environmental awareness research paper

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Environmental awareness and air quality: the mediating role of environmental protective behaviors.

1. Introduction

1.1. empirical gap/contributions of the study, 2. literature review, 2.1. climate awareness and environment quality, 2.2. environmental awareness, environmental protective behaviors and environmental quality, 2.3. theoretical contribution, 2.4. conceptual framework, 2.5. hypothesis, 3. methodology, 3.1. research design, 3.2. sample, sample size, and sampling technique, 3.3. instrument development, 3.4. data analysis technique, 4. results and discussion, 4.1. demographic profile of the respondents, 4.2. assessment of measurement model, 4.2.1. confirmatory factor analysis (cfa), 4.2.2. partial least squares structural equation modeling (pls-sem), 5. conclusions and policy implications, limitations and future research direction, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Name: -----------------
• Name of University: ----------------------
• Other than Lahore
• Natural sciences
• Social sciences
• Environmental sciences
• 4 and above years
• below 30,000
• 30,000-50,000
• 51,000-80,000
• above 80,000
• Public transportation
• Private transportation
• Throw it away
• Keep it and use it next day
• Use it to feed my pets
• Paper books
• Plastic bags

• Ahmed, F.; Kousar, S.; Pervaiz, A.; Ramos-Requesna, J.P. Financial development, institutional quality, and environmental degradation nexus: New evidence from asymmetric ARDL co-integration approach. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 7812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abbas, S.; Kousar, S. Spatial analysis of drought severity and magnitude using the standardized precipitation index and streamflow drought index over the Upper Indus Basin, Pakistan. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021 , 23 , 1–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmed, F.; Kousar, S.; Pervaiz, A.; Trinidad-Segovia, J.E.; del Pilar Casado-Belmonte, M.; Ahmed, W. Role of green innovation, trade and energy to promote green economic growth: A case of South Asian Nations. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022 , 29 , 6871–6885. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yu, L.; Lyu, Y.; Chen, C.; Choguill, C.L. Environmental deterioration in rapid urbanisation: Evidence from assessment of ecosystem service value in Wujiang, Suzhou. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021 , 23 , 331–349. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zhang, D.; Yang, Y.; Li, M.; Lu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, J.; Liu, R.; Liu, J.; Huang, X.; Li, G.; et al. Ecological barrier deterioration driven by human activities poses fatal threats to public health due to emerging infectious diseases. Engineering 2021 , in press . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pope, C.A., III; Dockery, D.W.; Spengler, J.D.; Raizenne, M.E. Respiratory health and PM10 pollution: A daily time series analysis. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1991 , 144 , 668–674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mabahwi, N.A.B.; Leh, O.L.H.; Omar, D. Human health and wellbeing: Human health effect of air pollution. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014 , 153 , 221–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Steffen, W.; Rockström, J.; Richardson, K.; Lenton, T.M.; Folke, C.; Liverman, D.; Summerhayes, C.P.; Barnosky, A.D.; Cornell, S.E.; Crucifix, M.; et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018 , 115 , 8252–8259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002 , 8 , 239–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Burgess, J.; Harrison, C.M.; Filius, P. Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environ. Plan. A 1998 , 30 , 1445–1460. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chen, C.-L.; Tsai, C.-H. Marine environmental awareness among university students in Taiwan: A potential signal for sustainability of the oceans. Environ. Educ. Res. 2016 , 22 , 958–977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yeung, S.P.M. Environmental consciousness among students in senior secondary schools: The case of Hong Kong. Environ. Educ. Res. 1998 , 4 , 251–268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lawrance, D.E.; Thompson, R.; Fontana, G.; Jennings, D.N. The Impact of Climate Change on Mental Health and Emotional Wellbeing: Current Evidence and Implications for Policy and Practice. 2021. Available online: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/all-publications/the-impact-of-climate-change-on-mentalhealth-and-emotional-wellbeing-current-evidence-and-implications-for-policy-and-practice (accessed on 12 May 2021).
• Kaida, N.; Kaida, K. Positive associations of optimism-pessimism orientation with pro-environmental behavior and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study on quality of life and everyday behavior. Qual. Life Res. 2019 , 28 , 3323–3332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shelest, K.D.; Ionov, V.V.; Tikhomirov, L.Y. Environmental awareness raising through universities—City authorities’ cooperation. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017 , 18 , 39–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mkumbachi, R.L.; Astina, I.K.; Handoyo, B. Environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior: A case of university students in Malang city. J. Pendidik. Geogr. 2020 , 25 , 161–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arshad, H.M.; Saleem, K.; Shafi, S.; Ahmad, T.; Kanwal, S. Environmental Awareness, Concern, Attitude and Behavior of University Students: A Comparison Across Academic Disciplines. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2021 , 30 , 561–570. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fu, L.; Sun, Z.; Zha, L.; Liu, F.; He, L.; Sun, X.; Jing, X. Environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior within China’s road freight transportation industry: Moderating role of perceived policy effectiveness. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 252 , 119796. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demaidi, M.N.; Al-Sahili, K. Integrating SDGs in Higher Education—Case of Climate Change Awareness and Gender Equality in a Developing Country According to RMEI-TARGET Strategy. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 3101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanduijav, C.; Ferreira, S.; Filipski, M.; Hashida, Y. Air pollution and happiness: Evidence from the coldest capital in the world. Ecol. Econ. 2021 , 187 , 107085. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rolston, H., III. Is there an ecological ethic? Ethics 1975 , 85 , 93–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ahmed, F.; Ali, I.; Kousar, S.; Ahmed, S. The environmental impact of industrialization and foreign direct investment: Empirical evidence from Asia-Pacific region. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uttara, S.; Bhuvandas, N.; Aggarwal, V. Impacts of urbanization on environment. Int. J. Res. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2012 , 2 , 1637–1645. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farooq, F.; Chaudhry, I.S.; Yusop, Z.; Habibullah, M.S. How do globalization and foreign direct investment affect environmental quality in OIC member countries? Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2020 , 14 , 551–568. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahbaz, M.; Nasreen, S.; Abbas, F.; Anis, O. Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries? Energy Econ. 2015 , 51 , 275–287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panayotou, T. Economic growth and the environment. Environ. Anthropol. 2016 , 24 , 140–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsiglio, S. Economic growth and environment: Tourism as a trigger for green growth. Tour. Econ. 2015 , 21 , 183–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Appannagari, R.R. Environmental pollution causes and consequences: A study. N. Asian Int. Res. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2017 , 3 , 151–161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeşilyurt, M.; Balakoğlu, M.O.; Erol, M. The impact of environmental education activities on primary school students’ environmental awareness and visual expressions. Qual. Res. Educ. 2020 , 9 , 188–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Omoogun, A.C.; Egbonyi, E.E.; Onnoghen, U.N. From Environmental Awareness to Environmental Responsibility: Towards a Stewardship Curriculum. J. Educ. Issues 2016 , 2 , 60–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ribeiro, M.I.; Fernandes, A.; Fernandes, A.P. Green attitude and environmental awareness in Portuguese higher education students. In Proceedings of the 13th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Online Conference, 9–10 November 2020; pp. 1960–1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliver, D.M.; Zheng, Y.; Naylor, L.A.; Murtagh, M.; Waldron, S.; Peng, T. How does smallholder farming practice and environmental awareness vary across village communities in the karst terrain of southwest China? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020 , 288 , 106715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Novotný, R.; Huttmanová, E.; Valentiny, T.; Kalistová, A. Evaluation of Environmental Awareness of University Students: The Case of the University of Presov, Slovakia. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2021 , 10 , 59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1973 , 27 , 41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Linder, N.; Rosenthal, S.; Sörqvist, P.; Barthel, S. Internal and external factors’ influence on recycling: Insights from a laboratory experiment with observed behavior. Front. Psychol. 2021 , 12 , 699410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Clark, C.F.; Kotchen, M.J.; Moore, M.R. Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003 , 23 , 237–246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clayton, S.; Litchfield, C.; Geller, E.S. Psychological science, conservation, and environmental sustainability. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013 , 11 , 377–382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Groshong, L.; Stanis, S.W.; Morgan, M.; Li, C.J. Place attachment, climate friendly behavior, and support for climate friendly management action among state park visitors. Environ. Manag. 2020 , 65 , 98–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suárez-Varela, M.; Guardiola, J.; González-Gómez, F. Do pro-environmental behaviors and awareness contribute to improve subjective well-being? Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2016 , 11 , 429–444. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hansmann, R.; Laurenti, R.; Mehdi, T.; Binder, C.R. Determinants of pro-environmental behavior: A comparison of university students and staff from diverse faculties at a Swiss University. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 268 , 121864. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carducci, A.; Fiore, M.; Azara, A.; Bonaccorsi, G.; Bortoletto, M.; Caggiano, G.; Calamusa, A.; De Donno, A.; De Giglio, O.; Dettori, M.; et al. Pro-environmental behaviors: Determinants and obstacles among Italian university students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 , 18 , 3306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yuriev, A.; Dahmen, M.; Paillé, P.; Boiral, O.; Guillaumie, L. Pro-environmental behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: A scoping review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020 , 155 , 104660. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aliman, M.; Astina, I.K. Improving Environmental Awareness of High School Students’ in Malang City through Earthcomm Learning in the Geography Class. Int. J. Instr. 2019 , 12 , 79–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A.; Gowdy, J.M. Environmental degradation and happiness. Ecol. Econ. 2007 , 60 , 509–516. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eigner, S. The relationship between “protecting the environment” as a dominant life goal and subjective well-being. In Life Goals and Well-Being: Towards a Positive Psychology of Human Striving ; Hogrefe & Huber Publishers: Newburyport, MA, USA, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999 , 6 , 81–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Batson, C.D.; Powell, A.A. Altruism and prosocial behavior. In Handbook of Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology ; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansla, A.; Gamble, A.; Juliusson, A.; Gärling, T. The relationships between awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008 , 28 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Song, Z.; Lew, A.A. Assessment bias of environmental quality (AEQ), consideration of future consequences (CFC), and environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) in tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019 , 27 , 609–628. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bronfman, N.C.; Cisternas, P.C.; López-Vázquez, E.; Maza, C.D.L.; Oyanedel, J.C. Understanding attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors in a Chilean community. Sustainability 2015 , 7 , 14133–14152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior, in Action Control ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bang, H.K.; Ellinger, A.E.; Hadjimarcou, J.; Traichal, P.A. Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol. Mark. 2000 , 17 , 449–468. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paço, A.; Lavrador, T. Environmental knowledge and attitudes and behaviours towards energy consumption. J. Environ. Manag. 2017 , 197 , 384–392. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Vries, H.; Dijkstra, M.; Kuhlman, P. Self-efficacy: The third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health Educ. Res. 1988 , 3 , 273–282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perugini, M.; Bagozzi, R.P. The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001 , 40 , 79–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987 , 18 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P.; Fischer, A.; Nitzl, C.; Menictas, C. Partial least squares structural equation modeling-based discrete choice modeling: An illustration in modeling retailer choice. Bus. Res. 2019 , 12 , 115–142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cleveland, M.; Kalamas, M.; Laroche, M. Shades of green: Linking environmental locus of control and pro-environmental behaviors. J. Consum. Mark. 2005 , 22 , 198–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, M.; Yu, W.; Wang, X.; Wong, C.Y.; Xu, M.; Xiao, Z. Green supply chain management and financial performance: The mediating roles of operational and environmental performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018 , 27 , 811–824. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Neupane, A.; Soar, J.; Vaidya, K.; Yong, J. Willingness to adopt e-procurement to reduce corruption: Results of the PLS Path modeling. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2014 , 8 , 500–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wong, K.K.-K. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull. 2013 , 24 , 1–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019 , 31 , 2–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011 , 19 , 139–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Babin, B.J.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective ; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981 , 18 , 39–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016 , 116 , 2–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kline, R.B. Convergence of Structural Equation Modeling and Multilevel Modeling ; SAGE: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edition ; Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2014; Volume 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plan. 2013 , 46 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Owens, M.A. The Environmental Literacy of Urban Middle School Teachers ; Emory University: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim, M.J.; Hall, C.M. Can climate change awareness predict pro-environmental practices in restaurants? Comparing high and low dining expenditure. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 6777. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Kousar, S.; Afzal, M.; Ahmed, F.; Bojnec, Š. Environmental Awareness and Air Quality: The Mediating Role of Environmental Protective Behaviors. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 3138. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063138

Kousar S, Afzal M, Ahmed F, Bojnec Š. Environmental Awareness and Air Quality: The Mediating Role of Environmental Protective Behaviors. Sustainability . 2022; 14(6):3138. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063138

Kousar, Shazia, Muhammad Afzal, Farhan Ahmed, and Štefan Bojnec. 2022. "Environmental Awareness and Air Quality: The Mediating Role of Environmental Protective Behaviors" Sustainability 14, no. 6: 3138. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063138

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Measurement of environmental concern: a review and analysis.

• Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States

Growing concern about the seriousness of issues such as climate change has made the value of research on social and behavioral aspects of environmental problems clearer than ever. For authors studying environmental concern or attitudes, however, survey development can be a daunting task. A large number of scales measuring environmental concern have been developed, and it can be challenging to make informed decisions about which to use. To assist authors in navigating the literature, we present a review of existing scales, followed by two studies in which we examine the structural validity of five scales that are commonly implemented in this corpus and that adhere to classical test theory. These results have important implications for general issues with measurement in this area, and inform our recommendations for authors about key considerations when selecting and using environmental concern scales.

Introduction

Understanding environmental attitudes is vital for addressing many applied environmental problems, ranging from local issues like water pollution to global issues like climate change. Effectively measuring environmental attitudes, however, is not always a simple task. Although today’s scholars have the good fortune of inheriting decades of measurement work from fields such as sociology, psychology, and education, navigating the vast number of scales available remains a challenge. Indeed, there is “an incredibly diverse set of measures or operational definitions of environmental concern” ( Dunlap and Jones, 2002 , p. 483; see also Heberlein, 1981 ; Klineberg et al., 1998 ), but a relative paucity of research to assess their validity and reliability.

In the interest of remedying this problem, this paper aims to provide a guide for those wishing to measure general environmental attitudes by (1) conducting a review of the instruments available, and (2) analyzing the quality of several of the most prominent instruments. This effort begins with a literature review assessing the state of environmental concern measures, follows with two studies designed to assess the psychometric properties of several prominent scales, and concludes with recommendations on the scales’ comparative utility in applied contexts.

Background and Overview

In response to the growing environmental awareness observed in the 1970s, many scholars developed an interest in investigating environmental attitudes. As discussed at length by Dunlap and Jones (2002) and by others before them (e.g., Heberlein, 1981 ), although this flurry of activity provided a number of insights, it also created two major issues that remain largely unresolved. First, this shared interest often did not imply a shared view of how to conceptualize environment or attitude , leading to confusion and disagreement about issues of definition. Second, even those with a similar conceptualization of environmental attitudes often disagreed about how to measure attitudes effectively (see Dunlap, 2008 , for a historical overview), leading to the creation of an incredibly large and diverse set of scales.

The focus of this paper is primarily on the second of these issues, but the first issue also bears discussing, as it provides the foundation of the approach taken in the rest of the paper. In doing so, the aim is not to resolve conceptual issues in the literature or to claim that one particular conceptualization is correct, but to articulate clearly how environmental attitudes are conceived of here for the purposes of the analyses that follow. This definition necessarily begins with a discussion of attitudes more generally.

Defining Environmental Attitudes

For the purposes of this paper, two important assumptions are made about attitudes. First, we adopt a narrow definition of attitude, restricted to “the intensity of positive and negative affect toward concepts, persons, ideas, and other ‘objects’ in general” ( Hunter et al., 1976 , p. 3). Second, following in the psychological tradition that takes a structural approach to attitudes ( Rokeach, 1968 ; Hunter et al., 1976 ), we assume that attitudes are connected to one another in a logical hierarchy. Higher-order attitudes are broad and abstract, and become progressively more specific and concrete as one moves down the hierarchy. Put together, these assumptions imply that (1) all specific attitudes about a topic are reflections of more general underlying attitudes; and (2) attitudes are distinct from values, beliefs, intentions, behavior, or other related concepts. In this paradigm, values are similar to attitudes, but are more general and abstract ( Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987 ), such that one’s value system is connected to, but at a higher order than, one’s attitude system ( Rokeach, 1968 ). Likewise, the attitude system is connected to, but distinct from, systems of beliefs, intentions, and behavior ( Rokeach, 1968 ; Hunter et al., 1976 ).

This conceptualization of attitudes is certainly not the only one that has been identified, but it is the one most consistent with previous research demonstrating causal relationships between attitudes and behavior. In particular, the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975 ) states that attitudes and subjective norms predict behavioral intentions, which in turn predict behavior. There is overwhelming evidence in support of the theory, including multiple meta-analyses that corroborate the theory’s predictions ( Sheppard et al., 1988 ; Kim and Hunter, 1993a , b ) and document its ability to explain behavior in applied contexts, including condom use ( Albarracín et al., 2001 ) and exercise ( Hausenblas et al., 1997 ).

Environmental attitudes are not fundamentally different from other types of attitudes, and so can be defined and organized in the same way. In other words, one’s attitudes toward specific environmental topics are distinct in some ways, but are ultimately reflections of a single, broad environmental attitude—what is sometimes referred to as environmental concern ( Dunlap and Jones, 2002 ). For example, one’s attitude toward a policy to protect the California condor might be one facet of a broader attitude toward endangered species protection, which may in turn be part of a broader attitude toward wildlife conservation, and so on. This view is consistent with the finding that recycling attitudes fit well into a hierarchy of views about resource availability ( Padmanabhan, 1989 ) and with Heberlein 1981 , p. 252) suggestion that the majority of environmental attitude scales “all measure some general orientation.” The distinction between environmental attitudes and environmental norms, intentions, and behaviors has also been demonstrated in previous research on the TRA, which finds the theory to have strong explanatory power for behaviors such as recycling ( Goldenhar and Connell, 1993 ), climate change mitigation ( Kim et al., 2012 ), and green consumption ( Coleman et al., 2011 ). In sum, an environmental attitude can be defined both as the intensity of positive or negative affect about a particular environmental topic and as a hierarchical attitude system that connects and organizes more specific attitudes about a range of environmental topics .

There are a number of authors whose views of environmental attitudes are compatible with this one (e.g., Maloney et al., 1975 ; Stern and Dietz, 1994 ; Schultz, 2001 ), but many others who conceptualize them quite differently. For example, as Dunlap and Jones (2002) review, several authors consider beliefs, intentions, and behavior to be part of a single system, rather than as distinct systems. These differences of opinion are one reason why measurement of environmental concern has been so varied, though it is certainly not the only one. Setting aside conceptual differences, we turn now to issues of measurement within scales that target attitudes as defined in the preceding paragraphs.

Issues in Measurement of Environmental Attitudes

To understand the measurement issues that have evolved in this subset of the literature, it is helpful to start with the early efforts to measure environmental attitudes in the 1970s. Several measures proliferated during this time, including Lounsbury and Tornatzky’s (1977) measure of attitudes toward environmental quality; Maloney and Ward’s (1973) measure of ecological attitudes and knowledge; Dunlap and Van Liere’s (1978) new environmental paradigm scale; and Weigel and Weigel’s (1978) environmental attitudes scale.

A number of criticisms were leveled against these early scales. For one, scholars pointed out several concerns about their face and content validity—the extent to which scales appeared valid on their face ( Mosier, 1947 ; Blalock, 1972 ) and captured the pertinent aspects of environmental concern ( Cronbach and Meehl, 1955 ; Kerlinger, 1964 ), respectively. Specifically, authors objected that scales were often atheoretical ( Heberlein, 1981 ; Dunlap and Jones, 2002 ) and sometimes included items that were difficult for subjects to interpret ( Arcury and Christianson, 1990 ; LaLonde and Jackson, 2002 ). The Maloney et al. (1975) and Weigel and Weigel (1978) scales were also dismissed as outdated with growing frequency as the years went on (see Bohlen et al., 1993 ; Dunlap et al., 2000 ; Dunlap and Jones, 2002 ; Milfont and Duckitt, 2010 ). As new environmental issues arose, it was suggested that these older scales no longer captured all relevant aspects of environmental concern. Issues were also raised about the scales’ structural validity (see Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ). The underlying structures of these scales were often inconsistent with the measurement models proposed by the original authors (e.g., Smythe and Brook, 1980 ; see Dunlap, 2008 ), suggesting they were not effectively measuring what they purported to measure.

As objections to these classic scales mounted, it became abundantly clear that additional measurement work was needed. Unfortunately, the corresponding response was slower and more haphazard than one might have hoped. Although there were cases in which authors subsequently revised their scales in response to criticism (namely Dunlap et al., 2000 ), most instruments were never subjected to measurement work beyond their initial development. Instead, authors have continued to generate their own measures of environmental concern, including new, purportedly distinct scales (e.g., La Trobe and Acott, 2000 ) and ad hoc instruments for single studies (e.g., Vaske and Donnelly, 1999 ). This proliferation has resulted in an impressive number of available scales, most of which have received only limited attention and use.

Review of Existing Scales

To examine the current state of measurement of environmental attitudes, it was necessary to compile a list of environmental attitude scales. To reiterate, we did not endeavor to compile a list of all environmental concern measures , only scales measuring environmental attitudes as distinct from beliefs, intentions, or behavior. Measures that draw on different conceptualizations of environmental attitudes, such as the Campbell paradigm ( Kaiser et al., 2010 , 2018 ), are outside of the focus of this paper.

Even setting these other types of measures aside, it was not possible to review every instrument, as there are hundreds of studies using idiosyncratic measures of environmental concern. Instead, scales were only included if they met three criteria. First, the scale had to appear in a published article. Scales developed for unpublished theses or dissertations (e.g., Adults’ Attitudes toward the Environment Scale, Malkus, 1992 ) were not included. Second, a primary goal of the article had to be scale development. This criterion eliminated instruments developed only for a single study (e.g., Buttel and Johnson, 1977 ; Guagnano and Markee, 1995 ; Vaske and Donnelly, 1999 ), without the intent to propose a scale for others’ use. Finally, the full set of items needed to be available in a published article. Not only was it more practical to include scales for which items were readily available, it was reasoned that authors would be unlikely to use scales for which items were unpublished (e.g., Maloney and Ward, 1973 ; McKechnie, 1977 ).

After reviewing 93 articles, 26 scales meeting these criteria were identified—18 measuring general environmental attitudes, five adapted for children, and two constructed for students (see Table 1 ). The scales included an average of 25.40 items ( SD = 17.42) and purported to capture an average of 3.56 dimensions ( SD = 2.69) of environmental concern. The first scales were developed in the 1970s ( n = 5), and most others ( n = 11) were published in the 1990s.

Table 1. Environmental attitude scales.

As indicated by the citation counts, a few scales stand out as particularly popular ( Stern et al., 1993 ; Dunlap et al., 2000 ; Schultz, 2001 ), and most others have received at least modest attention since their creation. However, examining the literature also revealed that citations do not necessarily imply actual scale use. Indeed, five of the scale papers listed in Table 1 alone cited the Maloney et al. (1975) scale ( Antil and Bennett, 1979 ; Bohlen et al., 1993 ; Leeming et al., 1995 ; Milfont and Duckitt, 2010 ), but only one ( Musser and Diamond, 1999 ) actually made use of the scale itself. Moreover, even in cases where established scales are used, they are often modified beforehand, such that any associated measurement work does little to inform readers as to the quality of the original scales. Hawcroft and Milfont 2010 , p. 143) have documented this kind of “use (and abuse)” among studies using the new ecological paradigm scale (NEP, Dunlap et al., 2000 ), and other scales have been subjected to similar treatment (e.g., see Dispoto, 1977 ; Schahn and Holzer, 1990 ).

What this review also makes clear is that the initial measurement work used in developing most of these scales was inappropriate or inadequate. Several ( n = 6) were proposed without any examination of structural validity, and most others were assessed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 3) or principal components analysis (PCA; n = 9), sometimes without clarifying whether EFA or PCA was being employed ( n = 4). In contrast, only a few scales ( n = 6) were examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; see Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ).

These practices are troubling for at least two reasons. First, relying only on face and content validity can be misleading ( Mosier, 1947 ). Even though a scale may look, on its face, to be a strong and coherent instrument, it may turn out to be a poor representation of the data. Second, neither EFA nor PCA is well suited for testing the fit of established scales to a specified measurement model ( Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ; Park et al., 2002 )—alternatively, CFA is designed to test hypotheses regarding the latent factor structure underlying a set of items. Although there are some cases where CFA may be inappropriate, such as when non-linear item-total relationships are expected (e.g., Guttman or Rasch models; see Keating and Boster, 2019 ) or when one-item measures are used, these features are not evident in the scales reviewed here.

As such, a clear step forward would be to conduct additional measurement work on these scales by making use of CFA. For some, this would be the first time structural validity has been tested empirically. For others that were tested with CFA to begin with and for the NEP, which has subsequently been subjected to CFA by other authors (e.g., see Xiao and Dunlap, 2007 ; Amburgey and Thoman, 2012 ; Xiao et al., 2013 ), further CFA work would address questions of replication and scale invariance (see Levine et al., 2006 ). To this end, two studies were conducted to contribute to general understanding of measurement in this area, as well as to examine the relative utility of the available scales. A decision was made to focus only on the general scales ( n = 18) for this analysis, as these would be presumably useful to the widest range of scholars. Given that it was not possible to examine all of these scales, several criteria were used to narrow down this list to a more manageable set of instruments for analysis. First, when scales used some of the same items (and were thus redundant), all but one was eliminated from consideration (ruling out Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978 ; Antil and Bennett, 1979 ; Kuhn and Jackson, 1989 ; Blaikie, 1992 ; Milfont and Duckitt, 2010 ). Second, when multiple scales were based on the same theoretical foundation, all but one scale was again eliminated from consideration, in order to reduce overlap (ruling out Dunlap and Van Liere, 1984 ; Bohlen et al., 1993 ; Stern et al., 1993 ; Thompson and Barton, 1994 ; La Trobe and Acott, 2000 ). Of the remaining scales ( Maloney et al., 1975 ; Lounsbury and Tornatzky, 1977 ; Weigel and Weigel, 1978 ; Clayton, 1993 ; Zimmer et al., 1994 ; Pelletier et al., 1996 ; Dunlap et al., 2000 ; Schultz, 2001 ), preference was given to the more popular and classic scales.

We begin this investigation with Weigel and Weigel’s (1978) environmental concern scale (EC), a classic scale which has received a substantial number of citations, but has also been classified as outdated by several authors ( Dunlap et al., 2000 ; Dunlap and Jones, 2002 ; Milfont and Duckitt, 2010 ). The NEP ( Dunlap et al., 2000 ) offers an excellent standard to which the EC scale can be compared, both because it is more recently updated and because Dunlap et al. (2000) explained the popularity of the NEP as resulting in part because of the “dated” nature of scales such as the EC (p. 427).

Data were collected using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk), a crowd-sourcing platform that allows companies or researchers to pay workers to complete Human Intelligence Tasks or HITs ( Amazon Mechanical Turk, 2020 ). Four hundred workers were requested, and each participant received $0.05 for completing the survey.

The survey included the 15-item revised NEP scale and the 16-item EC scale. The revised NEP scale is proposed to fit a five-factor solution, tapping into five distinct aspects of environmental concern: limits to growth (e.g., “We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support”), anti-anthropocentrism (e.g., “Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs”), fragility of nature’s balance (e.g., “When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences”), rejection of exemptionalism (e.g., “Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable”), and possibility of an eco-crisis (e.g., “Humans are severely abusing the environment”). Each subscale is composed of three items.

The EC scale is proposed to fit a unidimensional solution, with all 16 items reflecting general environmental concern. All items were measured on five-point Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree , 5 = strongly agree ).

Analysis Procedure

CFA was used to assess the extent to which the NEP and EC scales fit their proposed measurement models. Data were analyzed utilizing the lessR package ( Gerbing, 2014 ) of the R 3.1.0 statistical software ( R Core Development Team, 2014 ), which employs the centroid solution to estimate parameters ( Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ).

Structural validity was examined in two stages: (1) first-order CFA, to examine the dimensionality of the items in each scale; and (2) second-order CFA, to examine whether or not constructs from both scales were indicators of a higher-order latent factor (see Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ). The first stage served the purpose of evaluating a scale’s structure (how many specific attitudes are measured) and quality (how well the proposed indicators capture each one). To do so, obtained correlations between items were compared to the correlations predicted by the internal consistency and parallelism theorems. The internal consistency theorem specifies that the correlation between two indicators of the same factor ( x i and x j ) will be equal to the product of the correlations of each indicator with the factor true score ( T ), which are estimated as their factor loadings:

The parallelism theorem specifies that the correlation between two indicators of different factors ( x i and y k ) will be equal to the product of the correlations between each indicator with its respective factor true score ( T or U ) and the correlation between the two true scores:

The larger and more numerous the deviations between observed scores and the scores predicted by these theorems, the poorer the model fit. The fit of the model was assessed using the root mean square error (RMSE), comparative fit index (CFI), and Akaike information criterion (AIC). 1 Although cutoff values for the RMSE are not well established, lower values represent smaller errors on aggregate and thus better model fit (see Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ). Hu and Bentler 1999 , p. 27) recommend a cutoff value of or close to 0.95 for the CFI, and, although there are no recommended cutoffs for the AIC, lower AIC values (among nested models) indicate superior fit ( Singer and Willet, 2003 ).

If model fit was poor, the correlation matrices and R outputs were examined with the intent of improving the fit of each scale. In cases where the factor structure appeared to be misspecified, improvement involved specifying an alternate structure that better reflected the underlying factors. In cases where there were invalid items (i.e. items with unacceptably large residuals, significant at p < 0.05; see Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ), improvement involved removing them from their respective factors. 2

Once good fit was obtained for each scale, the factors were examined using second-order CFA. The logic of this analysis is the same as the first-order CFA, but is concerned with the unidimensionality of a set of factors (i.e. second-order unidimensionality) rather than a set of items. This analysis permitted investigation of the extent to which the different factors of the NEP and EC held together both within and across the two scales. In other words, this stage tested the fit of the different environmental attitudes to a hierarchical structure.

Unexpectedly, the first-order CFA of the NEP scale revealed that Dunlap et al. (2000) proposed five-factor structure produced very poor model fit (RMSE = 0.20, CFI = 0.59, AIC = 865.21). The RMSE was high, and the CFI fell well below accepted standards. Moreover, reliability coefficients were low across the five factors (αs = 0.39–0.59; ωs = 0.45–0.75).

To investigate causes of this structural invalidity, patterns of relationships in the item correlation matrix were examined in more detail. This perusal suggested that the items might be better reflected by a three-factor solution, with factors addressing limits to growth , anti-anthropocentrism , and concern about ecological damage . Similar three-factor structures have been uncovered by other authors (e.g., Albrecht et al., 1982 ), so proceeding with this alternative model was not unprecedented. Items were repositioned accordingly, and then a follow-up CFA was conducted to assess the fit of this alternative three-factor solution.

After removing a few items associated with exceedingly large residuals, the resulting model provided decidedly better fit to the data (RMSE = 0.05, CFI = 0.96, AIC = 159.89), and reliability coefficients also evidenced substantial increases (αs = 0.68–0.80; ωs = 0.69–0.80). As a result, this alternative model was retained for comparison with the EC scale (see Table 2 for the final factor structure).

Table 2. Final results of confirmatory factor analysis for the revised new ecological paradigm scale (Study 1: N = 399, Study 2: N = 326).

Similar to the NEP, inspection of the residual matrix indicated that the unidimensional solution proposed by Weigel and Weigel (1978) produced poor fit (RMSE = 0.22, CFI = 0.57, AIC = 1330.14). The scale was reliable by conventional standards (α = 0.83; ω = 0.89), but these coefficients are likely inflated by the scale’s large number of items (see Nunnally et al., 1967 ). Moreover, adequate reliability does not imply valid measurement ( Hunter and Gerbing, 1982 ; Levine, 2005 ). As such, item content and residuals were evaluated with the intent of improving model fit.

Similar to Dunlap et al. (2000) scale, examining the patterns in the correlation matrix suggested that an alternate two-factor structure would improve model fit. Based on the item content, the two factors were labeled concern about pollution (e.g., “The federal government will have to introduce harsh measures to halt pollution since few people will regulate themselves”) and rejection of industrial status quo (e.g., “Industry is doing its best to develop effective anti-pollution technology”). The items were repositioned accordingly, and a follow-up CFA was performed on the modified factor structure.

After removing a few items that evidenced exceedingly large residuals, the new model produced markedly better fit to the data (RMSE = 0.04, CFI = 0.98, AIC = 82.35). Moreover, although reliability was attenuated (αs = 0.70, 0.79; ωs = 0.71, 0.79), the coefficients remained acceptable ( Nunnally et al., 1967 ). Therefore, the two-factor solution was preferred to Weigel and Weigel’s (1978) proposed unidimensional measurement model (see Table 3 ).

Table 3. Final results of confirmatory factor analysis for the Weigel and Weigel scale (Study 1: N = 390, Study 2: N = 325).

Second-Order Structure

After establishing a valid factor structure for both the NEP and the EC scale, the analysis proceeded with a second-order CFA. Inspection of the residual matrix revealed a decided lack of internal consistency 3 among the five factors (RMSE = 0.25, CFI = 0.47, AIC = 427.76). Closer inspection of the residual matrix, however, indicated that a disproportionate number of errors were attributed to the EC scale’s second factor, rejection of industrial status quo . When this factor was removed, the results indicated excellent model fit (RMSE = 0.05, CFI = 0.98, AIC = 31.46). This finding reveals that the three NEP factors and the concern about pollution factor from the EC are not distinct measures; they are all indicators of the same latent environmental concern construct (see Table 4 ).

Table 4. Study 1: second-order confirmatory factor analysis.

Study 1 assessed the validity of both Dunlap et al. (2000) revised NEP scale and Weigel and Weigel’s (1978) EC scale. In general, both proposed factor structures failed to produce good fit. Fit statistics were poor, and the number of unacceptably large residual terms was high. To resolve these issues, the patterns of relationships evident in the residual and correlation matrices were inspected in greater detail. This procedure uncovered a structurally valid solution for both the NEP and EC. Specifically, instead of Dunlap et al.’s (2000) five-factor solution for the NEP, a three-factor model, with some items excluded, provided better fit to the data. Interestingly, the factors resembled those found in other measurement studies, several of which have identified limits to growth, anti-anthropocentrism, and the balance of nature as key themes (e.g., Albrecht et al., 1982 ; see also Dunlap, (2008) . Likewise, inspection of the EC scale revealed that the data were better represented by a two-factor structure, with some invalid items removed, rather than the one-factor solution proposed by Weigel and Weigel (1978) . Examination of the item groupings in the final solution also suggested a coherent structure; one factor appeared to tap into subjects’ concern about harmful effects of pollution, and the other appeared to measure perceptions of harmful industrial practices.

Subsequent tests of the second-order unidimensional model further revealed that all three NEP factors and one EC factor are driven by the same latent construct (environmental concern). Thus, although each of the four factors measure different aspects of environmental concern, they all reflect the same higher-order attitude. All four factors may thus be considered general measures of environmental concern. Conversely, these data suggest that the EC scale’s rejection of industrial status quo factor is distinct from the others. Rather than indicating general environmental concern, this scale appears to measure attitudes toward harmful industrial practices. Presumably, measures of environmental concern will be strongly correlated with this unique factor, but the two types of measures are not interchangeable.

Despite these contributions, there are two limitations that merit discussion. First, data collection for Study 1 was not limited to any particular sample, and the multinational nature of typical mTurk samples ( Ross et al., (2010) could conceivably impact the validity of the solutions produced here (e.g., Inglehart, (1995) . Second, the three- and two-factor solutions produced in Study 1 were determined in a somewhat exploratory fashion. Although we do not see removal of items as an exploratory practice, we agree that modifying the factor structure of a scale constitutes one. In other words, additional work is needed to reveal whether these factor structures can be substantiated by additional data or are merely artifacts of chance ( Anderson and Gerbing, (1988) . Although this issue is less concerning for the NEP scale, given that similar three-factor solutions have been found in the past, there is no previous work to corroborate the alternate two-factor solution identified for the EC scale.

To allay the limitations of Study 1, a second study was conducted in which the NEP and EC scales were once again investigated. Examining these scales a second time permitted the opportunity to confirm and replicate the alternative factor structures identified in Study 1. Study 2 also held nationality constant by collecting data from U.S. residents only.

Three additional scales were also examined in this study: two classic scales ( Lounsbury and Tornatzky, 1977 , or LT; and Maloney et al., 1975 , or MWB) and one popular, more modern scale ( Schultz, 2001 , or SC). Similar to the first study, the five scales were examined for first-order structural validity, and then explored using second-order CFA.

Data were collected using Amazon’s mTurk website. The sample included N = 326 workers, and the data collection was restricted such that only U.S. residents could participate. This stipulation removed any concern that the factor structure obtained in the first study was an artifact of a multinational sample. Each worker was rewarded $0.10 for completing the survey.

The sample was predominantly female (58.0%) and White (81.6%), and tended to be younger ( M = 37.27 years, SD = 13.27). Most participants identified as Democrats (40.8%) or Independents (23.9%), and also tended to be politically liberal (49.4% somewhat or strongly liberal). The sample also tended to be well educated, with most participants having either some college experience (37.4%) or a Bachelor’s degree (27.3%).

The survey included the 15-item revised NEP scale, 16-item EC scale, 12-item LT scale, 30-item MWB scale, and 12-item SC scale. As described in Study 1, the NEP was originally proposed to fit a five-factor solution, but was found to fit an alternative three-factor solution; the EC scale was originally proposed to fit a unidimensional solution, but was found to fit an alternative two-factor solution. The Lounsbury and Tornatzky (1977) scale was proposed to fit a three-factor solution, with subscales measuring concern for environmental degradation (five items; e.g., “If mankind is going to survive at all, environmental pollution must be stopped”), concern for environmental action (five items; e.g., “People should buy (and return) beverages only in returnable containers”), and concern for overpopulation (two items; e.g., “Every couple in America should try not to have more than two children”). The Maloney et al. (1975) scale was proposed to fit a three-factor solution 4 , with subscales reflecting affect (10 items; e.g., “1 feel people worry too much about pesticides on food products”)—constituting the only attitude scale for the purposes of the present paper— verbal commitment (10 items; e.g., “I’d be willing to ride a bicycle or take the bus to work in order to reduce air pollution”), and actual commitment (10 items; e.g., “I subscribe to ecological publications”). Finally, the Schultz (2001) scale was also proposed to fit a three-factor solution, with subscales measuring biospheric concern (four items; e.g., “I am concerned about environmental problems because of the consequences for birds”), egoistic concern (four items; e.g., “I am concerned about environmental problems because of the consequences for me”), and social-altruistic concern (four items; e.g., “I am concerned about environmental problems because of the consequences for all people”).

For the NEP, EC, LT, and SC scales, as well as the verbal commitment and affect factors of the MWB scale, the items were measured on five-point Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree , 5 = strongly agree ). For the actual commitment factor of the Maloney et al. (1975) scale, the items were also measured on five-point Likert-type scales, but with different scale points (1 = never , 5 = regularly ). 5

For testing the revised NEP and EC scales, both the original structure and the revised structure were reexamined and compared. For the SC scale, LT scale, and MWB scale, the authors’ predicted three-factor models were examined. Analytic procedures remained the same as for Study 1.

Although still worse than desired, model fit for Dunlap et al. (2000) proposed five-factor solution was superior to the fit in Study 1. Specifically, fit statistics improved noticeably (RMSE = 0.08, CFI = 0.93, AIC = 334.78). Moreover, although some of the reliability coefficients were lower than desired, many were acceptable by conventional standards (αs = 0.60–0.86; ωs = 0.63–0.87). Nevertheless, model fit improved markedly when the alternative three-factor solution produced in Study 1 was employed. The analysis indicated that model fit was superior (RMSE = 0.05, CFI = 0.96, AIC = 172.16), and reliability coefficients improved as well (αs = 0.71–0.80; ωs = 0.71–0.81). As a result, the three-factor structure was again retained for comparison with the three classic scales (see Table 2 ).

Similar to the NEP scale, the fit of Weigel and Weigel’s (1978) one-factor solution in this study was better than in Study 1. Fit statistics evidenced noticeable improvements (RMSE = 0.07, CFI = 0.85, AIC = 478.79) and reliability coefficients remained high (α = 0.90; ω = 0.90). Nevertheless, model fit improved when the data were tested using the alternative two-factor solution uncovered in Study 1 (RMSE = 0.06, CFI = 0.96, AIC = 93.69). Reliability coefficients also remained adequate, although they were somewhat lower (αs = 0.69, 0.74; ωs = 0.70, 0.74). The two-factor solution thus produced superior model fit across samples and studies (see Table 3 ).

Schultz’s (2001) proposed three-factor solution fared reasonably well (RMSE = 0.06, CFI = 0.94, AIC = 333.94) and reliabilities were exceptionally high (αs = 0.89–0.95; ωs = 0.90–0.95). Nevertheless, inspection of the residual matrix indicated that several items were associated with large residuals, suggesting fit of the model could be improved further. Indeed, removal of problematic items produced better fit to the data (RMSE = 0.03, CFI = 0.96, AIC = 172.67) without reducing reliability (αs = 0.91–0.95; ωs = 0.91–0.95). Hence, although Schultz’s initially proposed three-factor solution evidenced adequate fit, model fit could be further improved with the removal of a few invalid items (see Table 5 ).

Table 5. Study 2: final results of confirmatory factor analysis for the Schultz scale ( N = 313).

The three-factor solution proposed by Lounsbury and Tornatzky (1977) evidenced marginal fit (RMSE = 0.07, CFI = 0.89, AIC = 263.99), but the CFI was lower than conventional cutoffs. Moreover, although reliability coefficients were acceptable for the concern for environmental degradation (α = 0.83; ω = 0.83) and concern for environmental action factors (α = 0.70; ω = 0.71), reliability coefficients for the concern for overpopulation factor were lower than might be desired (α = 0.63; ω = 0.63).

To improve model fit, two items that produced substantial errors were removed from the measurement model (see Table 6 ). Removal of these items produced comparatively better fit (RMSE = 0.06, CFI = 0.95, AIC = 141.33), but lowered the reliability of the concern for environmental action factor appreciably (α = 0.62; ω = 0.64). Thus, although evidence for the predicted three-factor solution was favorable, development of additional items would help improve the low reliabilities of some of the factors ( Nunnally et al., 1967 ).

Table 6. Study 2: final results of confirmatory factor analysis for the Lounsbury and Tornatzky scale ( N = 325).

The initial CFA indicated that Maloney et al. (1975) proposed three-factor solution produced poor model fit (RMSE = 0.12, CFI = 0.74, AIC = 1913.14). Moreover, although reliability coefficients were high (αs = 0.85–0.91; ωs = 0.85–0.91), these coefficients are likely inflated by the large number of items (10) assigned to each of the three factors.

In an attempt to improve model fit, numerous problematic items were removed. This procedure produced markedly better model fit (RMSE = 0.05, CFI = 0.97, AIC = 197.03), and reliability coefficients remained acceptable (αs = 0.73–0.88; ωs = 0.74–0.88). The MWB scale thus provided acceptable fit to the data when several problematic items were removed (see Table 7 ).

Table 7. Study 2: final results of confirmatory factor analysis for the Maloney et al. (1975) scale ( N = 324).

Second-Order Factor Structure

Similar to Study 1, once structural validity had been established for each of the five scales, they were examined further using second-order CFA. As before, if each of these scales reflects a higher-order environmental concern factor, then the 14 factors would be expected to fit a second-order unidimensional model. However, there were two qualifiers to this prediction. First, Study 1 revealed that the EC’s rejection of industrial status quo factor did not fit with the second-order model. Therefore, we anticipated that it might cause problems in this model as well. Second, the SC was proposed specifically to tap into different value systems—concern about environmental consequences for oneself ( egoistic concern ), for humans in general ( social-altruistic concern ), and for the environment ( biospheric concern ). Whereas biospheric concern clearly seems to tap into environmental concern, the other factors may not necessarily do so. As a result, it was expected that egoistic concern and social-altruistic concern might also cause problems in the second-order model. Finally, it was expected that if the MWB’s verbal commitment and actual commitment subscales truly evaluate intentions and behavior, respectively, they should be distinct from the affect subscale and other attitude scales.

A solution in which all factors were predicted by the same latent factor (environmental concern) provided a poor fit to the data (RMSE = 0.09, CFI = 0.83, AIC = 723.61). Thus the hypothesis that all measured scales tap the same underlying construct of environmental concern is not supported. Again, given the results of the first study, this was not entirely inconsistent with expectations. Inspection of the residual matrix confirmed that the same EC scale factor was once again problematic in this analysis, and also substantiated our suspicions that the SC scale’s egoistic concern and social-altruistic concern tapped into constructs other than environmental concern. The MWB scale’s actual commitment factor also failed to fit with the others, though this was not the case for verbal commitment . The LT scale’s concern for overpopulation factor also turned out to be problematic (see Table 8 ).

Table 8. Study 2: second-order confirmatory factor analysis.

Once these factors were removed from the second-order model, model fit improved markedly (RMSE = 0.03, CFI = 0.96, AIC = 163.73), with all three fit indices evidencing substantial improvements. Thus, it may be concluded that a majority of factors investigated in this study are driven by the same underlying environmental concern construct. The remaining factors, on the other hand, cannot be considered measures of general environmental concern.

General Discussion

The purpose of these two studies was to examine the structural validity of five available measures of environmental concern. The scales were tested separately using first-order CFA, and then a higher-order factor structure was explored using second-order CFA. Across the two studies, it was possible to establish valid factor structures for all five scales. Regardless of whether the final factor structure was as the authors originally proposed (as was the case for the LT, MWB, and SC scales) or a modified version thereof (as was the case for the EC and NEP scales), good first-order fit was ultimately obtained for each scale. The second-order CFA also revealed remarkable overlap among the scales, although a few specific factors were found not to be valid indicators of environmental concern.

These results have a few important implications for measurement in this area. First, they suggest that claims about the outdatedness and invalidity of classic measures of environmental concern are largely unsubstantiated. The three classic scales examined here all exhibit structural validity and incorporate at least one factor that is second-order unidimensional with other measures of environmental concern. Furthermore, the findings suggest that although the more recently developed scales also perform well psychometrically, they are not necessarily superior to older scales. The first- and second-order CFAs revealed problems with misspecification for both classic and modern scales, establishing that newer does not necessarily imply better.

Finally, results revealed that at least one factor from each of the five scales examined here—both classic and modern—is driven by the same underlying attitude. As Heberlein 1981 , p. 252) surmised almost 40 years ago, the second-order CFA does indeed suggest that a majority of these scales “all measure some general orientation.” Thus, although authors have often argued that the measurement of environmental concern has been scattered and divided (e.g., Dunlap and Jones, 2002 ), established scales are remarkably consistent in actuality.

Recommendations and Future Directions

Two general recommendations are offered for scholars seeking to measure environmental concern. First, although the evidence suggests that all of the instruments analyzed here could be used to measure environmental attitudes, there would be a number of benefits of using the Schultz (2001) environmental concerns scale in future studies. In addition to producing excellent fit to the data, this scale had by far the highest reliabilities of any instrument. The Schultz scale also has the benefit of being one of the shortest instruments among those reviewed. In applied research, where survey length may be particularly important, this scale’s brevity is a clear advantage. Thus, this scale would be an excellent choice for any study of general environmental attitudes, bearing in mind that the egoistic and social-altruistic concern factors are distinct from environmental concern as represented by the biospheric concern factor.

Second, the second-order CFA findings can be interpreted as a cautionary tale for scholars interested in developing new scales. Specifically, these studies revealed that all five scales, at least in part, were measuring the same thing—general environmental concern or attitudes. In other words, most of the scales developed after Maloney and Ward’s (1973) first attempt have merely offered different ways of finding the same information. As such, we recommend that scholars interested in measuring general environmental concern use and work to improve existing instruments. Likewise, we recommend that applied environmental research make use of these scales, rather than developing ad hoc instruments for a specific study.

Additional measurement work will also help resolve why some of the factors investigated failed to load on the second-order unidimensional factor. For one, the second-order CFA revealed that EC scale’s rejection of industrial status quo factor and the LT scale’s concern for overpopulation factor are invalid indicators of environmental concern, but the reasons why these factors failed to load with the others are unclear. Future measurement studies can investigate this finding further by attempting to identify which underlying construct(s) drive these other factors, as well as by replicating the second-order model produced here, to ensure it is not an artifact of sampling error ( Anderson and Gerbing, 1988 ).

Additional measurement work on these scales can also be beneficial in other ways. For example, the factors that were found to have low reliabilities, such as the LT scale’s concern for environmental action factor, can be augmented by additional valid items ( Nunnally et al., 1967 ). Future authors can also attempt to replicate the factor structures produced herein by subjecting the full battery of items to similar CFAs ( Anderson and Gerbing, 1988 ), and can conduct additional CFA work on the other scales presented in Table 1 . Moreover, future authors can apply different methodological techniques that provide additional diagnostic information not provided in a CFA. Zhu and Lu (2017) , for instance, use item-response theory to show that some items of the NEP are more reliable than others, especially when subjects’ attitudes become more extreme. Ultimately, when paired with similar tests of dimensionality like those reported here, such information would be valuable.

Limitations

One important limitation of the present research is that the samples were obtained using mTurk, meaning that neither is nationally representative. Consequently, additional research with nationally representative samples is warranted if researchers wish to make claims regarding the generality of the measurement indices reported herein. Such research could speak to the fit of environmental concern scales in specific affiliation groups (e.g., general public vs. environmental organizations; Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978 ), in different countries (e.g., Xiao and Dunlap, 2007 ; Milfont and Duckitt, 2010 ), or in other segments that may be of interest to applied researchers. This type of work would also enable comparisons of structural validity across different groups and samples ( Levine, 2005 ), as well as provide information about related forms of validity not discussed in this manuscript (e.g., predictive or criterion validity; Cronbach and Meehl, 1955 ). Moreover, such work could investigate further whether other environmental concern scales conform to the second-order factor produced in our data (for other likely candidates, see Table 1 ).

In addition, considering the broader debate about measurement approaches that are currently ongoing in this literature, the focus on traditional environmental attitude scales is also a limitation. In particular, Kaiser and colleagues ( Kaiser et al., 2010 , 2018 ; Kaiser and Wilson, 2019 ) have raised two major criticisms of traditional attitude scales. For one, they argue that attitude scales like the ones reviewed here are not effective predictors of behavior. Based on this premise, they advocate instead for an alternative measurement approach based on the Campbell paradigm, which argues that “the cost order of behavior…should be used as the basis for the measurement of individual attitudes” ( Kaiser and Wilson, 2019 , p. 362). In addition, Kaiser et al. (2018) argue that attitudes themselves may not be distinct from related constructs like subjective norms and behavioral intentions, given the strong correlations among them in many studies. These points raise broad questions about the predictive validity of attitude scales and the cognitive structure of attitudes that cannot explicitly be addressed with the results reported here.

There are several good reasons, however, not to abandon traditional approaches to attitudes. For one, meta-analyses demonstrate that attitude scales often do correlate strongly with intentions and behavior after accounting for methodological artifacts ( Kim and Hunter, 1993a , b ), which tempers the claim that they are not effective predictors of behavior. Furthermore, longitudinal studies have provided convincing evidence that attitudes, intentions, and behavior are causally related ( Morrison et al., 1998 ; Vincent et al., 1998 ), which contradicts the claim that they are driven by a single underlying factor (see also the path analyses in Kim and Hunter, 1993b ). There are also practical reasons to prefer scales with linear item-total correlations (like the ones employed here). For instance, the methodological paradigm adopted by Kaiser and colleagues requires items that are rank ordered (i.e. items that have ogival item-characteristic curves and thus conform to a Guttman simplex), which require more demanding methods and analyses to infer construct validity (see Keating and Boster, 2019 ; for other examples, see Kaiser et al., 2007 ; Arnold et al., 2018 ; Kaiser and Wilson, 2019 ). Especially for applied environmental researchers, who may have greater limitations on their time and resources, traditional attitude scales thus remain an appealing choice.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the debate between these approaches is still ongoing, and studies that make direct comparisons between the two (e.g., Brügger et al., 2011 ; Otto et al., 2018 ) can better inform this debate in the future. Additional measurement work can also examine the second-order dimensionality of not just attitudes, but intentions, norms, and other related constructs in a more rigorous fashion.

Overall, this study has offered an important update to measurement work in the field of environmental concern, including a review of the available scales and an analysis of the structural validity of five prominent instruments that adhere to classical test theory. For applied scholars, we hope this information provides a helpful guide in navigating the literature on the measurement of environmental concern and attitudes. By using the established scales recommended here, scholars can be confident they are using valid and reliable instruments, and hopefully avoid some of the measurement problems that have plagued other authors when studying this topic in the past.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board – Michigan State University. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

SC wrote substantial portions of the manuscript, and both collected and analyzed data. BM performed the same tasks.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• ^ CFI and AIC values were obtained using maximum likelihood estimation.
• ^ Although some authors argue that dropping items from a scale makes the analysis exploratory rather than confirmatory (e.g., Browne, 2001 ; Harrington, 2008 ), we, like other authors (e.g., Levine et al., 2006 ), disagree. Rather than reifying specific items as necessary components of a scale, we view them as random samples from an infinite universe of possible items ( Kerlinger, 1964 ). To wit, it makes little sense to present an invalid statistical model that includes these items when a valid one can be attained without them. Thus, in using CFA we use confirmatory to refer to a specific statistical model used to test a specified factor structure, and not to refer to a rigid requirement that no changes be made.
• ^ To reiterate, this means that observed correlations deviated substantially from the correlations predicted by the internal consistency theorem. It does not refer to reliability, which is sometimes also referred to as internal consistency.
• ^ This scale was also designed with a 15-item knowledge subscale, but this subscale was excluded from the analysis because (1) it was presumably non-linear; and (2) because the items would need to be scored incorrect/correct, rather than on a five-point scale comparable to the other measures.
• ^ When the actual commitment items were originally written, they were designed as true/false items. In order to capture these items on five-point scales, some of the items needed to be reworded. For example, the item “I guess I’ve never actually bought a product because it had a lower polluting effect [T/F]” was reworded as “I buy products because they have a lower polluting effect [never – regularly].”

Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., and Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bul 127, 142–161. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.127.1.142

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E., and Nowak, P. (1982). The new environmental paradigm scale. J. Environ. Educ. 13, 39–43. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1982.9942647

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amazon Mechanical Turk (2020). Amazon Mechanical Turk. Aavaliable online at: https://www.mturk.com/ (accessed February 25, 2020).

Google Scholar

Amburgey, J. W., and Thoman, D. B. (2012). Dimensionality of the new ecological paradigm: issues of factor structure and measurement. Environ. Behav. 44, 235–256. doi: 10.1177/0013916511402064

Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103, 411–423. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.411

Antil, J. H., and Bennett, P. D. (1979). “Construction and validation of a scale to measure socially responsible consumption behavior,” in The Conserver Society , eds K. E. Henion, and T. C. Kinnear, (Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association), 51–68.

Arcury, T. A., and Christianson, E. H. (1990). Environmental worldview in response to environmental problems: kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environ. Behav. 22, 387–407. doi: 10.1177/0013916590223004

Arnold, O., Kibbe, A., Hartig, T., and Kaiser, F. G. (2018). Capturing the environmental impact of individual lifestyles: evidence of the criterion validity of the general ecological behavior scale. Environ. Behav. 50, 350–372. doi: 10.1177/0013916517701796

Berberoglu, G., and Tosunoglu, C. (1995). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of an environmental attitude scale (EAS) for Turkish university students. J. Environ. Educ. 26, 40–43. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1995.9941444

Blaikie, N. W. H. (1992). The nature and origins of ecological world views: an Australian study. Soc. Scie. Q. 73, 144–165.

Blalock, H. M. (1972). Social Statistics: 2nd edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bohlen, G., Schlegelmilch, B. B., and Diamantopoulos, A. (1993). Measuring ecological concern: a multi-construct perspective. J. Mark. Manag. 9, 415–430. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.1993.9964250

Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariat. Behav. Res. 36, 111–150.

Brügger, A., Kaiser, F. G., and Roczen, N. (2011). One for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. Eur. Psychol. 16, 324–333. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000032

Buttel, F. H., and Johnson, D. E. (1977). Dimensions of environmental concern: factor structure, correlates, and implications for research. J. Environ. Educ. 9, 49–64. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1977.10801872

Clayton, S. (1993). “Environmental identity: a conceptual and operational definition,” in Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature , eds S. Clayton, and S. Opotow, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 45–65.

Coleman, L. J., Bahnan, N., Kelkar, M., and Curry, N. (2011). Walking the walk: how the theory of reasoned action explains adult and student intentions to go green. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 27, 107–116. doi: 10.19030/jabr.v27i3.4217

Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52, 281–302. doi: 10.1037/h0040957

Dispoto, R. G. (1977). Interrelationships among measures of environmental activity, emotionality, and knowledge. Educ. Psycho. Meas. 37, 451–459. doi: 10.1177/001316447703700220

Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to worldwide use. J. Environ. Educ. 40, 3–18. doi: 10.3200/joee.40.1.3-18

Dunlap, R. E., and Jones, R. E. (2002). “Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues,” in Handbook of Environmental Sociology , eds R. E. Dunlap, and W. Michelson, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press), 482–524.

Dunlap, R. E., and Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”. J. Environ. Educ. 9, 10–19. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875

Dunlap, R. E., and Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Soc. Sci. Q. 65, 1013–1028.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., and Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176

Erdogan, M., and Marcinkowski, T. (2015). Development and validation of children’s environmental affect (attitude, sensitivity and willingness to take action) scale. Eurasia J. Mat. Sci. Technol. Educ. 11, 577–588. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1347a

Fernández-Manzanal, R., Rodríguez−Barreiro, L., and Carrasquer, J. (2007). Evaluation of environmental attitudes: analysis and results of a scale applied to university students. Sci. Educ. 91, 988–1009.

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gerbing, D. W. (2014). Package ‘lessR’. Avaliable at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lessR/lessR.pdf (accessed February 25, 2020).

Goldenhar, L. M., and Connell, C. M. (1993). Understanding and predicting recycling behavior: an application of the theory of reasoned action. J. Environ. Syst. 22, 91–103. doi: 10.2190/92KU-NXLT-XC32-RHD6

Guagnano, G. A., and Markee, N. (1995). Regional differences in the sociodemographic determinates of environmental concern. Popul. Environ. 17, 135–149. doi: 10.1007/bf02208385

Harrington, D. (2008). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hausenblas, H. A., Carron, A. V., and Mack, D. E. (1997). Application of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior to exercise behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 19, 36–51. doi: 10.1123/jsep.19.1.36

Hawcroft, L. J., and Milfont, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 143–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003

Heberlein’s, T. A. (1981). Environmental attitudes. Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik 2, 241–270.

Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 61, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Hunter, J. E., and Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. Res. Organ. Behav. 4, 267–320.

Hunter, J. E., Levine, R. L., and Sayers, S. E. (1976). Attitude change in hierarchical belief systems and its relationship to persuasibility. Hum. Communi. Res. 3, 3–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00501.x

Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Polit. Sci. Polit. 28, 57–72. doi: 10.1017/s1049096500056080

Kaiser, F. G., Byrka, K., and Hartig, T. (2010). Reviving Campbell’s paradigm for attitude research. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14, 351–367. doi: 10.1177/1088868310366452

Kaiser, F. G., Merten, M., and Wetzel, E. (2018). How do we know we are measuring environmental attitude? Specific objectivity as the formal validation criterion for measures of latent attributes. J. Environ. Psychol. 55, 139–146. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.01.003

Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B., and Bogner, F. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: development of an instrument for adolescents. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 242–251. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.004

Kaiser, F. G., and Wilson, M. (2019). The Campbell paradigm as a behavior-predictive reinterpretation of the classical tripartite model of attitudes. Eur. Psycho. 24, 359–374. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000364

Keating, D. M., and Boster, F. J. (2019). Nonlinear unidimensionality in communication science: tests, examples, and implications. Commun. Res. Rep. 36, 67–77. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2018.1555524

Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of Behavioral Research: Educational and Psychological Inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.

Kim, M.-S., and Hunter, J. E. (1993a). Attitude-behavior relations: a meta-analysis of attitudinal relevance and topic. J. Commun. 43, 101–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01251.x

Kim, M.-S., and Hunter, J. E. (1993b). Relationships among attitude, behavioral intentions, and behavior: a meta-analysis of past research, part 2. Commun. Res. 20, 331–364. doi: 10.1177/009365093020003001

Kim, S., Jeong, S.-H., and Hwang, Y. (2012). Predictors of pro-environmental behaviors of American and Korean students: the application of the theory of reasoned action and protection motivation theory. Sci. Commun. 35, 168–188. doi: 10.1177/1075547012441692

Klineberg, S. L., McKeever, M., and Rothenbach, B. (1998). Demographic predictors of environmental concern: it does make a difference how it’s measured. Soc. Sci. Q. 79, 734–753.

Kuhn, R. G., and Jackson, E. L. (1989). Stability of factor structures in the measurement of public environmental attitudes. J. Environ. Educ. 20, 27–32. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1989.9942786

La Trobe, H. L., and Acott, T. G. (2000). A modified NEP/DSP environmental attitudes scale. J. Environ. Educ. 32, 12–20. doi: 10.1080/00958960009598667

LaLonde, R., and Jackson, E. L. (2002). The new environmental paradigm scale: has it outlived its usefulness? J. Environ. Educ. 33, 28–36. doi: 10.1080/00958960209599151

Leeming, F. C., Dwyer, W. O., and Bracken, B. A. (1995). Children’s environmental attitude and knowledge scale: construction and validation. J.Environ. Educ , 26, 22–31. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1995.9941442

Levine, T. R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis and scale validation in communication research. Commun. Res. Rep. 22, 335–338. doi: 10.1080/00036810500317730

Levine, T. R., Hullett, C. R., Turner, M. M., and Lapinski, M. K. (2006). The desirability of using confirmatory factor analysis on published scales. Commun. Res. Rep. 23, 309–314. doi: 10.1080/08824090600962698

Lounsbury, J. W., and Tornatzky, L. G. (1977). A scale for assessing attitudes toward environmental quality. J. Soc. Psychol. 101, 299–305. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1977.9924020

Malkus, A. J. (1992). Children’s Attitudes Toward the Environment: Relationship With Parents’ Environmental Attitudes, Family Environmental Practices, and Children’s Personality Characteristics. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Maloney, M. P., and Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: let’s hear from the people: an objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am. Psychol. 28, 583–586. doi: 10.1037/h0034936

Maloney, M. P., Ward, M. P., and Braucht, G. N. (1975). A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am. Psychol. 30, 787–790. doi: 10.1037/h0084394

Manoli, C. C., Johnson, B., and Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Assessing children’s environmental worldviews: modifying and validating the new ecological paradigm scale for use with children. J. Environ. Educ. 38, 3–13. doi: 10.3200/joee.38.4.3-13

McKechnie, G. E. (1977). The environmental response inventory in application. Environ. Behav. 9, 255–276. doi: 10.1177/001391657792006

Milfont, T. L., and Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: a valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 80–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001

Morrison, D. M., Baker, S. A., and Gillmore, M. R. (1998). Condom use among high-risk heterosexual teens: a longitudinal analysis using the theory of reasoned action. Psychol. Health 13, 207–222. doi: 10.1080/08870449808406747

Mosier, C. I. (1947). A critical examination of the concepts of face validity. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 7, 191–205. doi: 10.1177/001316444700700201

Musser, L. M., and Diamond, K. E. (1999). The children’s attitudes toward the environment scale for preschool children. J. Environ. Educ. 30, 23–30. doi: 10.1080/00958969909601867

Musser, L. M., and Malkus, A. J. (1994). The children’s attitudes toward the environment scale. J. Environm. Educ. 25, 22–26. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1994.9941954

Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H., and Berge, J. M. T. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Otto, S., Kröhne, U., and Richter, D. (2018). The dominance of introspective measures and what this implies: the example of environmental attitude. PloS One 13:e0192907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192907

Padmanabhan, K. H. (1989). A hierarchical model of the structural relationships between environmental attitudes and beliefs. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 5, 79–86. doi: 10.19030/jabr.v5i3.6351

Park, H. S., Dailey, R., and Lemus, D. (2002). The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Hum. Commun. Res. 28, 562–577.

Pelletier, L. G., Legault, L. R., and Tuson, K. M. (1996). The environmental satisfaction scale: a measure of satisfaction with local environmental conditions and government environmental policies. Environ. Behav. 28, 5–26. doi: 10.1177/0013916596281001

R Core Development Team, (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Rokeach, M. (1968). A theory of organization and change within value-attitude systems. J. Soc. Issues 24, 13–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1968.tb01466.x

Ross, J., Zaldivar, A., Irani, L., and Tomlinson, B. (2010). “Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in Amazon Mechanical Turk,” in Paper Presented at the 28th Annual ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems , Atlanta, GA.

Schahn, J., and Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: the role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environ. Behav. 22, 767–786. doi: 10.1177/0013916590226003

Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 21, 327–339. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0227

Schwartz, S. H., and Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 53, 550–562. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550

Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., and Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. J. Consum. Res. 15, 325–343. doi: 10.1086/209170

Singer, J. D., and Willet, J. B. (2003). Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Smythe, P. C., and Brook, R. C. (1980). Environmental concerns and actions: a social-psychological investigation. Can. J. Behav. Sci. Rev. Can. Scie. Comp. 12, 175–186. doi: 10.1037/h0081025

Stern, P. C., and Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 50, 65–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., and Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 25, 322–348. doi: 10.1177/0013916593255002

Thompson, S. C. G., and Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 14, 149–157. doi: 10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80168-9

Vaske, J. J., and Donnelly, M. P. (1999). A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 12, 523–537. doi: 10.1080/089419299279425

Vincent, P. C., Peplau, L. A., and Hill, C. T. (1998). A longitudinal application of the theory of reasoned action to women’s career behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28, 761–778. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01730.x

Weigel, R., and Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: the development of a measure. Environ. Behav. 10, 3–15. doi: 10.1177/0013916578101001

Xiao, C., and Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern cross−nationally: A U. S.−Canadian comparison. Soc. Sci. Q. 88, 471–493. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00467.x

Xiao, C., Dunlap, R. E., and Hong, D. (2013). The nature and bases of environmental concern among Chinese citizens. Soc. Sci. Q. 94, 672–690. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00934

Zhu, X., and Lu, C. (2017). Re-evaluation of the new ecological paradigm scale using item response theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 54, 79–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.10.005

Zimmer, M. R., Stafford, T. F., and Stafford, M. R. (1994). Green issues: dimensions of environmental concern. J. Bus. Res. 30, 63–74. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(94)90069-8

Keywords : environmental attitudes, environmental concern, measurement, confirmatory factor analysis, environmental behavior

Citation: Cruz SM and Manata B (2020) Measurement of Environmental Concern: A Review and Analysis. Front. Psychol. 11:363. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00363

Received: 26 August 2019; Accepted: 17 February 2020; Published: 06 March 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Cruz and Manata. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Shannon M. Cruz, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• DOI: 10.36948/ijfmr.2023.v05i05.7040
• Corpus ID: 263628880

Environmental Awareness Among Higher Education Students

• Basanti Mahanta
• Published in International Journal For… 29 September 2023
• Environmental Science, Education

Figures from this paper

12 References

Study of environmental awareness among secondary school students, environmental awareness among students, a study of environmental awareness of students at higher secondary level, the impacts of environmental education on youth and their environmental awareness, the status on the level of environmental awareness in the concept of sustainable development amongst secondary school students, factors affecting the students ’ environmental awareness , attitudes and behaviors in ondokuz mayis university , turkey, naturalistic intelligence and environmental awareness among graduate students, assessment of environmental awareness among general public of assam ( india ).

• Highly Influential

The effect of problem-based learning and naturalist intelligence on students' understanding of environmental conservation

Related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

A Study on the Impact of Organizing Environmental Awareness and Education on the Performance of Environmental Governance in China

1 College of the Humanities, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China

2 Economic Research Institute, Jilin Academy of Social Sciences, Changchun 130033, China

3 School of Transportation, Jilin University, Changchun 130022, China

Associated Data

Not applicable.

The advancement of technology and economic development has raised the standard of living and at the same time brought a greater burden to the environment. Environmental governance has become a common concern around the world, and although China’s environmental governance has achieved some success, it is still a long way from the ultimate goal. This paper empirically analyzes the impact of environmental publicity and education on environmental governance performance, using public participation as a mediator. The results show that: the direct effect of environmental publicity and education on environmental governance performance is not significant; environmental publicity and education have a significant positive effect on public participation; public participation significantly contributes to environmental governance performance; public participation shows a good mediating effect between environmental publicity and education and environmental governance performance. The government should adopt diversified environmental protection publicity and education in future environmental governance, and vigorously promote public participation in environmental governance so that the goal of environmental governance can be fundamentally accomplished by all people.

1. Introduction

With the progress of economic and social development, China’s urbanization is accelerating, and the increase in urban population has aggravated the deterioration of environmental pollution problems. With the rapid economic development and shortening of product life cycles, the rate of product replacement has become faster and faster, and the global energy shortage has caused increasing concern for environmental protection in various countries [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. China’s current ecological and environmental situation is very serious due to overpopulation, the long-term unreasonable exploitation of resources such as land, forests, water, and minerals, and the lack of necessary protection and construction of the ecological environment. At present, the deterioration of China’s ecological environment is summarized roughly as follows.

(1) Serious water and soil erosion. Soil erosion in China continues to show a “double decline” in area intensity and a “double reduction” in water and wind erosion. In 2021, the national soil erosion area will be 2,674,200 square kilometers, down 274,900 square kilometers from 2011, the percentage of strong and above grade will drop to 18.93%, and the soil and water conservation rate will reach 72.04% [ 4 , 5 ]. (2) The area of desertified land is expanding. The national desertification land area has reached 2.62 million square kilometers, accounting for 27.3% of the national land area, expanding at a rate of about 2460 square kilometers per year. (3) The area of degraded, sandy, and alkaline grassland is increasing year by year. The area of trivialized grasslands has reached 135 million hectares and is increasing at the rate of 2 million hectares per year [ 6 ]. (4) The area of acid rain area is further expanded, and the degree is worsening. Serious air pollution, mainly of the soot type, leads to a large area of acidic precipitation, and the area of acid rain area in China is about 466,000 square kilometers accounting for 4.8% of the national land area [ 7 , 8 ]. (5) The quality of the water environment is deteriorating, and water pollution accidents are frequent. According to incomplete statistics, in 2021, the country’s 458 daily discharge of direct sea pollution sources was more than 100 tons, the total volume of sewage discharge was about 7.28 billion tons, and they reported the largest integrated outfall emissions, followed by industrial sources of pollution, consequently, water shortage will be more serious [ 9 , 10 ]. (6) With the development of society, noise pollution has become an important source of pollution that affects people’s physical and mental health [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Noise pollution is recognized by the scientific community as an environmental pollutant related to sleep disorders and learning disabilities. Studies have shown that long-term exposure to highways, railroads, airports, and recreational noise can reduce work performance, make people irritable, and can seriously cause hypertension, heart attacks, and other diseases, which is also one of the sources associated with air pollution [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ].

National governments are paying more and more attention to environmental protection and ecological civilization construction work. To this end, they keep formulating and improving relevant laws and regulations, however, environmental protection is not only the task of the state and government, but also the responsibility and obligation of every resident, and long-term environmental protection and ecological civilization cannot be built without public participation. Under the constraints of environmental governance [ 26 ], environmental education can effectively improve people’s awareness of environmental protection [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Global environmental governance is the fundamental way to solve the human environmental crisis, and environmental awareness and education have been considered tools to help alleviate environmental problems [ 30 , 31 ]. Under the strong leadership of the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at the core, China’s higher education has moved with the times, built the world’s largest higher education system, cultivated a large number of high-quality specialists, and played an extremely important role in national revitalization, economic construction, social development, and scientific and technological progress. Historic achievements and changes in the pattern of higher education have been made. The world’s largest higher education system has been built, with the total number of students enrolled exceeding 44.3 million, and the gross enrollment rate of higher education has increased from 30% in 2012 to 57.8% in 2021, an increase of 27.8 percentage points, achieving a historic leap. Thus, higher education has entered a stage of universalization recognized worldwide. With 240 million people receiving higher education and an average of 13.8 years of education for the new workforce, the quality and structure of the workforce have undergone significant changes and the quality of the entire nation has been steadily improved. The awakening of public environmental awareness means that citizens gradually have a correct understanding of the relationship between human beings and nature in line with the essence of ecological civilization, and this awakening of environmental awareness needs to be inspired by education, and the process of gradually awakening environmental awareness is the process of gradually cultivating citizens into ecological citizens. Environmental education is the key to cultivating eco-citizens, and it has become an important value of environmental education in the context of ecological civilization construction to enhance citizens’ awareness of ecological civilization through environmental education. The government’s existing legislative practice of environmental education reflects the importance it attaches to the cultivation of ecological citizens through its environmental education training and other systems, i.e., the introduction of special legislation on environmental education. The awakening of public environmental consciousness requires the introduction of special legislation on environmental education to clarify the systems of ecological citizenship cultivation at the central level and effectively guarantee the effective development of ecological citizenship cultivation at the society-wide level, so as to promote the continuous awakening of citizens’ environmental consciousness and make all citizens in society become the main body in line with environmental protection and ecological civilization construction.

Liu P. pointed out in his study that perfect environmental protection propaganda and education work helps to enhance public participation in the construction of ecological civilization and protects the environment while safeguarding public interests; only by achieving universal environmental protection can we truly achieve long-term ecological civilization construction and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation [ 32 ]. Fan Y.W. proposed corresponding strategies and measures by analyzing the complexity and forms of urban environmental governance in China, in which he proposed that the background of China’s rapid social and economic development hides a severe form of environmental governance, and the government should actively seek the support of enterprises, environmental organizations, and popular social forces while committing to sound policies and regulations and strict compliance, through more non-governmental forces’. In addition, public participation is an effective way to improve the efficiency of environmental protection, and through various forms of environmental protection publicity and education, the public’s environmental awareness and quality can be improved comprehensively, and the citizens’ legitimate right to supervision and information can be guaranteed [ 33 ]. Ecological environmental governance requires the collaborative participation of the government and the public, and that the two work together to provide services for environmental governance to achieve the optimization of the governance process and results. Public participation in environmental governance generates competent evaluations of external information perceptions based on their consciousness, among which the perceived evaluations of environmental risks, government performance, and self-efficacy all feature. The disclosure of bad environmental information can enhance the public’s perception of environmental risks, the threat of environmental pollution to their lives and the damage to their interests, consequently, stimulating the public’s defense mentality. Thus, introducing environmental education (especially, environmental health) could be used as one solution [ 34 ], promoting public participation in environmental governance, and good government environmental treatment performance can enhance the public’s satisfaction and recognition of government work, and increased satisfaction can enhance the public’s participation in environmental governance. The public’s participation in environmental governance has an obvious subjective motivation, and a good perception of self-efficacy can enhance the public’s enthusiasm to participate in environmental governance and help improve the performance of environmental governance [ 35 , 36 , 37 ].

In summary, environmental protection publicity and education can improve public perceptions of environmental protection, enhance public awareness of environmental protection, and promote public participation in environmental governance, and the government and the public can work together to serve environmental governance to maximize environmental governance performance [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Given the above literature findings, this paper takes public participation in environmental governance as an entry point to analyze in depth the impact of organizing environmental protection publicity and education on environmental governance performance and makes suggestions from the perspective of promoting public participation in environmental governance.

2. Research Hypotheses

2.1. impact of environmental awareness and education on environmental governance performance.

The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) introduced policies and measures to modernize the governance system and governance capacity. As an important part of the modernized governance system, environmental governance, together with politics, economy, culture, society, and ecology, forms the national governance system. To fundamentally solve the task of urban environmental governance, it is necessary to create a situation of multi-governance, through environmental information disclosure and environmental education, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens while enhancing the environmental awareness of social organizations and citizens. It is also helpful to improve the effectiveness of government environmental governance. It has been pointed out that the transparency and openness of environmental information have a significant impact on the performance of environmental governance and given the complexity, professionalism, and a certain degree of closure of environmental information, the right to information of citizens, enterprises, and social organizations is not fully guaranteed, which has a negative impact on the effectiveness of governmental environmental monitoring and governance. With the advancement of technology and the development of innovative environmental governance models, management mechanisms with high transparency and openness have become a new environmental governance model, which combines environmental information disclosure with environmental education to restrain corporate behavior, promote the participation and supervision of citizens and social organizations in environmental governance, and collaboratively improve government environmental governance performance [ 41 , 42 , 43 ]. Environmental information disclosure and publicity and education are complementary measures to environmental governance, and their actual effects are directly related to the strength of disclosure and publicity. Environmental information disclosure enhances the pressure faced by emission enterprises from public opinion and regulatory authorities, prompting them to increase the disclosure of environmental information, improve and upgrade their environmental protection technologies, and take up the environmental protection tasks they should accomplish. Environmental information disclosure combined with environmental publicity and education enhances the success of these efforts. The combination of environmental information disclosure and environmental education enhances public scrutiny of the effectiveness of environmental management by government departments and creates a multi-party accountability situation for local governments from higher levels of government, the public, and media opinion, prompting local governments to effectively implement environmental management [ 44 , 45 , 46 ]. In general, through environmental protection publicity and education, the supervision and pressure on emission enterprises and government departments through various aspects such as social organizations, citizens, and media public opinion have promoted the strength of environmental governance by government departments. Based on the above analysis, this paper proposes the following hypotheses.

Environmental protection publicity and education positively affect environmental governance performance .

2.2. The Impact of Environmental Publicity and Education on Public Participation

With the continuous improvement of living standards and education, although the environmental awareness of our residents has been greatly enhanced, there are still some shortcomings. The pilot implementation of many years of waste separation action at present the overall effect is poor, and the behavior of randomly throwing away garbage is still very common, the government vigorously promotes environmentally friendly consumer behavior also has little effect, “white pollution The problem of “white pollution” still exists. Industrial pollution caused by China’s rapid urbanization and industrialization is a serious threat to the ecological environment and human health, which stimulates public appeals for better environmental quality and public participation in regional environmental governance [ 47 ]. This shows that public awareness of environmental protection needs to be improved. Environmental protection publicity and education activities should reach out to the public and target outstanding environmental protection problems with the right remedy for publicity and education. On the one hand, popular publicity and education on environmental protection knowledge can be conducted in communities, schools, enterprises, cities, and villages to deepen public awareness of environmental protection and call for universal participation in environmental protection; on the other hand, thematic publicity and education activities can be held in regional water quality warning stations, air monitoring stations and motor vehicle, on the other hand, education activities can be held in regional water quality warning stations, air monitoring stations and motor vehicle exhaust testing centers, etc., with relevant professionals explaining environmental protection knowledge and issues that are closely related to the public [ 48 ]. Rural household waste management is an important part of building beautiful villages and achieving the goal of ecological livability, and the willingness of rural residents to participate in household waste management is influenced by a variety of factors such as economic conditions, environmental awareness, and regulations. The current level of participation in waste management initiatives is low overall. Some scholars used village cadres as an entry point to study and analyze the impact of environmental education on rural residents’ willingness to participate in domestic waste management, and the results showed that environmental education based on the moderating role of village cadres had a significant impact on rural residents’ willingness to participate in domestic waste management. Therefore, the government should carry out diversified methods of publicity and education to enhance residents’ environmental awareness and willingness to participate in environmental management, taking into account the actual needs [ 49 ]. Some studies have pointed out that environmental protection publicity and education is the guidance and interaction between society and public participation in environmental governance, and environmental protection is working closely related to everyone’s interests, and any social organizations and individuals have the obligation and responsibility to protect the environment, and through environmental protection publicity and education, the public is encouraged to participate in the supervision and management of environmental governance, and everyone, regardless of occupation or position, reflects their attitude and choice of environmental protection, and the whole population will be governed to completely solve environmental problems [ 50 , 51 , 52 ]. In summary, through various forms of environmental protection publicity and education, we can deepen the public’s understanding and awareness of environmental protection, make the public realize the connection between environmental protection and their own interests, promote public participation in environmental governance from both subjective awareness and objective needs, and enhance the willingness to participate [ 53 ]. Based on the above analysis, this paper proposes the following hypotheses.

Environmental protection publicity and education enhance the public’s willingness to participate .

2.3. Mediation Effect of Public Participation

Public participation in environmental governance not only refers to subjective environmental protection behaviors but more importantly, it is a variety of ways to monitor and put pressure on the government’s environmental governance work such as letters and visits, social organization intervention, litigation, and creating public opinion; environmental protection letters and visits, environmental protection litigation and social organization intervention can provide clues for the government’s environmental governance while creating public opinion creates greater pressure on the government’s environmental protection behaviors and enhances the public opinion has become a key factor in environmental governance in recent years [ 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. In recent years, the public has become an important force in environmental governance, and the ways and means of public participation in environmental governance have been diversified, such as environmental petitions, environmental public opinion, CPPCC proposals, NPC motions, etc. Among them, environmental petitions reflect a more significant promotion effect on environmental governance performance than environmental public opinion, while the promotion effect of CPPCC proposals and NPC motions is not obvious, and the reason for this is that one of the main subjects of environmental governance, to avoid economic and social losses caused by environmental mass events caused by mishandling, so public demands are more important to local governments, and public environmental petitions can bring more pressure than CPPCC proposals and NPC motions, so the impact on environmental governance performance is greater [ 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Based on the interprovincial panel data from 2011–2015, some scholars constructed a model to empirically analyze the effects of three public participation channels, namely, complaint petitions, proposals, and self-media opinion, on regional environmental governance performance, and the results showed that public participation has a positive contribution to regional environmental governance performance, with the positive contribution effect of self-media opinion being the most significant. Based on the above literature, it can be seen that the ways of public participation in environmental governance are diversified and the effects of different ways on environmental governance performance vary, but promoting public participation in environmental governance through environmental education can indirectly contribute to the improvement of government environmental governance performance. Based on the above analysis, this paper proposes the following hypotheses.

Public participation can play a mediating effect between environmental publicity and education and environmental governance performance .

3. Research Design

3.1. data sources.

This paper used questionnaires to complete the data collection and acquisition. We randomly distributed questionnaires in townships, urban communities, enterprises, government environmental protection departments, and other related departments, the research subjects were township and urban community residents, enterprise middle-level and above managers, government environmental protection department staff and responsible person, government-related department staff and responsible person, etc., over 6 months, a total of 1200 questionnaires were distributed. After eliminating invalid questionnaires, a total of 1017 valid questionnaires were collected, with a valid recovery rate of 84.8%.

The content of the questionnaire was mainly for environmental protection publicity and education, public participation, and government environmental governance information survey. Each aspect contained a number of questions, using a five-level rating system to evaluate the valuation of each question, corresponding to completely not meet, not meet, not sure, meet, fully meet, respectively, assigned to the value of 1–5, environmental protection publicity and education, public participation and government environmental governance rating for the corresponding questions. The scores for environmental education, public participation, and government environmental governance were the sum of the corresponding questions [ 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. The detailed questionnaire scale is shown in Table 1 .

Survey questionnaire scale design.

In order to ensure the credibility and validity of the questionnaire data, the reliability and validity of the scale need to be checked before the formal analysis, using Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient method and CITI value to test the data reliability, with α > 0.7 and CITI > 0.5 as the internal consistency of the questionnaire qualified, that is, the questionnaire has good stability and reliability, reliability test details The results are shown in Table 2 , the CITI values are greater than 0.5, and the reliability of all four variables is greater than 0.7, indicating that the questionnaire passed the reliability test.

Results of the reliability test of the questionnaire.

SPSS23.0 statistical software (IBM, New York, NY, USA) was used to conduct KMO and Bartlett sphere tests to verify the validity of the scale items, and the results showed that the KMO value was 0.966 and the Bartlett sphere test’s approximate chi-square value was 6139.573 ( p < 0.001), indicating that the scale items had good structural validity of cut elements in line with the conditions of factor analysis. The results of convergent validity and discriminant validity analysis of the sample data are shown in Table 3 and Table 4 . The data in the tables show that the factor loadings of the items are greater than 0.5, the CR values of the four variables are greater than 0.7, and the AVE values are greater than 0.5. The convergent validity and discriminant validity of the questionnaire data were good.

Results of convergent validity test.

Results of the discriminant validity test.

Note: ** indicates p < 0.01; diagonal values in the table are the square root of the AVE of the corresponding variable.

3.2. Model Design

According to the analysis of the aforementioned literature, environmental protection publicity and education has a certain degree of positive impact on environmental governance performance, but it mainly has an indirect effect on environmental governance by influencing the will and ways of public participation in environmental governance, which has a direct impact on environmental governance. Based on the analysis of literature results, the theoretical model designed in this paper is shown in Figure 1 .

Theoretical structural model.

3.3. Model Test

The Mplus software was used to test the goodness-of-fit indicators of the structural model, and the test results are shown in Table 5 , from which it can be seen that all seven goodness-of-fit indicators meet the critical value requirements, indicating that the constructed model has good goodness-of-fit.

Structural model goodness-of-fit index measures.

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. path analysis.

Based on the constructed theoretical structure model, and based on the sample data, Mplus software was applied to calculate the paths and impact relationships between environmental education, public participation, and environmental governance performance. The detailed results shown in Table 6 are not fully valid, the reason for this analysis is that the government, as one of the main participants in environmental publicity and education, organizes environmental publicity and education for the fundamental purpose of encouraging enterprises and the public to participate in environmental governance, and the direct effect of this on environmental governance performance is not significant. Both environmental publicity and education show a significant positive effect on public participation and public participation on environmental governance performance, indicating that environmental publicity and education can effectively promote public participation in environmental governance, and public participation in environmental governance significantly improves environmental governance performance.

Path analysis.

4.2. Mediating Effect Analysis

The results are shown in Table 7 , which shows that the confidence intervals of both the specific mediating effect and the total mediating effect are greater than 0, indicating that the mediating effects of public participation intention, public participation channel and This indicates that the mediating effects of public participation, public participation channels and public participation in environmental education and environmental governance performance are all valid, which verifies the hypothesis of this paper.

Intermediary effect test.

5. Conclusions and Discussions

This paper investigated the impact of environmental education on environmental governance performance, using public participation as the entry point for studying the mediating effects of environmental governance. The empirical results show that environmental publicity and education have a positive effect on environmental governance performance to some extent but are not significant. Environmental publicity and education have a significant positive effect on both public participation willingness and allocated resources; both public participation willingness and public participation significantly contribute to the improvement of environmental governance performance. Public participation shows a good mediating effect between environmental publicity and education and environmental governance performance [ 42 , 43 ].

Aldo Leopold, a famous American ecologist and founder of the land ethic, once said the essence of resource protection did not lie in a few government engineering programs, but fundamentally, in a change in the consciousness of all people. To protect the ecological environment, we should not only rely on the macro-control of government departments, and increase investment in environmental protection to take the path of sustainable development, but more importantly, we should improve the quality of awareness in the whole population, increase environmental publicity, and enhance environmental awareness. Environmental propaganda should adhere to the purpose of improving the environmental awareness of all sectors of society and the general public, decision-makers, factories and mining enterprises, young people, and society as a whole. All departments should make full use of the media and widely popularized scientific knowledge of environmental protection. Using close-to-life, reality-based publicity activities can enhance the nation’s environmental awareness and understanding of the legal system, leading to improvements in the public consciousness and increased participation in environmental action. Only in this way can we lay a good foundation for the smooth implementation of various policies and measures. Higher environmental awareness is a sign of progress in social civilization, and the higher the environmental awareness, the lower the resistance encountered to the implementation of environmental policies. Usually, it is necessary to continuously strengthen environmental publicity and education, and it is also possible to raise public environmental awareness by expanding the environmental rights and interests enjoyed by society, including the right to environmental supervision, the right to environmental information, the right to environmental claims, and the right to environmental discussion. In addition, the strengthening of environmental awareness must be accompanied by the construction of a supporting legal system, and the establishment of a virtuous ecological cycle by giving equal importance to ecological exploitation and protection and restoration as guidelines. Based on the theoretical results of the literature and combined with the results of the empirical analysis, this paper puts forward the following recommendations.

First, extensive participation in publicity and education. It is difficult for government-led publicity and education to cover all areas, so it is necessary to use the influence of corporate organizations and celebrities to expand the scope of environmental publicity and education. The cause of environmental protection concerns the vital interests of everyone; any social organization or individual has an obligation to take responsibility for protecting the environment and preventing pollution, so the ambitious goal of ecological livability and sustainable development cannot be achieved without joint efforts of all people and society as a whole.

Second, encourage public participation in environmental governance. The government should also take the lead in encouraging the public to participate in environmental management, and at the same time mobilize non-government forces to encourage public participation in environmental management. The government’s environmental management efforts will create a favorable social atmosphere. In addition, we should give full play to the role of private environmental organizations, guide and encourage them to participate in environmental governance, promote public supervision and media attention, and create a strong social force for environmental governance to comprehensively promote the goal of green development, which is also of great significance to China’s strategic goal of sustainable development.

Third, improve the relevant laws and regulations. The implementation of environmental protection policies cannot be implemented without the guarantee of laws and regulations, and perfect laws and regulations also have a direct impact on the operability of the relevant policies. We need to strengthen the establishment and implementation of laws and regulations related to environmental protection and rely on a sound legal system to comprehensively promote environmental governance. Scientific management systems, standardized operation processes, and strong supervision mechanisms are the important objective conditions for public participation in environmental governance. The environmental emergency management mechanism, media opinion monitoring mechanism, and environmental information disclosure mechanism need to be further supplemented and improved. A sound legal system can also provide the public with clear environmental rights, raise public awareness of environmental protection, and make the public participate more actively in environmental protection work. In short, a sound legal system is an important guarantee for public participation in environmental governance, and an important way to improve environmental governance performance.

Forth, improve the efficiency of government feedback. The government plays a role in guiding and interacting with the public in the process of environmental governance. Mass environmental incidents are typically generative of common demands for environmental governance from the public. If such demands do not receive timely and effective feedback from the government, it is likely to lead to a decrease in the public’s trust in the government and even trigger a crisis of government credibility. A positive interaction cycle between the public and the government is an important guarantee for the smooth development of the government’s environmental protection business, so the government should actively give feedback when the public clearly expresses their demands and give clear responses and answers to ensure smooth and harmonious communication between the two. In addition, the government environmental protection department should regularly sort out the statistics of public demands, actively solicit suggestions and opinions from the public, and make timely improvements in response to the shortcomings of the work.

Funding Statement

Jilin Province Higher Education Teaching Reform Research Project (Grant No. JLJY202140579379), Higher Education Teaching Reform Research Project of Jilin University (Grant No. 2021XZD028), Qingdao Social Science Planning Research Project (Grant No. 2022-389).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.N. and X.W.; methodology, Y.N.; software, Y.N.; validation, Y.N. and X.W.; formal analysis, Y.N. and X.W.; investigation, Y.N.; resources, Y.N.; data curation, Y.N.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.N.; writing—review and editing, Y.N. and X.W.; visualization, Y.N. and C.L.; supervision, Y.N. and X.W. and C.L.; project administration, Y.N. and C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Environmental awareness

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Last »
• Environmental Education Follow Following
• Writing Qualitative Research Follow Following
• Qualitative Research Methods Follow Following
• Realism Follow Following
• School Follow Following
• Environmental Science Follow Following
• International Public Law Follow Following
• Marine Environment Follow Following
• Qualitative Approach to the Study of Political Studies Follow Following
• MARINE POLLUTION Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024