M, Brady E, Bryce R, Church A, Cooper N, Davies A, Evely A, Everard M, Fish R, Fisher JA, Jobstvogt N, Molloy C, Orchard-Webb J, Ranger S, Ryan M, Watson V, Williams S (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kenter JO, Raymond C, Azzopardi E, Brear MR, Calcagni F, Christie I, Chrisite M, Gould RK, Ives CD, Hejnowicz AP, Gunton R, Horcea-Milcu A, Kendal D, Kronenberg J, Massenberg JR, O’Connor S, Ravenscroft N, Raymond IJ, Rawluk A, Rodríguez-Morales J, van Riper CJ (2019) Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sust SciGoogle Scholar
  55. Keyes CL (2002) The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. J Health Soc Behav 43(2):207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kitayama S, Cohen D (eds) (2010) Handbook of cultural psychology. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Kitayama S, Markus HR, Matsumoto H, Norasakkunkit V (1997) Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. J personal Soc Psychol 72(6):1245–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environ Educ Res 8:239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kurland NB, Michaud KE, Best M, Wohldmann E, Cox H, Pontikis K, Vasishth A (2010) Overcoming silos: the role of an interdisciplinary course in shaping a sustainability network. Acad Manag Learn Educ 9(3):457–476Google Scholar
  60. Landon AC, Kyle GT, van Riper CJ, Schuett MA, Park J (2018) Exploring the psychological dimensions of stewardship in recreational fisheries. N Am J Fish Manag 38(3):579–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Larson LR, Stedman RC, Cooper CB, Decker DJ (2015) Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 43:112–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lawler E (1973) Motivation in work organizations. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  63. Manfredo MJ, Bruskotter JT, Teel TL, Fulton D, Schwartz SH, Arlinghaus R et al (2017) Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv Biol 31(4):772–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Dietsch AM (2016) Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 30(2):287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Gavin MC, Fulton D (2014) Considerations in representing human individuals in social-ecological models. In: Manfredo MJ, Vaske J, Rechkemmer A, Duke EA (eds) Understanding society and natural resources: forging new strands of integration across the social sciences. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 137–158Google Scholar
  66. Markus HR, Kitayama S (1998) The cultural psychology of personality. J Cross-Cult Psychol 29:63–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  68. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2010) Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: user’s guide. Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  69. National Park Service (2018) National parks service visitor use statistics. Retrieved June 2, 2018 from:
  70. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M et al (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Perlaviciute G, Steg L (2015) The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives. Renew Energy 77:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A, Czepkiewicz M, Kronenberg J (2017) Eliciting non-monetary values of formal and informal urban green spaces using public participation GIS. Landsc Urban Plan 160:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Price JC, Walker IA, Boschetti F (2014) Measuring cultural values and beliefs about environment to identify their role in climate change responses. J Environ Psychol 37:8–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Raymond CM, Kenter JO (2016) Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 21:241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Raymond I, Raymond C (2019) Positive psychology perspectives on social values and their application to intentionally delivered sustainability interventions. Sust SciGoogle Scholar
  76. Raymond CM, Kenter JO, Plieninger T, Turner NJ, Alexander KA (2014) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 107:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Raymond CM, Kyttä M, Stedman R (2017) Sense of place, fast and slow: The potential contributions of affordance theory to sense of place. Front Psychol 8:1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  79. Sagiv L, Roccas S, Cieciuch J, Schwartz SH (2017) Personal values in human life. Nat Hum Behav 1:630–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50:19–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schwartz SH, Bardi A (2001) Value hierarchies across cultures: taking a similarities perspective. J Cross-Cult Psychol 32:268–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J, Vecchione M, Davidov E, Fischer R, Beierlein C, Ramos A, Verkasalo M, Lönnqvist JE, Demirutku K (2012) Refining the theory of basic individual values. J Personal Soc Psychol 103:663–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stamberger L, van Riper CJ, Keller R, Brownlee M, Rose J (2018) A GPS tracking study of recreationists in an Alaskan protected area. Appl Geogr 93:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Steg L, Sievers I (2000) Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environ Behav 32(2):250–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Steg L, De Groot JIM, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W, Siero F (2011) General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: the role of values worldviews, and environmental concern. Soc Nat Resour 24:349–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Steg L, Perlaviciute G, van der Werff E, Lurvink J (2014) The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environ Behav 46:163–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Steiger JH (2007) Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Pers Individ Differ 42(5):893–898Google Scholar
  89. Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–97Google Scholar
  91. Stewart WP, Williams DR, Kruger LE (eds) (2003) Place-based conservation: perspectives from the social sciences. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  92. van den Born RJ, Arts B, Admiraal J, Beringer A, Knights P, Molinario E et al (2018) The missing pillar: eudemonic values in the justification of nature conservation. J Environ Plan Manag 61(5–6):841–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. van Riper CJ, Kyle GT (2014) Understanding the internal processes of behavioral engagement: a latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory. J Environ Psychol 38:288–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. van Riper CJ, Kyle GT, Sutton SG, Barnes M, Sherrouse BC (2012) Mapping outdoor recreationists’ perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Appl Geogr 35:64–173Google Scholar
  95. van Riper CJ, Landon AC, Kidd S, Bitterman P, Fitzgerald LA, Granek EF, Ibarra S, Iwaniec D, Raymond CM, Toledo D (2017) Incorporating sociocultural phenomena into ecosystem-service valuation: the importance of critical pluralism. Bioscience 67:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. van Riper C, Thiel A, Penker M, Braito M, Landon AC, Thomsen JM, Tucker CM (2018) Incorporating multi-level values into the social-ecological systems framework. Ecol Soc 23(3):25Google Scholar
  97. van Riper CJ, Lum C, Kyle GT, Wallen KE, Absher J, Landon AC (2019) Values, motivations, and intentions to engage in pro-environmental behavior. Environ Behav.
  98. Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP (1999) A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc Nat Resour 12:523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Whitehead AL, Kujala H, Ives CD, Gordon A, Lentini PE, Wintle BA, Nicholson E, Raymond CM (2014) Integrating biological and social values when prioritizing places for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 28:992–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wildavsky A (1987) Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: a cultural theory of preference formation. Am Polit Sci Rev 81(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wildavsky A, Dake K (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 119(4):41–60Google Scholar
  102. Williams LJ, Anderson SE (1994) An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models: applications in organizational behavior research. J Appl Psychol 79:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Winkler-Schor S, van Riper CJ, Landon A, Keller R (2018) Expanding the environmental value scale: understanding how eudaimonia and hedonia influence conservation behavior. In ECCB2018: 5th European Congress of Conservation Biology. 12th-15th of June 2018, Jyväskylä, Finland. Open Science Centre, University of JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
  104. Yazdanpanah M, Hayati D, Hochrainer-Stigler S, Zamani GH (2014) Understanding farmers’ intention and behavior regarding water conservation in the Middle-East and North Africa: a case study in Iran. J Environ Manag 135:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Yost AC, Wright RG (2001) Moose, Caribou, and Grizzly Bear distribution in relation to road traffic in Denali National Park, Alaska. Arctic 54:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zube EH (1987) Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landsc Ecol 1:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  3. 3.National Park ServiceAlaska RegionUSA
  4. 4.University of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  5. 5.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations