Skip to main content

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 84(5):888–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport GW, Vernon PE, Lindzey G (1960) Study of values: manual and test booklet. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ban NC, Adams V, Pressey RL, Hicks J (2011) Promise and problems for estimating management costs of marine protected areas. Conserv Lett 4(3):241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battaglia MP, Link MW, Frankel MR, Osborn L, Mokdad AH (2008) An evaluation of respondent selection methods for household mail surveys. Public Opin Quart 72:459–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107(2):238–246

  • 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 109:141–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown TC (1984) The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ 60:231–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G, Reed P (2000) Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. For Sci 46(2):240–247

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 5:984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callicott JB (1984) Non-anthropocentric value theory and environmental ethics. Am Philos Quart 21:299–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18

  • 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 113:1462–1465

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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–A7

  • Dake K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross-cult Psychol 22(1):61–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dake K (1990) Technology on trial: orienting dispositions toward environmental and health standards. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley

  • Deci EL, Ryan RM (2008) Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction. J Happiness Stud 9:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:335–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T (2015) Environmental values. Oxford handbook of values

  • Douglas M (1970) Natural symbols: explorations in cosmology. Barrie & Rockliff the Cresset Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1983) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 33:424–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enengel B, Penker M, Muhar A (2014) Landscape co-management in Austria: the Stakeholder’s perspective on efforts, benefits and risks. J Rural Stud 34:223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Dyball R, Fazey I, Gross C, Dovers S, Ehrlich PR et al (2012) Human behavior and sustainability. Front Ecol Environ 10:153–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fordam A, Robinson G (2019) Identifying the social values driving corporate social responsibility. Sust Sci

  • Gastil J, Braman D, Kahan D, Slovic P (2005) The ‘Wildavsky Heuristic’: the cultural orientation of mass political opinion. Polit Sci Polit 44(4):711–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JI (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

  • Gifford R, Nilsson A (2014) Personal and social factors that influence proenvironmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J Psychol 49:141–157

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot JI, Steg L (2009) Mean or green: which values can promote stable proenvironmental behavior? Conservation Letters 2(2):61–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 54:11–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein TA (1977) Norm activation and environmental action: a rejoinder to R. E. Dunlap and K. D. Van Liere. J Soc Issues 33:207–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:281–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):425–1456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 159–184

  • 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 14–33

  • Inglehart RF, Basanez M, Moreno A (1998) Human values and beliefs: a cross-cultural sourcebook. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ives CD, Fischer J (2017) The self-sabotage of conservation: reply to Manfredo et al. Conserv Biol 31(6):1483–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives CD, Kendal D (2014) The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J Environ Manag 144:67–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog KG (1999) How large can a standarized coefficient be?. Scientific Software International, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 725–759

  • Kahan DM, Braman D (2003) More statistics, less persuasion: a cultural theory of gun- risk perceptions. Univ Pa Law Rev 151(4):1291–1327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):465–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith HC, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser FG (1998) A general measure of ecological behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 28:395–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SR (1996) The value of life: biological diversity and human society. Island Press, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendal D, Raymond C (2019) Understanding pathways to shifting values over time in the context of social-ecological systems. Sust Sci

  • 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 21:270–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 111:86–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Sci

  • Keyes CL (2002) The mental health continuum: from languishing to flourishing in life. J Health Soc Behav 43(2):207–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitayama S, Cohen D (eds) (2010) Handbook of cultural psychology. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1245–1267

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 8:239–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):457–476

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):579–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson LR, Stedman RC, Cooper CB, Decker DJ (2015) Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 43:112–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler E (1973) Motivation in work organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):772–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Dietsch AM (2016) Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 30(2):287–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 137–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus HR, Kitayama S (1998) The cultural psychology of personality. J Cross-Cult Psychol 29:63–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2010) Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: user’s guide. Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles, CA

  • National Park Service (2018) National parks service visitor use statistics. Retrieved June 2, 2018 from: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats

  • 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 26:7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlaviciute G, Steg L (2015) The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives. Renew Energy 77:259–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 160:85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 37:8–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Kenter JO (2016) Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 21:241–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond I, Raymond C (2019) Positive psychology perspectives on social values and their application to intentionally delivered sustainability interventions. Sust Sci

  • 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 107:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 8:1674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagiv L, Roccas S, Cieciuch J, Schwartz SH (2017) Personal values in human life. Nat Hum Behav 1:630–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50:19–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH, Bardi A (2001) Value hierarchies across cultures: taking a similarities perspective. J Cross-Cult Psychol 32:268–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 103:663–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 93:92–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg L, Sievers I (2000) Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environ Behav 32(2):250–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29:309–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 24:349–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 46:163–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger JH (2007) Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Pers Individ Differ 42(5):893–898

  • Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart WP, Williams DR, Kruger LE (eds) (2003) Place-based conservation: perspectives from the social sciences. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):841–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 38:288–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:64–173

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 67:233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):25

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518807963

  • Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP (1999) A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc Nat Resour 12:523–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 28:992–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky A (1987) Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: a cultural theory of preference formation. Am Polit Sci Rev 81(1):3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky A, Dake K (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 119(4):41–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams LJ, Anderson SE (1994) An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models: applications in organizational behavior research. J Appl Psychol 79:323–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Jyväskylä

  • 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 135:63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yost AC, Wright RG (2001) Moose, Caribou, and Grizzly Bear distribution in relation to road traffic in Denali National Park, Alaska. Arctic 54:41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zube EH (1987) Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landsc Ecol 1:37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carena van Riper.

Additional information

Handled by: Andrea Rawluk, andrea.rawluk@unimelb.edu.au, University of Melbourne School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Riper, C., Winkler-Schor, S., Foelske, L. et al. Integrating multi-level values and pro-environmental behavior in a U.S. protected area. Sustain Sci 14, 1395–1408 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00677-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00677-w

Keywords

  • Pro-environmental behavior
  • Values
  • Eudaimonia
  • Hedonia
  • Sustainability
  • Protected areas