IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i5p1286-d210172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Environmental Perceptions Grounded on Different Theoretical Models: The 2-Major Environmental Values (2-MEV) Model in Comparison with the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Constantinos C. Manoli

    (College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • Bruce Johnson

    (College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • Sanlyn Buxner

    (Department of Teaching, Learning & Sociocultural Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA)

  • Franz Bogner

    (Z-MNU (Centre of Math & Science Education), Department of Biology Education, University of Bayreuth, D-95477 Bayreuth, Germany)

Abstract

Our study examined the two-dimensional nature of the Two Major Environmental Values model (2-MEV) in comparison with the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale’s unidimensional construct. The latter places respondents on a continuum from a bio-centric to anthropocentric worldview, where an individual can either have a pro-environmental (bio-centric) or an anti-environmental (anthropocentric) perspective, but not both. On the other hand, the 2-MEV treats biocentrism (Preservation, PRE) and anthropocentrism (Utilization, UTL) as two separate and not necessarily related components. The model allows us to place individuals into one of four quadrants, rather than on either end of a continuum, allowing an individual to have a bio-centric and an anthropocentric worldview at the same time. Students’ environmental perceptions were measured using the NEP and 2-MEV questionnaires. As predicted, high preservation/low utilization scorers preferred a biocentric worldview on the NEP; similarly, low preservation/high utilization scorers preferred an anthropocentric worldview on the NEP. However, the NEP failed to differentiate between the high preservation/high utilization and low preservation/low utilizations scorers. Both of these groups of students, while on different quadrants on the 2-MEV, cluster together in the middle of the unidimensional NEP. Evidence suggests that the NEP may not fully explore all dimensions of environmental perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Constantinos C. Manoli & Bruce Johnson & Sanlyn Buxner & Franz Bogner, 2019. "Measuring Environmental Perceptions Grounded on Different Theoretical Models: The 2-Major Environmental Values (2-MEV) Model in Comparison with the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1286-:d:210172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1286/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1286/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberts, James A. & Bacon, Donald R., 1997. "Exploring the Subtle Relationships between Environmental Concern and Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 79-89, September.
    2. Cooper, Philip & Poe, Gregory L. & Bateman, Ian J., 2004. "The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-82, September.
    3. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    4. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    5. Franz X. Bogner & Johann C. Brengelmann & Michael Wiseman, 2000. "Risk-taking and environmental perception," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 49-62, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sang Putu Kaler Surata & Dewa Ayu Puspawati & Putu Eka Pasmidi Ariati & I. Gusti Agung Paramitha Eka Putri, 2022. "The ecological views of the Balinese toward their subak cultural landscape heritage," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(11), pages 12994-13010, November.
    2. Gregor Torkar & Tina Fabijan & Franz X. Bogner, 2020. "Students’ Care for Dogs, Environmental Attitudes, and Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, February.
    3. Tessa-Marie Baierl & Bruce Johnson & Franz X. Bogner, 2021. "Assessing Environmental Attitudes and Cognitive Achievement within 9 Years of Informal Earth Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Nicole V. DeVille & Linda Powers Tomasso & Olivia P. Stoddard & Grete E. Wilt & Teresa H. Horton & Kathleen L. Wolf & Eric Brymer & Peter H. Kahn & Peter James, 2021. "Time Spent in Nature Is Associated with Increased Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Eunseong Jeong & Taesoo Lee & Alan Dixon Brown & Sara Choi & Minyoung Son, 2021. "Does a National Park Enhance the Environment-Friendliness of Tourists as an Ecotourism Destination?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-16, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saari, Ulla A. & Damberg, Svenja & Frömbling, Lena & Ringle, Christian M., 2021. "Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Dienes, Christian, 2015. "Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation: Environmental concern and the role of economic factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 122-129.
    3. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    4. Drevs, Florian & Tscheulin, Dieter K. & Lindenmeier, Jörg & Renner, Simone, 2014. "Crowding-in or crowding out: An empirical analysis on the effect of subsidies on individual willingness-to-pay for public transportation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 250-261.
    5. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    6. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Ward, David O. & Clark, Christopher D. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Yen, Steven T. & Russell, Clifford S., 2011. "Factors influencing willingness-to-pay for the ENERGY STAR® label," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1450-1458, March.
    8. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2022. "Understanding the public’s perceptions of the importance, management, and conservation of biodiversity," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 262-270.
    9. repec:ags:aare05:139316 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2017. "Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-70.
    11. Cicatiello, Lorenzo & Ercolano, Salvatore & Gaeta, Giuseppe Lucio & Pinto, Mauro, 2020. "Willingness to pay for environmental protection and the importance of pollutant industries in the regional economy. Evidence from Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    12. Karamcheti BHARGAVI & Gupta MEGHA & Sharma KIRAN, 2021. "How Ecologically Conscious are Millennials? A Study of Young Consumers," Economics and Applied Informatics, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 3, pages 12-21.
    13. Stamatios Ntanos & Grigorios Kyriakopoulos & Michalis Skordoulis & Miltiadis Chalikias & Garyfallos Arabatzis, 2019. "An Application of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale in a Greek Context," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    14. Matsiori, Steriani K., 2020. "Application of the New Environmental Paradigm to Greece: A critical case study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 335-344.
    15. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    16. Stefania Tonin & Diego Benedetto, 2024. "Exploring Sustainability Concerns and Ecosystem Services: The Role of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale in Understanding Public Opinion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-18, February.
    17. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Moore, Michael R., 2007. "Private provision of environmental public goods: Household participation in green-electricity programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, January.
    18. Gwendolyn Aldrich & Kristine Grimsrud & Jennifer Thacher & Matthew Kotchen, 2007. "Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 757-775, August.
    19. Clive L. Spash, 2006. "Non-Economic Motivation for Contingent Values: Rights and Attitudinal Beliefs in the Willingness To Pay for Environmental Improvements," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(4), pages 602-622.
    20. Jesús Manuel López-Bonilla & María Del Carmen Reyes-Rodríguez & Luis Miguel López-Bonilla, 2018. "The Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours of European Golf Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, June.
    21. López-Mosquera, Natalia & Sánchez, Mercedes, 2011. "The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: An application of the means-end chain theory," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 875-889.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1286-:d:210172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.