2-mev (two major environmental values) scale - cdn.naaee.org€¦ · web viewbogner, f. x.,...

DRAFT – Not for Distribution

Connection to Nature Tool Summaries

2-MEV (Two Major Environmental Values) Scale3Allo-Inclusive Identity4Board Game Assessment5Children’s Affinity for Nature7Commitment to Nature Scale8Connectedness to Nature Scale10Connection to Nature Index11Connectivity with Nature13Cultural Sources of Environmental Attitudes and Beliefs14Digital Photography and Journaling15Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes Toward the Environment16Emotional Affinity Toward Nature18Emotional Connection to Nature Scale20Environmental Identity Scale22Environmental Value Orientation Scale24Implicit Association Test (IAT)26Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale28Love and Care for Nature30Nature Connectedness Inventory32Nature Relatedness Scale33New Ecological Paradigm Scale for Adults35New Ecological Paradigm Scale for Children37Perceived Restorativeness Scale39Racial and Ethnic Differences41

2-MEV (Two Major Environmental Values) Scale

Bogner, F. X., Johnson, B., Buxner, S. & Felix, L. (2015) The 2-MEV model: Constancy of adolescent environmental values within an 8-year time frame. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1935-1952.

Constructs Measured | WHAT DOES IT MEASURE & WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?

The two-dimensional 2-MEV scale was originally developed in Europe to measure adolescents’ attitudes and gauge the effectiveness of educational programs. The scale formed the basis for the Theory of Ecological Attitudes and is used to monitor environmental perception by scoring individual values. The scale measures two factors: Preservation of Nature (the intent to preserve the environment) and Utilization of Nature (the usage of the environment). A high score on Preservation and a low score on Utilization might be expected of a strong environmentalist, someone with deep concern about conservation. Correspondingly, a low score on Preservation but a high score on Utilization might be expected of someone with apathy toward conservation issues and a view of nature as a source of natural resources to be used for the benefit of human development. The scale allows an individual to score on one dimension independently of the other; therefore, a high or low score is possible on both dimensions. In some circumstances, this may be ideal for programs that emphasize sustainability.

Tool Format | HOW THE TOOL IS DESIGNED?

Nineteen statements on a 5-point disagree-agree scale.

Audiences & Setting | WHO WAS SURVEYED & IN WHAT SETTING?

This widely used tool is designed for adolescents and pre-adolescents (10-16 years old).

Reliability & Validity | CONSISTENCY & QUALITY OF THE MEASUREMENT TOOL

The scale’s validity has been confirmed repeatedly and independently. It has been cross-validated and the stability of the tool has been repeatedly verified, even in longitudinal studies.

Variations of the Tool | HOW HAVE OTHERS MODIFIED THE TOOL FOR THEIR USE?

The scale is used with more than two dozen languages all over the world.

Tips for Using This Tool | TOOLS IN ACTION & HOW TO USE THE DATA

Some words might be changed for American youth; some items reference behaviors.

Allo-Inclusive Identity

Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M., Tate, E. B., (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: incorporating the social and natural worlds into one's sense of self. In: H. Wayment & J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending Self-Interest: Psychological Explorations of the Quiet Ego (137-147). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.


Allo-inclusive identity (AI) (allo meaning other) includes those aspects of self-identity that go beyond individual, relational, and collective identities to include identification with “broader categories of people, animals, and inanimate objects,” such as membership in the human species, kinship with animals, or one’s relationship with the universe. The scale is adapted from and includes the Inclusion of Others in the Self (IOS) Scale.


The tool presents participants with seven Venn diagrams of circle pairs that overlap to different degrees, ranging from nonoverlapping to virtually congruent. Participants select the Venn diagram that best represents their sense of interconnectedness with 16 stimuli such as “the connection between you and the average American” and “the connection between you and the Earth.”


It has been observed in use with youth.


The total AI score and both AI subscales (AI-People and AI-Natural World) have acceptable reliability and the two subscales correlate with each other. As expected, total and subscale scores correlate with the Metapersonal Self Scale, but the correlations are not large enough to suggest that they measure the same construct. Correlations were also calculated with the five fundamental personality traits (i.e., the Big Five), the Pairwise Comparison Value Survey (a measure of 10 fundamental values), and the Daily Spiritual Experience Scale.


None, but INS is incorporated.


Words may need to be updated (gender rather than sex; include non-mammal; question race)

Board Game Assessment

Elliot, E., Ten Eycke, K., Chan, S., & Müller, U. (2014). “Taking kindergartners outdoors: Documenting their explorations and assessing the impact on their ecological awareness.” Children, Youth and Environments, 24 (2), 102–122.


This study of a nature kindergarten program in British Columbia used a game-like assessment to measure changes in nature relatedness and environmentally responsible behavior. The game was adapted from previous research with elementary school children (Evans et al. 2007). While the control group’s nature-relatedness score decreased over the year, the nature kindergarten’s score increased. However, these changes were not found to be significant. In addition, there was no significant change in environmentally responsible behavior for either group. The nature kindergarten students were found to have a higher nature-relatedness score than the control group at the beginning and the end of the year, indicating that parents with children more closely related to nature may be more likely to choose a nature kindergarten program. In addition to the game, the program was evaluated using observations, interviews, digital photography, drawing, and narrative.


This assessment uses a board game for two players—the child and the interviewer. There are 11 spots on the board game where the child has to choose his or her preference between two options. The first choice is a practice item, followed by 4 nature relatedness choices and 6 environmental behavior choices. The choices are graphically represented on the game board and read aloud to each child. The following choices are used to measure nature relatedness:

1. Play outside versus watch television inside

2. Walk through the forest versus walk through the shopping mall

3. Play with dolls or trucks versus play with sticks and leaves

4. Feed birds and other animals in winter versus don’t feed birds and other animals in the winter


Game can be used with elementary age children; in this study used with kindergarteners.


Evans et al. (2007) showed that the game-like assessment was internally consistent, temporally stable, and valid. However, the authors believe that the game used in this evaluation may not have been sensitive enough to pick up differences in nature relatedness and environmentally responsible behavior. In addition the sample size was small and measurement was not replicated (one kindergarten class, n = 21, and one control class, n= 22).

Note: The article has grammatical errors and one of the 6 items for measuring environmentally responsible behavior was left out of the list.


None, but a team at Stanford is exploring variations.


None.

References

Evans, G.W., Brauchle, G., Haq, A., Stecker, R., Wong, W., & Shapiro, E. (2007). "Young Children’s Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors." Environment and Behavior 39: 635-659.

Board Game Assessment

· The first choice is a practice item:

· Ride in a car versus ride on the bus

· Four choices measure nature relatedness:

· Play outside versus watch television inside

· Walk through the forest versus walk through the shopping mall

· Play with dolls or trucks versus play with sticks and leaves

· Feed birds and other animals in winter versus don’t feed birds and other animals in the winter

· Six choices measure environmentally responsible behavior (only five listed in the article)

· Separating paper from regular trash versus mixing them together in one trash can

· Do artwork on one versus both sides of paper

· Use a leaf blower versus a rake to clear leaves

· Give your brothers and sisters or other children the toys you do not play with anymore versus throw the toys away

· Turn the tap off when brushing your teeth versus leaving it on

The child receives a score of 2 for the more nature-oriented behavior and a 1 for the other behavior, for a maximum score of 8 for nature relatedness and 12 for environmental behavior.

Children’s Affinity for Nature

Rice, C. S., and Torquati, J. C. (2013). Assessing Connections between Young Children’s Affinity Toward Nature and their Experiences in Natural Outdoor Settings in Preschool. Children, Youth and Environments, 23(2): 78-102.


This tool measures children’s affinity for nature or “biophilia.” Though biophilia has been hypothesized to be innate, some researchers suggest that biophilia is also influenced by experiences with natural environments and culture.


The biophilia interview is designed for preschool-aged children. It consists of 11 items administered by two puppets, one with a “biophilic” attitude toward nature and one with a “non-biophilic” attitude toward nature. The items include “preferences for play locations (outdoors or indoors, during day and evening), enjoyment of sensory aspects of nature (viewing wildlife, listening to birds), exploring nature (digging for worms, examining insects), and curiosity about nature (learning about wild animals).” The children were told about differences between the two puppets such as, “This boy/girl likes to watch animals like squirrels and rabbits and this boy/girl thinks it’s boring to watch animals.” Then the children were asked, “Which one is more like you?”


The tool was tested with children from ten early childhood education programs. The children were interviewed in a quiet part of their school outside of the classroom.


The study in which the tool was tested reported Cronbach’s α = .69 for internal consistency. The interview process demonstrated good face validity as assessed by faculty members in child development/early childhood education, landscape architecture, and environmental education.


None.


A team intends to suggest items that may reflect typical preschool experiences.

Commitment to Nature Scale

Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173-180.


This scale assesses the degree to which commitment to the environment predicts pro-environmental behavior. The researchers found a significant correlation between pro-environmental behavior and commitment to the environment. They also found that a feeling of inclusion of nature in self correlates with pro-environmental behavior and commitment to the environment.


This scale utilizes five measurement tools: (1) 7 Venn-like diagrams, with different levels of circle overlap, that participants select from to describe their relationship with nature (adapted from Aron et al., 1992 and Schultz, 2001); (2) 11 items on a 9-point scale assessing commitment to the environment (adapted from Rusbult et al., 1998); (3) 28 items on a 5-point scale measuring general ecological behavior (adapted from Kaiser et al., 2003, page 404); (4) 8 items assessing social desirability scale with yes/no responses (adapted from Crowne and Marlowe, 1960); and (5) the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (used in its original format by Dunlap et al., 2000), which consists of 15 items on a 5-point scale.


Undergraduate students, ages 17-26.


Tools 1 and 5 have been independently tested by the original creators and are known to have good psychometric properties. The adapted tools (2, 3, and 4) were found to correlate with the original tools (1 and 5). The scale in its entirely was shown to have high internal and predictive reliability.


None.


None. Only portions of this tool measure connection to nature.

References

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

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, 425–442.

Kaiser, F. G., Doka, G., Hofstetter, P., & Ranney, M. A. (2003). Ecological behavior and its environmental consequences: a life cycle assessment of a self-report measure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 11–20.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J., & Agnew, C. (1998). The investment model scale: measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.

Schultz, P. W. (2001). Assessing the structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21,1–13.

Connectedness to Nature Scale

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), 503–15.


The Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), inspired by Aldo Leopold’s work, is designed to measure an individual’s affective, experiential connection to nature. Specifically, the tool measures constructs such as feeling a sense of community, kinship, egalitarianism, embeddedness, and belongingness to nature. It builds upon other prior research, including the New Environmental Paradigm, the Inclusion of Nature in Self, and Implicit Association Tests. The CNS is able to predict lifestyle patterns, ecological behavior, and students’ curriculum decisions.


14 survey items, with participants responding on a 5-point disagree/agree scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.


Designed for adults. Tested with broad range of adults ages 18 to 68 and with undergraduate psychology students.


Results showed that the tool correlates with related variables (e.g., New Environmental Paradigm) and is not correlated with variables such as verbal ability or social desirability. The tool has high internal consistency and test-retest reliability.


A study in Australia adapted the CNS and the Connectivity with Nature Scale (Dutcher et al 2007) for use with farmers to determine the relationship between pro-environmental behavior, attachment to place, and connectedness to nature. After pre-testing the scales with 8 farmers, several items were revised or deleted in an effort to make the questions more relevant to rural Australian farmers. The final scale included eight items, with participants responding on a five-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The study found that the farmers’ environmental behavior related to native vegetation protection was influenced to some degree by their connectedness to nature. Mayer has developed a youth scale.

Tips for Using This Tool | TOOLS IN ACTION & HOW TO USE THE DATA None.Connection to Nature Index

Cheng, J. C., & Monroe, M. C. (2010). Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior, 44, 31-49.


The Connection to Nature Index (CNI) is based on previous research regarding children’s environmental attitudes and builds on the Connection to Nature Scale developed by Mayer and Frantz (2010). This tool was specifically designed for use with children, and analyses of the survey results suggest that children’s perceptions of connection to nature is influenced by four factors: 1) enjoyment of nature, 2) empathy for creatures, 3) sense of oneness, and 4) sense of responsibility. The tool can be used to predict children’s interest in participating in nature-based activities and performing environmentally friendly behaviors.


The CNI consists of 16 agree/disagree statements to which children respond on a 5-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Responses are scored by calculating the mean, which will range from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a stronger connection to nature. The full survey includes additional questions regarding family values, experience in nature, self-efficacy, interest in environmental activities and environmentally friendly behaviors, nature near home, and environmental knowledge.


The tool was designed for children and was tested with 9-10 year olds (4th graders) in a school setting.


Initial testing refined the tool and improved its reliability by removing 6 items. The final 16-item tool was found to consistently measure the intended constructs. Results showed a significant positive correlation between the CNI and family value toward nature, previous experience in nature, knowledge of environment, and nature near the home—all factors that the literature suggests develop affective attitudes toward nature.


The Royal Society for the Preservation of Birds and the New Zealand Department of Conservation have used this index to obtain baseline data for their populations.


The authors recommend using this tool with children ages 8 to 10, as vocabulary and interests may influence responses and can change with age. The CNI was designed as a program evaluation tool, and could be particular useful for measuring long-term change. The lead author is updating the tool.

Connectivity with Nature

Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Buttolph Johnson, J. (2007). Connectivity with Nature as a Measure of Environmental Values. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 474-493.


Connectivity with nature measures an individual’s sense of inclusion with nature, or the feeling that “people and nature are of the same type.” The scale is based on the hypothesis that a high sense of connectivity with nature creates empathy toward nature, whereas low connectivity with nature creates a feeling of domination over nature.


Questions are divided into three factors:

· Environmental connectivity: Five items total. Four statements on a 5-point disagree/agree scale. One item to select from three Venn diagrams.

· Environmental concern: Five statements on a 5-point disagree/agree scale taken from the New Ecological Consciousness Scale.

· Environmental behavior: Six yes/no questions.


Designed for a mail survey of riparian landowners in central Pennsylvania.


The scale has a significant positive association with environmental concern and environmental behavior. Environmental connectivity, environmental concern, and environmental behavior respectively accounted for 49%, 51%, and 38% of the variation, with Cronbach’s alpha of .72, .77, and .67.


None.


None. Only some of the constructs assess connection to nature.

Cultural Sources of Environmental Attitudes and Beliefs

Ellis, R. J., Thompson, F., 1997. Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. American Political Science Review 91, 885-987.


This scale measures cultural biases that contribute to environmental attitudes and beliefs. It is based on the Douglas-Wildavsky theory of cultural bias which suggests four basic views of social and political life: egalitarian, individualistic, hierarchical, and fatalistic. The scale evaluates cultural biases and environmental attitudes and beliefs through seven scored categories: new ecological consciousness, environmental concern, egalitarianism, hierarchy, individualism, spending on the environment, and participation.


Participants respond to a series of statements by placing themselves on a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Additional questions were added to the core question set based on audience.


The study was conducted through surveys of several environmental groups and the general public in the Pacific Northwest.


Appendix B in the article provides reliabilities for all scales used in the study. Strong correlations between egalitarianism and environmentalism support Douglas and Wildavsky's theory of cultural bias.


None. Dan Kahan and others have used these ideas to create the Cultural Cognition Thesis. Some items may tap Haidt’s moral foundations, as well.


None. While focused on attitudes, it does not address connection to nature as much as other tools.

Digital Photography and Journaling

Ardoin, N. M., DiGiano, M., Bundy, J., Chang, S., Holthuis, N., & O’Connor, K. (2014). Using digital photography and journaling in evaluation of field-based environmental education programs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 68-76.


This study measures situational interest, using digital photography and reflective journaling as indicators of interest among participants in an environmental education summer day camp. It also explores how participants “describe, relate to, and make meaning of their experiences in the program.” Results add to understanding of what sparks interest in the context of an environmental education program, which may lead to more powerful educational experiences.


Participants used digital photography and reflective journaling to document what interested them throughout the day. Participants selected their “top five” photos and wrote captions to describe each, and wrote about their experiences in response to a set of prompts. The research team coded photos, captions, and journal entries for content and language choices for evidence of positive connections to nature, engagement, and references to past experiences.


This was a pilot study among participants (ages 5-15) in an environmental education summer day camp on the Pacific Coast.


The small sample size of this pilot study made statistical significance of quantitative components hard to achieve. Variation among camp instructors also greatly affected participant experiences. Authors note that to use these tools effectively for evaluation purposes, instructors would need to receive clear instructions for journaling and photography exercises, and a multi-researcher coding protocol and standardization of ethnographic analysis methods would be necessary.


None.


None.

Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes Toward the Environment

Thompson, S. C. G., Barton, M. A., (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 14, 149-157.


This study measures two motives for preserving natural resources: ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. Ecocentrism refers to valuing nature for its own sake, whereas anthropocentrism refers to valuing nature for the benefits it provides to humans.


The tool consists of three parts: attitudes, behaviors, and reasons for environmental concern.

Attitudes. Participants respond to a series of statements on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Behaviors. Respondents are asked how frequently (1) never, 2) sometimes, 3) often, 4) always) they performed conserving behaviors such as recycling cans, reusing plastic bags, using public transportation instead of a car, and avoiding using aerosol sprays. Additional measures of behavior varied by audience.

Reasons for environmental concern. Depending on the audience, an open-ended question may also be asked. Participants list their two most important reasons for being concerned about the environment.


Two studies were conducted with minor variations in the questions. The first study surveyed individuals in waiting areas at Logan International Airport in Boston. The second study surveyed college students enrolled in an introductory psychology course.


In the first study, internal reliabilities assessed with Cronbach's alpha were 0.63 for ecocentrism, 0.58 for anthropocentrism, and 0.83 for general environmental apathy. The conserving behavior scale had an internal reliability of 0.81 (Cronbach's alpha). The second study produced internal reliabilities assessed with Cronbach's alpha at 0.78 for ecocentrism, 0.67 for anthropocentrism, and 0.82 for environmental apathy, and the conserving behavior scale had an internal reliability of 0.83.


The tool varied between the two studies to increase reliability and reflect audience differences.


None.

Emotional Affinity Toward Nature

Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional Affinity Toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature. Environment and Behavior, 13(2), 178-202.


Emotional affinity is a measure of emotionally-motivated nature-protective behavior. The scale evaluates the impact of emotional affinity on pro-environmental activities and evaluates the origins of emotional affinity by accounting for past and present experiences with nature.


Emotional affinity is measured on a 6-point disagree/agree scale (1 = completely disagree to 6 = completely agree).


This tool was designed for a questionnaire survey of the general population and active members in groups or organizations for nature protection. The original survey was conducted in Germany.


As measured by this scale, emotional affinity was found to be as powerful a predictor of nature-protective behavior as indignation and interest in nature which, taken together, explained up to 47% of variance. Thirty-nine percent of emotional affinity toward nature was found to be rooted in experiences in natural environments.


Müller et al. (2009) modified the emotional affinity scale to examine the role affinity toward nature played in adolescents’ willingness to protect the environment. The researchers compared affinity toward nature between adolescents in Germany and Lithuania residing in urban and rural environments. Societal context and individual differences in contact with nature, awareness of risks to nature, and willingness for pro-environmental commitment were added to the assessment.

Collado et al. (2013) used the emotional affinity toward nature scale to evaluate how summer camps with and without an environmental education programs affected children's willingness to display ecological behavior.


Collado et al. (2013) made several adjustments to accommodate young participants. Responses to agree/disagree items were presented as symbols easily understood by children, and questions were read allowed to address reading comprehension problems. Questions not easily understood by children were eliminated from the scale.

References

Collado, S., Staats, H., & Corraliza, J. A. (2013). Experiencing nature in children's summer camps: Affective, cognitive and behavioural consequences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 37-44.

Müller, M. M., Kals, E., & Pansa, R. (2009). Adolescents’ Emotional Affinity toward Nature: A Cross-Societal Study. Journal of Developmental Processes, 4(1), 59-69.

Emotional Connection to Nature Scale

Silvas, V. D. (2013). Measuring an emotional connection to nature among children. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Colorado State University. 94 pages.


The Emotional Connection to Nature Scale (ECNS) is a semantic differential scale designed to measure a child’s emotional connection to nature. This tool differs from others as it assesses an emotion rather than a cognition. Emotional connection to nature is defined as any combination of feeling happiness, joy, peace, calmness, relaxation, comfort, excitement, fascination, love, and rest while in nature. ECNS positively correlates with a child’s willingness to protect nature.


The ECNS contains 20 emotions that have been identified by previous connection to nature studies. Each item on the tool contains a pair of opposite emotions, and the respondent chooses the emotion that best describes how they feel in nature on a scale from -2 to 2. The emotions included in the scale are sad/happy, miserable/joy, afraid/peaceful, anxious/calm, stressed/relaxed, uneasy/comfortable, bored/excited, not interested/fascinated, hate/love, and tense/restful. The scale is scored by calculating the mean of all responses. People with mean score close to 2 are considered very emotionally connected to nature, while those with a score close to -2 are very emotionally disconnected from nature.

In the above study, students also completed the Inclusion with Nature Scale (INS) and the Willingness to Protect Nature scaled index.


The tool was designed for use with children and was tested with 5th grade students in Colorado and New York.


The tool was found to be a valid and reliable measure of emotional connection to nature. The scores for the ECNS and INS were significantly correlated (r = .513), showing that while the scale is related to INS, it is not measuring the same component of connection to nature. The ECNS was found to be internally consistent, with a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of .91. In addition, the author conducted an exploratory factor analyses, which showed that the 10 variables included in the ECNS loaded on one factor as hypothesized. Supporting previous research regarding connection to nature and behavior, a regression analysis showed that a child’s score on the significantly predicted their willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors (R2 = .22).


None.


This tool could be used in combination with cognitive measures such as the Inclusion with Nature Scale and the Connection to Nature Scale to provide a broader understanding of the different facets of connection to nature.

Environmental Identity Scale

Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton, & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment. The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45–65). Cambridge: The MIT Press.


Environmental identity (EID) is a sense of connection to the nonhuman natural environment that affects the way people perceive and act toward the world and a belief that the environment is important and forms an important part of people’s self-concept. Environmental identity serves as part of a person’s self-definition, and as such, is a predictor of environmental behavior. The EID scale can be used to examine whether individual differences in environmental identity can predict behavior. It measures self-identification (by the extent and importance of an individual’s interaction with nature), ideology (by support for environmental education and sustainable lifestyle choices), and positive emotions toward the environment (by enjoyment obtained in nature).


24 statements on a 7-point verity/frequency scale. A modified scale has 11 items.


The tool is meant for use in adults and was tested with college students in American universities.


The authors evaluated the reliability, validity and constructs of the scale in a three-part study. Study 1 investigated the convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the EID scale with 27 students completing a series of related measures assessing environmental attitudes, general values and ideology, and behavior. The scale showed high validity on several measures. Study 2 assessed the EID’s relevance as a predictor of individual behavior in which 80 students were presented with two written descriptions of an environmental conflict and potential resolution (one pro, one anti-environment) and then they completed the EID. The EID scale was significantly related to individuals’ decisions, so that a higher score was associated with pro-environmental choice. Study 3 was conducted to examine whether the EID score related not just to the decision a person makes, but also to the criteria for making a good decision. In this study, 115 students were given environmental conflict scenarios and asked to indicate how much weight they gave to factors resolving the conflict. This study found that people high in environmental identity accord weight to principles that endow environmental entities with moral standing.


None. The author is working with others to adapt items for use with urban audiences and conservationists.


None.

Environmental Value Orientation Scale

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A., (1998). A brief inventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement 58(6), 984-1001.


The Environmental Value Orientation Scale measures four major clusters of human values – self-transcendence, self-enhancement, openness to change, and conservation – derived from Schwartz's (1992) 56-item instrument. This scale is designed to serve as a brief version of Schwartz’s tool.


This inventory consists of 3-item measures of each of the four value clusters listed above. Respondents rate each value measure on a 5- or 7-point scale indicating how important each value is as a guiding principle in his/her life.


The scale was evaluated in two studies of adult residents of the United States. The studies were conducted “as part of a research program on environmental attitudes and behavior in which a main interest was in the formation of attitudes toward new or emergent attitude objects such as ‘the ozone hole’ and ‘global warming’."


Good reliability was reported for both studies along with a predictive value for environmental attitudes and behavior on par with the longer scale. The results indicate that the categorization of values into four clusters is robust with regard to the instrument used and the methods of data analysis.


Schwartz’s (1992) full 56-instrument is an alternative; however, the instrument length may be impractical for some practitioners.

De Groot and Steg (2007) created a variation of the tool that adds measures of awareness of consequences and personal norms.


None. While environmental values are relevant to feelings about nature, this tool may not assess connection to nature.

References

De Groot, J. I. M., Steg, L., (2007). Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 38, 318-332.

Schwartz, S. H., (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25, 1-65.

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., and Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 31-42.


This version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures the degree to which individuals associate themselves with nature. Schultz’s work finds that implicit connectedness with the natural environment, as measured by the IAT, is positively correlated with biospheric concerns (focus on concern for all living things) and negatively correlated with egoistic concerns (focus on concern for self).


This tool is based on the IAT developed by Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) to capture automatic concept-attribute associations. Associations are measured through participants’ reaction times to pairs of concepts on a computer monitor. In this version, as quickly as possible, participants classify four categories of words: Me, Not me, Nature, and Built. The test takes approximately five minutes to complete. It assumes keyboard dexterity.


Tested with undergraduate students.


Results across two studies find a consistent pattern of correlations between IAT scores and explicit measures of environmental attitudes. Scores were relatively stable across time with reasonable test-retest reliability.


Bruni and Shultz (2010) and Bruni et al. (2017) used a modified version of the tool called FlexiTwins. FlexiTwins is a colorful, animated game that provides feedback and points, which is more suitable when working with children. It has been widely used.


None. It is not clear what type of technology is required (computers, notebooks, phones, etc.).

References

Bruni, C. M., and Shultz, P. W. (2010). Implicit beliefs about self and nature: Evidence from an IAT game. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 95-102.

Bruni, C.M., Winter, P. L., Shultz, P. W., Omoto, A. M., and Tabanico, J. J. (2017). Getting to know nature: evaluating the effects of the Get to Know Program on children’s connectedness with nature. Environmental Education Research 23(1): 43-62.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., and Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:1464–1480.

Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale

Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In Schmuck, P., Schultz, W. P., & Milfont, T. L. (Ed.) Psychology of Sustainable Development. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.


This tool assesses an individual's connectedness to nature by measuring how the individual views their personal relationship with nature. Schultz modified a scale developed by Aron et al. (1992) that assessed closeness in interpersonal relationships.


The single-item scale consists of a series of seven pairs of circles, with the labels “Self” and “Nature,” that overlap to various degrees. Participants select one pair that best describes their relationship with nature. The circles are scored on a 1-7 point scale (complete separation with nature to complete connection with nature).


The tool has been widely used across multiple ages, with studies citing use with ages 7 to adults.


The INS has been found to be reliable across time and to correlate positively with biospheric attitudes, scores on the New Ecological Paradigm Scale, ecocentrism, and self-reported behavior. The INS test-retest correlations have provided very high reliabilities between measurement times with a retest given one or four weeks after the initial test (Schultz et al. 2004). INS is not subject to internal reliability given it is a single-item test.


The Extended Inclusion of Nature in Self (EINS) scale was developed to improve the INS and expand the tool’s application. In addition to the overlapping circles that the INS is based upon, the EINS uses 3 additional graphical representations of how one sees him or herself in relation to nature. The additional graphical representations are based upon distance, size, and centrality metaphors. The EINS was developed through a series of studies with students and other adult audiences, and results suggest that EINS has increased reliability, validity, and can be applied more broadly than the original INS.

Martin, C., & Czellar, S. (2016). The extended inclusion of nature in self scale. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 181-194.


None. Photographs or conversations with youth might help practitioners understand how they view their connection, and to what they believe themselves to be connected.

References

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the

structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.

Liefländer, A. K., Fröhlich, G., Bogner, F. X. & Schultz, P. W. (2013). Promoting connectedness with nature through environmental education, Environmental

Education Research, 19(3), 370-384.

Schultz, P.W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A.M. (2004). Implicit connections with

nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(1), 31–42.

Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale

Format may not match the original tool.

Please circle the picture below that best describes your relationship with the natural environment. How interconnected are you with nature?

Love and Care for Nature

Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 455-463.


This tool measures “love and deep caring for nature as an expression of people’s personal and explicitly emotional relationship with nature.” Love and care for nature (LCN) “includes a clear recognition of nature’s intrinsic value as well as a personal sense of responsibility to protect it from harm. This definition incorporates the following theoretical dimensions gleaned primarily from the philosophy literature: (1) feelings of awe, wonder and interest in nature, which are sustained emotions said to evoke feelings of care; (2) feelings of love, emotional closeness and interconnectedness with nature, including a spiritual aspect somewhat neglected in the psychology literature; and (3) feelings of care, responsibility and commitment to protect nature.”


The tool consists of 15 items to which participants respond on a 7-point disagree/agree scale.


A field trial was conducted using a sample of adult tourists experiencing nature at some level. Participants were sampled from two venues in Australia’s Gold Coast region: a marine wildlife theme park and an accredited ecotourism venue in a national park.

Reliability & Validity | CONSISTENCY & QUALITY OF THE MEASUREMENT TOOLThrough multiple stages of testing, including a panel of experts and a pilot study, the LCN scale was refined and reduced to 15 items with strong psychometric properties. The scale scores high on content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity. Positive relationships were found with the biospheric values, socio-altruistic values, and more frequent pro-environmental behavior. In accordance with theory and previous research, LCN scores had a significant negative relationship with the importance of egoistic or self-enhancement values, no relationship with openness to change values, and a non-significant negative relationship with conservatism values. A Principal Components Factor Analysis was conducted to ensure that the LCN scale was not measuring the same construct as the Inclusion of Nature in Self and Connectedness to Nature scales.


None.


None.

Nature Connectedness Inventory

Ernst, J., & Theimer, S. (2011). Evaluating the effects of environmental education programming on connectedness to nature. Environmental Education Research, 17, 577-598.


This tool evaluates potential changes in connection to nature resulting from seven US Fish and Wildlife Service environmental education programs. Connection to nature was assessed using two tools, measuring concepts such as enjoyment of nature, empathy or concern for creatures, sense of responsibility, kinship with the natural world, and belongingness to nature.


This inventory adapted an existing tool, the Connection to Nature Index (Cheng & Monroe, 2010), which contains 16 agree/disagree statements. In addition, a new tool was developed called the Nature Connectedness Inventory, which contains 11 items. Responses for these items were adapted from the Children’s Attitudes toward the Environment Scale, where children indicate on a scale of 1 to 6 how much they are like children described in the statement. The tool is scored by calculating the mean for the 11 items.


The tool was designed for use with youth audiences and was tested with students in grades 3 to 12.


The Connection to Nature Index had a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.84, and the Nature Connectedness Index had a reliability score of 0.73 on the pretest. For each program, a control group of students was used, and the control and treatment groups did not vary significantly. The naturalized setting of the study introduced variation that reduced the internal validity of the study; however, the authors note that at the same time, the diversity of programs and settings increased the external validity.


None.


None.

Nature Relatedness Scale

Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior.” Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–40.


The Nature Relatedness (NR) Scale assesses the affective, cognitive, and physical relationship that individuals have with the natural world. Results show the following 3 subscale structure within the NR scale:

1. Self: Internal, personal identification with natural world

2. Perspective: External, influence of relationship with nature on attitude and behavior

3. Experience: Physical familiarity with the natural world


21 statements, using a 5-point disagree strongly to agree strongly scale.


The tool was initially tested with undergraduate psychology students, and then applied with adults from the federal government and private sector. Results showed that the tool is not limited by age or occupation.


Factor analysis was used on set of 30 initial NR statements to determine the final 21 items used in the tool. As expected, NR correlated with the other scales measuring environmental attitudes (e.g., Ecology Scale, New Ecological Paradigm), behavior, and time spent in nature. The tool was found to be internally consistent stable over time.


After receiving feedback on the length of the scale, Nisbet and Zelenski (2013) published an article describing and testing a shorter version of the NR scale. The NR-6 contains six items that perform very similarly to the 21-item scale. The six items represent two of the three factors from the original scale: 1) Self and 2) Experience. The new scale was assessed using data from four studies. Similar to the original tool, the NR-6 scale was found to be stable over time, have high test-retest reliability, and correlate with other environmental attitude scales as expected. However, some reliability and validity is compromised with the shorter scale. The authors suggest that the short scale is reasonable to use when time or space are limited, but that the 21-item scale is preferable when high quality assessments are preferred.


This tool can be used to collect baseline data and practitioners implementing long-term programs or multiple inventions may be able to use it to detect changes in NR. However, NR is relatively stable over time, so it may be difficult to detect change after one or two interventions.

References

Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2013). The NR-6: a new brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4.

New Ecological Paradigm Scale for Adults

Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.


The original 12-item New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale was developed in the late 1970’s by Dunlap and Van Liere. It focused on beliefs about humanity’s ability to upset the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth for human societies, and humanity’s right to rule over the rest of nature. The NEP scale “has since become a popular measure of environmental concern, with endorsement of the NEP treated as reflecting a pro-environmental orientation.” Dunlap et al. revised the NEP scale, now called the New Ecological Paradigm Scale, to measure five facets of an ecological worldview: reality of limits to growth, anti-anthropocentrism, the fragility of nature’s balance, rejection of exceptionalism, and the possibility of an eco-crisis. They also updated the NEP scale to provide more comprehensive coverage of key aspects of an ecological worldview, to avoid the lack of balance in item direction of the original scale, and to remove the sexist terminology in some original items.


15-item survey with 5-point scale (Strongly Disagree, Mildly Disagree, Unsure, Mildly Agree, Strongly Agree). A higher score on the NEP scale suggests that the person endorses an ecological worldview. The scale has been used longitudinally to examine the effects of specific experiences and types of information in generating changes in the NEP worldview (p. 439).


The original NEP scale has been widely for decades, most often with samples of the general public. The revised NEP scale was first pretested with college students and subsequently with a representative sample of American adults. It has also been modified for use with children.


The original NEP scale has been shown to have strong reliability and validity. The NEP scale has been used widely, with studies indicating the NEP has known-group, criterion, and content validity.


An NEP for children was developed in 2007. See:

Manoli, C. C., Johnson, B., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Assessing children’s environmental worldviews: Modifying and validating the new ecological paradigm scale for use with children. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(4), 3–13.


None.

New Ecological Paradigm Scale for Adults


Instructions: Using the scale below, rate your opinions of the following statements.

1

2

3

4

5

I strongly

disagree

I disagree

Unsure

I agree

I strongly agree

1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support.

2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.

3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.

4. Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the Earth unlivable.

5. Humans are seriously abusing the environment.

6. The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.

7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.

8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.

9. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.

10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.

11. The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.

12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.

13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.

15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.

New Ecological Paradigm Scale for Children

Manoli, C. C., Johnson, B., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Assessing children’s environmental worldviews: Modifying and validating the new ecological paradigm scale for use with children. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(4), 3–13.


The New Ecological Paradigm Scale for Children was designed to parallel the revised New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP) for adults (Dunlap et al., 2000), which measures environmental concern and worldview, for use with children. The NEP Scale for Children investigates children’s environmental worldviews, can be used to compare children’s worldviews with those of adults, and can explore how worldviews change as children become adults. The NEP Scale for Children can be used to evaluate the ability of environmental learning programs to produce changes in environmental worldviews. The scale allows for investigations of how children’s environmental worldviews develop, how they change as a result of new experiences or educational programs, and how the environmental worldviews of children from different socioeconomic or cultural backgrounds compare.


10 items on a 5-point totally disagree to totally agree scale


The NEP Scale for Children is designed for ages 10-12 and was originally tested on fourth, fifth and sixth graders in the US.


The authors validated the NEP Scale for Children over a three-year period. The first year, they revised the NEP scale by piloting it and interviewing 47 fifth-grade students to assess for comprehension. Vocabulary in the scale was revised, as were a few items, based on these interviews and the first version of the scale was developed. In year two, they validated the study, with 672 fourth-sixth graders taking the NEP as a pre and post-test after participating in earth education programs. A “do not understand” response option was added to the NEP and four items were deleted from the NEP for children. Finally, in year 3, they eliminated items that received a high response of ”do not understand” and administered it to 515 fourth-sixth graders. These revisions led to the NEP Scale for Children that has good psychometric properties.


The original New Environmental Paradigm scale was designed for adults, and then revised to now be called the New Ecological Paradigm scale for adults. See:

Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.


None.

New Ecological Paradigm Scale for Children


1

2

3

4

5

I totally disagree!

I disagree.

Not sure…

I agree.

I totally agree!

1.Plants and animals have as much right as people to live.

2.There are too many (or almost too many) people on earth.

3.People are clever enough to keep from ruining the earth.

4.People must still obey the laws of nature.

5.When people mess with nature it has bad results.

6.Nature is strong enough to handle the bad effects of our modern lifestyle.

7.People are supposed to rule over the rest of nature.

8.People are treating nature badly.

9.People will someday know enough about how nature works to be able to control it.

10.If things don’t change, we will have a big disaster in the environment soon.

Perceived Restorativeness Scale

Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A., (1997). Further Development of a Measure of Perceived Environmental Restorativeness (Working Paper No. 5). Gavle, Sweden: Uppsala University, Institute for Housing Research.


The Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) measures qualities of a restorative environment that appeal to people, and thus the degree to which directed attention may be restored by being in nature. The constructs of being away, fascination, coherence, and compatibility are measured as subscales of PRS. The measure is based on the Attention Restoration Theory advanced by Stephen and Rachel Kaplan.


The Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) consists of 26 statements. Participants respond on a 7-point scale indicating the degree to which the statement represents their experience in the location. The scale ranges from 0 (“not at all”) to 6 (“completely”).


The sample consisted of undergraduate students, mostly social ecology or biology majors, at the University of California at Irvine. The scale was applied to “a non-spectacular freshwater marsh, an environment about which people could be expected to have widely diverging views with respect to restorative qualities.”


The reliability and validity of the PRS were assessed in four previous studies conducted by Hartig and Korpela et al. (1996). This version of the scale addresses concerns that were raised regarding factor structure and statement construction. Factor analyses were used to evaluate the measured variables to the target constructs specified in attention restoration theory.


Sixteen of the 26 statements in the PRS were adopted from Hartig, Korpela et al. (1996).


None.

References

Hartig, T., Korpela, K. M., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T., (1996). Validation of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness (Göteborg Psychological Reports, 26:7). Göteborg, Sweden: Department of Psychology, Göteborg University.

Racial and Ethnic Differences

Taylor, D. E. (2018). Racial and ethnic differences in connectedness to nature and landscape preferences among college students. Environmental Justice, 1-19.


This tool was developed for a study that incorporates an environmental justice framework to assess how whites, blacks, and other minority college students think and feel about nature. Perceptions of connectedness to nature is one of several elements assessed, along with landscape preferences, curiosity about nature, and fear of nature. Results suggest a relationship between connectedness to nature and landscape preferences, with participants who feel more connected to nature being more likely to indicate they like naturalistic landscape scenes. By focusing on how participants’ adjust their responses when discussing various nature situations, the author addresses stereotypes regarding how minorities feel about nature. Results suggest that participants from all racial backgrounds express situational fear and none of the participants indicate a generalized fear of nature as previous studies have suggested.


The research instrument used in this study was an online survey which contained a mix of open and close-ended questions. Participants are first asked to describe what comes to mind when they think about nature. Participant then viewed and reacted to 8 different landscape photos, by indicating how much they like the landscape scene on a scale ranging from dislike a lot to like a lot and providing an explanation for their rating. Perceptions of connectedness to nature are measured through a question which asks participants to indicate their sense of connectedness to nature on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = very disconnected and 5 = very connected. Similarly, participants assessed their curiosity about nature on a 5-point scale of very incurious to very curious.


The research instrument was designed for use with adults and tested with college students.


Reliability scores are not reported. Participants represented different fields of study and attended different universities, which allowed a diverse range of perspectives.


None.


None. Use of photographs could help practitioners conduct an assessment of new audiences, determining what their level of familiarity and comfort.

2

2-mev (two major environmental values) scale - cdn.naaee.org€¦ · web viewbogner, f. x.,...

Documents