Early-Life Outdoor Experiences and an Individual's Environmental Attitudes

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Utah]On: 24 August 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 731917070]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure SciencesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713773100

Early-Life Outdoor Experiences and an Individual's EnvironmentalAttitudesAlan Ewerta; Greg Placeb; Jim Sibthorpc

a Department of Recreation and Park Administration, Indiana University, HPER 133, IndianaUniversity, Bloomington, IN, USA b Department of HPER, Recreation Option, Chicago StateUniversity, Chicago, Illinois, USA c Deptartment of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, University of Utah,Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

To cite this Article Ewert, Alan , Place, Greg and Sibthorp, Jim(2005) 'Early-Life Outdoor Experiences and an Individual'sEnvironmental Attitudes', Leisure Sciences, 27: 3, 225 — 239To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01490400590930853URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400590930853

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713773100

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400590930853

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Leisure Sciences, 27: 225–239, 2005

Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Inc.

ISSN: 0149-0400 print / 1521-0588 online

DOI: 10.1080/01490400590930853

Early-Life Outdoor Experiences and an Individual’sEnvironmental Attitudes

ALAN EWERT, Ph.D.

Department of Recreation and Park Administration

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana, USA

GREG PLACE, Ph.D.

Department of HPER, Recreation Option,

Chicago State University

Chicago, Illinois, USA

JIM SIBTHORP, Ph.D.

Deptartment of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism

University of Utah

Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

This study investigated the effects of early-life experiences on an individual’s environ-mental beliefs. Data from a survey of 533 university undergraduate students from 20 ar-eas of academic study were analyzed using sequential regression to determine the degreeto which current environmental beliefs could be explained by early childhood experi-ences. Results showed that four of the seven independent variables (appreciative outdooractivities, consumptive outdoor activities, media exposure, and witnessing negative en-vironmental events) explained 14% of the variance in the eco-centric/anthropocentricbeliefs. Three of the independent variables (early-life participation in mechanized out-door activities, education, and involvement with organizations) were not significantpredictors of eco-centric/anthropocentric beliefs. Implications for research and prac-tice were discussed.

Keywords early-life outdoor experience, environmental attitudes, New Environmental

Paradigm (NEP)

Introduction

One of the hallmarks of many recreation and leisure service organizations offering programs

in the outdoors is the belief that these programs serve to strengthen and enhance a partici-

pant’s sense of responsibility and attitude toward the natural environment (Jackson, 1987).

Moreover, a growing body of research increasingly suggests that what individuals do in

their lives has a direct connection to what they believe in and value, and that environmental

attitudes and behaviors are often linked to these values (Kaiser, 1998; Poortinga, Steg, &

Vlek, 2004). In addition, a number of variables have been identified as playing a role in the

Received 15 March, 2004; accepted 16 August, 2004.

Address correspondence to Alan Ewert, Professor, Department of Recreation and Park Administration,

Indiana University, HPER 133, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. E-mail: [email protected]

225

Downloaded By: [University of Utah] At: 22:04 24 August 2010

226 A. Ewert et al.

formation of these environmental attitudes, including gender, age, political ideology, ethnic

variation and participation in outdoor recreation activities (Johnson, Bowker, & Cordell,

2004; Teisl & O’Brien, 2003).

Other studies have identified early childhood outdoor recreational experiences as play-

ing a key role in the formation of these environmental beliefs. Whether this formative role

is the result of parental or peer influence (Villacorta, Koestner, & Lekes, 2003), aspects of

social learning and context (Olli, Grendstad, & Wollebaek (2001), the formation of “place

attachments” (Stedman, 2002), or other factors such as structured recreation programs is

still largely undetermined.

The early-life recreational pursuits of an individual can often be viewed as a time of

exploration, discovery, and play. For many, the outdoors represents a favorite location for

early-life activities (Palmberg & Kuru, 2000). It offers open space, natural beauty and the

availability of the unknown that is alluring to both children and adults. However, does it

follow that spending time (often for leisure) in the outdoors, early in one’s life, predisposes

an individual toward a heightened sensitivity and appreciation for the natural environment?

Do individuals who have early childhood experiences in the outdoors develop a greater

desire to protect and conserve the natural environment when compared with individuals

who do not have those experiences? More important, are there specific variables related

to early-life outdoor experiences that significantly influence an individual’s environmental

view?

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine which early-life outdoor recre-

ational experiences best explained the environmental beliefs held by the study respondents.

The early-life experiences investigated included appreciative outdoor activities, mechanized

outdoor activities, consumptive outdoor activities, formal education, the media, witnessing

negative environmental events, and involvement with organizations that provide outdoor

experiences. Environmental beliefs were measured using an instrument adapted from the

New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) originally developed by Dunlap and van Liere (1978).

In addition, the statements contained within the modified NEP were used to identify if an

individual held either an eco-centric or anthropocentric view of the environment. In this

study, eco-centric refers to an attitude of protecting the environment because of its intrinsic

value regardless of economic and/or lifestyle needs of humankind (Catton & Dunlap, 1978).

Likewise, anthropocentrism refers to an attitude that promotes the protection of the envi-

ronment because of its value in maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for humans

(Milbrath, 1984). Within the context of this study, “early life” refers to childhood and youth

up to the age of 18.

Theoretical Framework

How an individual perceives the world is multi-dimensional and involves a variety of atti-

tudes and individual perceptions based on personal experiences. Often, these perceptions

can influence a person’s attitudes and subsequent behaviors toward the natural environment

(Stedman, 2002; Stern, 2000). Arcury, Johnson, and Scollay (1986) found that a person’s

attitude toward the environment influences what and how much he or she comprehends

about the environment.

To better understand the values, attitudes, and beliefs a person has regarding the natural

environment, researchers have developed various taxonomic systems of classification. Two

of the more widely known classification systems are the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP)

and the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap & van Liere, 1978; Dunlap, van

Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). The DSP favors a society that uses its resources to benefit

the present generation and supports material wealth, economic growth, and greater scientific


Early-Life Outdoor Experiences 227

and technical development to solve environmental problems (Albrecht, Bultena, Hoiberg,

& Nowak, 1982; Milbrath, 1984).

Conversely, the NEP paradigm takes into consideration newer and broader environmen-

tal issues such as limits to growth, pollution, and natural resources management (Dunlap &

van Liere, 1978). Individuals adapting the NEP perspective generally perceive the condition

of the world as a problem, seek a basic change in the nature of society, and believe there are

limits to the growth in which humans must adapt (Milbrath, 1984). Therefore, eco-centric

attitudes about the environment represent those persons who regard nature for its intrinsic

value.

Dunlap et al. (2000) argue that the NEP scale items tap into a set of “primitive beliefs”

that represent an individual’s perceptions regarding the natural environment. A number of

authors (e.g., Dalton, Gontmacher, Lovrich, & Pierce, 1999; Edgell & Nowell, 1989; Gooch,

1995) now believe the NEP represents a coherent set of beliefs toward the environment

and forms a paradigm or worldview that influences behavior and attitudes. Perhaps not

surprisingly, Gagnon-Thompson and Barton (1994) found that these perceptions were the

result of personal experiences in nature and feelings derived from natural settings.

In its extreme form, the DSP assumes that there are no limits to human growth and that

environmental problems will always be resolved through human ingenuity and technology.

In contrast, the NEP includes 12 statements that involve items such as protecting the envi-

ronment, preserving nature for its own sake, saving resources, and valuing nature (Dunlap &

van Liere, 1978, 1984; Langenau, Peyton, Wickham, Caveney, & Johnston, 1984; Milbrath,

1984).

Noe and Snow (1989) used the NEP scale to determine extreme attitudinal positions

towards the environment (e.g., highly pro-environment). Gagnon-Thompson and Barton

(1994) used several of the NEP questions, and others which were similar in wording,

to establish eco-centric and anthropocentric attitude scales. In addition, Ewert and Baker

(2001) used a modified NEP to identify attitudes for and against the environment as a

function of academic standing in college.

Lalonde and Jackson (2002) suggested that the NEP scale provided two important

benefits. First, the scale provided a mechanism to examine variation and changes in at-

titudes toward the environment through statistical analysis. Second, the NEP allowed for

comparisons within different temporal, geographical, and social contexts.

Although the impact of the NEP scale is difficult to overestimate given the substantial

and continuing use of the instrument (Fransson & Garling, 1999), the NEP is not without its

critics (Cordano, Welcomer, & Scherer, 2003; Eagly & Kulesa, 1997). Perhaps the area of

greatest scholarly discourse centers on whether or not the scale measures a single construct

or multiple dimensions (Dunlap, van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). For example, Cordano

et al. (2003) report studies that have used the NEP to measure two, three, four, and even

five dimensions. This current study considered the NEP as measuring a single dimension

based on the following factors: (a) the original NEP, as developed by Dunlap and van Liere

(1978) was designed as a uni-dimensional instrument; (b) a previous work (Place, 2000)

from which these data were taken treated the instrument as unidimensional and resulted in a

Cronbach’s alpha of .83; and (c) also from Place’s work, subsequent factor analysis revealed

no clear separations between various potential dimensions, thus suggesting a unidimensional

structure.

Early Childhood Outdoor Experiences and Environmental Attitudes

Newhouse (1990) noted that while much of the research regarding outdoor experience

has dealt with the impact of specific educational programs, “It seems likely that most


228 A. Ewert et al.

environmental attitudes are formed as a result of life experiences rather than any specific

program that was designed to change attitudes” (p. 28). Bixler (1997), for example, indicated

that a great deal of recreational activities are learned during childhood and may be the result

of family influence or the unsupervised exploration common to children.

Tanner (1980) defined outdoor experiences as an interaction with rural, natural, or

other fairly pristine habitats, and examined the significance of early-life experiences among

informed conservationists in the United States. The results pointed to outdoor experiences

as being a prominent factor in the development of a “conservationist” attitude. Additional

responses included experiences in the outdoors alone and with family, environmental edu-

cation, and negative experiences such as witnessing the effects of pollution or the loss of a

significant place or specific location (e.g., park, backyard woodlot or similar undeveloped

space) due to development. Tanner concluded that “youthful experience of outdoors and

relatively pristine environments emerges as a dominant influence in these lives” (p. 23).

Palmer (1993) examined the “significance of various categories of influence on the

development of environmental educators’ knowledge and concern and the ways in which

this significance may change through time” (p. 26). Like Tanner (1980), Palmer received

responses mentioning the importance of early-life, outdoor experiences and education. In

this case, education included higher education and grade school courses. These activities in-

cluded walking, camping, sailing, watching wildlife, gardening, farming, family adventures

in the outdoors, as well as being a part of organizations during an individual’s early-life,

such as scouts. Palmer concluded that the outdoors is the single most influential factor in

developing concern for the environment among conservation professionals.

Several other studies have confirmed the findings of Tanner (1980) and Palmer (1993).

Corcoran (1999) examined formative influences in the lives of United States environmental

educators. Corcoran found that the most important influence was early experiences in the

outdoors, and the greatest human influence was the family. Sward (1999) examined life

experiences affecting El Salvadoran environmental professionals and found outdoor expe-

riences during youth as the most important factor influencing their environmental views.

Similarly, Peterson and Hungerford (1981) found that participation in major early-life out-

door experiences, whether it was through outdoor recreation experiences involving the

family, hunting and fishing, or youth organizational camping, was important in developing

environmental sensitivity.

More recently, Bixler, Floyd, and Hammitt (2002) looked at the association between

childhood play experiences in wild environments and later, environmental preferences in the

domains of work, leisure, and school. They found a positive relationship between having

played in wild environments and more positive perceptions of natural environments but

found no association between participating in these types of play activities and preference

for environmental sciences programs at school.

Taken as a whole, these studies show consistency in the variables that appear to be influ-

ential in the development of environmental awareness, particularly among conservation and

environment-oriented professionals. Chawla (1999) suggests, however, that what is lacking

in our understanding about the development of environmental attitudes are comparative

studies between individuals who are pro-environmental and those who are indifferent or

antagonistic toward the environment.

While terms may vary, five variables appear to comprise most of the literature regarding

early-life outdoor experiences. The most important of these variables appear to be direct

outdoor experiences alone, with family, or with friends (Bixler, 1997; Bixler et al., 2002;

Corcoran, 1999; Palmer, 1993; Peterson & Hungerford, 1981; Sward, 1999; Tanner, 1980;

van Liere & Noe, 1981). Other variables also seemed to play a role in the development

of environmental attitudes, such as formal education (Palmer, 1993; Tanner, 1980), the



media (Corcoran, 1999), witnessing negative environmental events such as the destruction

of a natural area through development (Sward, 1999; Tanner, 1980), and involvement with

organizations that provide outdoor experiences (Palmer, 1993; Peterson & Hungerford,

1981).

Finally, outdoor recreation activities may be divided into three major categories: ap-

preciative, mechanized (motorized), and consumptive (Tarrant & Green, 1999). Apprecia-

tive recreation activities are considered those activities that can be enjoyed while having

little impact on the natural environment, such as bird-watching or enjoying the scenery.

Mechanized activities usually involve the recreational use of mechanical devices such as

powerboats and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). Gold panning and mushroom hunting are ex-

amples of consumptive recreational activities since they take something away from the

environment. These distinctions are often useful in distinguishing between different types

of outdoor recreation activities and also serve to further divide the direct early-life out-

door experiences variable into three subtypes. These subtypes (i.e., early-life appreciative,

consumptive, and mechanized outdoor experience) became three of the seven independent

variables used in this study.

Methods

Sampling

Using a modified NEP scale, 576 students from a large midwestern university were surveyed.

These students were purposively selected from a pool of 21 introductory courses with

enrollments of 80 students or more to represent a variety of academic departments. The

administration of the instrument was anonymous, with the students being instructed not

to place their names or other identifying information on the survey. Large courses were

chosen to ensure a diverse and adequate sample size, as we were concerned that some

courses would have poor attendance and that a certain number of students would choose not

to participate. Moreover, in addition to being a readily accessible sample, university students

were selected as an appropriate group to study because they represent both future leaders

and opinion-makers in society and will have profound influence on the decision-making

regarding the use and management of many natural environments.

Instrument

To measure environmental attitudes, a modified NEP questionnaire was used that contained

six questions focusing on eco-centric attitudes and six questions that focused on anthro-

pocentric attitudes toward the environment (Albrecht et al., 1982; Dunlap & van Liere, 1978;

Ewert & Baker, 2001; Gagnon-Thompson & Barton, 1994; Noe & Snow, 1989; Tarrant &

Cordell, 1997). Responses to the questionnaire items were based on a five-point Likert scale

ranging from, (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree.

To test the relationship between early childhood outdoor experiences and environmental

attitudes, seven independent variables were used in this study. These variables included:

(1) participation in appreciative outdoor experiences (OEAPP),

(2) participation in mechanized outdoor experiences (OEMECH),

(3) participation in consumptive outdoor experiences (OECON),

(4) formal education (EDUC),

(5) the media [books and/or television (MEDIA)],

(6) witnessing negative environmental events (NEGEXP), and

(7) involvement with organizations that provide outdoor experiences (ORGS).


230 A. Ewert et al.

TABLE 1 Questions Used to Assess a Person’s Environmental Attitude∗

Eco-centric statements

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.

Mankind is severely abusing the environment.

Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive.

The effects of pollution are worse than we realize.

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

The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.

Anthropocentric statements

Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to

suit their needs.

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

Mankind was created to rule over nature.

We don’t need to worry about the environment.

I do not think the problem of depletion of natural resources is as bad as many people make

it out to be.

Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.

Examples of independent variable statements

Early in life I was positively impacted towards the environment through books and/or

television (media)

Early in life I spent time alone in the outdoors enjoying nature (appreciative)

Watching an outdoor area being developed that is special to me causes me to want to

protect other natural areas (negative experiences)

Early in life I spent time hunting and/or fishing with friends (consumptive)

Early in life I was a part of organizations that took camping trips into the outdoors

(organizations)

∗Statements used a 5-point Likert scale for responses from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

As with the dependent variables, the responses for the independent variables were based

on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree (see

Table 1).

Data Analysis

Based on the literature, it was hypothesized that early-life outdoor experiences (apprecia-

tive, consumptive, and mechanized) would be related to eco-centric/anthropocentric beliefs.

In addition, the researchers were interested in the relative importance of the four additional

independent variables (formal education, media, witnessing negative environmental events,

and involvement with organizations that provide outdoor experiences). Within this frame-

work a sequential or hierarchical regression analysis was used (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).

This approach allows researchers to add blocks of regression variables in an a priori order

and to determine if the variables in the subsequent blocks explain any additional variance

over the initial block of variables. This procedure is in contrast to more traditional forward,

backward, or stepwise approaches which remain more empirically rather than theoretically

driven. The dependent variable was eco-centric/anthropocentric beliefs. The first block of

independent variables contained the three types of early-life outdoor experiences (appre-

ciative, consumptive, and mechanized). Blocks two through five contained, respectively,

formal education, media, witnessing negative environmental events, and involvement with

organizations that provide outdoor experiences.



Cross-validation was used to test the generalizability of the regression equation

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). This study adapted the form of cross-validation that involves

dividing a single sample into two parts (Mosier, 1951; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Re-

gression coefficients generated on one sample (half of the respondents randomly selected

in SPSS) were then used to predict the dependent variable score with the other half of the

overall sample. The corresponding correlation between the predicted score on the depen-

dent variables and the actual score on the dependent variable should have been similar in

magnitude to the R value from the original regression equation. When a set of regression

coefficients from one sample is applied to a second sample, the R obtained in the second

sample will almost always be smaller. This phenomenon is commonly called “shrinkage”

and is due to the treatment of the zero-order correlations as error-free. If the relative degree

of shrinkage is small, then the generalizability of the regression equation was supported

and its utility beyond the original sample is likely.

Results

Of the original 576 responses, 43 (7%) were discarded because study participants indicated

that they agreed (or disagreed) with both the eco-centric and anthropocentric views. Because

this finding is inconsistent with the New Environmental Paradigm, this response pattern was

considered problematic and these study participants were thought to be exhibiting a response

bias rather than their actual environmental beliefs. In addition, 31 (5%) respondents had

missing data in variables that were represented by more than one data source (two or more

questions on that variable). These missing data were replaced by the mean of the remaining

questions pertaining to the same variable (e.g., if data for one of the six eco-centric items

was missing, the mean for the other five items was used to replace this missing value). As

a result of these procedures, 533 usable questionnaires were obtained for a response rate of

93%.

Demographic data included age and gender. Of the 533 respondents, 221 (41.5%) were

male, with 519 (97.7%) of the respondents between the ages of 18 and 29, and 12 over the

age of 30 (2.2%).

To determine internal consistency, item analyses were performed on all of the mea-

sures for this data set. Variables with a Cronbach’s coefficient above .70 were considered

acceptable (Cronbach, 1951; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996; Vogt, 1993). Only one variable did

not meet this criterion; the two items measuring early-life negative environmental experi-

ences had a Cronbach’s coefficient of .56. Despite this less-than-acceptable coefficient, this

variable was still retained in the analysis given the theoretical rationale for inclusion. The

Cronbach’s coefficients for the other independent variables ranged from .78 to .86. The Cron-

bach’s coefficient for the dependent variable (eco-centric/anthropocentric belief) was .83.

In an effort to verify that the seven independent variables were discrete, bivariate corre-

lations between the seven independent variables were inspected (see Table 2). The average

correlation was .32, and the highest correlation was between media and education (r = .53).

These moderate correlations supported the notion that the independent variables of interest

could be treated as discrete and should not pose problematic levels of multicollinearity for

the subsequent regression analysis. Standardized means for the seven independent variables

and the dependent variable are displayed in Table 3.

Regression Analysis

To cross-validate the regression equations with a holdout group, the initial sample of 533

study participants was randomly split into two halves using random selection in SPSS. The


232 A. Ewert et al.

TABLE 2 Correlations between Seven Independent Variables

OEAPP OECON OEMECH EDUC NEGEXP ORGS MEDIA

OEAPP — .377∗∗ .287∗∗ .489∗∗ .448∗∗ .479∗∗ .368∗

OECON — .430∗∗ .237∗∗ .190∗∗ .218∗∗ .150∗∗

OEMECH — .214∗∗ .116∗∗ .158∗∗ .113∗∗

EDUC — .437∗∗ .463∗∗ .525∗∗

NEGEXP — .313∗∗ .507∗∗

ORGS — .263∗∗

∗∗Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).OEAPP = appreciative early-life outdoor experiences.OECON = consumptive early-life outdoor experiences.OEMECH = mechanized early-life outdoor experiences.EDUCAT = formal classroom or environmental education.NEGEXP = witnessing negative environmental events (pollution, land development).ORGS = experience with organizations that provide outdoor experiences.MEDIA = reading books and/or watching television programs on environmental issues.

first half was used to generate the regression equation. The second half was used in the

cross-validation procedure described in the following section.

The initial regression equation contained eco-centric/anthropocentric beliefs as the de-

pendent variable and three independent variables thought to measure early life outdoor

experiences: appreciative experiences, consumptive experiences, and mechanized experi-

ences. This regression equation (model 1) was significant (p < .05, R = .291; see Table 4),

and both early-life outdoor appreciative experiences (p < .05, β = .315) and early-life

outdoor consumptive experiences (p < .05, β = −.143) were significant predictors of

eco-centric/anthropocentric beliefs. By inspecting the direction (sign) of the beta-weights,

it is clear that early-life outdoor appreciative experiences were related positively to eco-

centric beliefs, while early-life outdoor consumptive experiences were related negatively to

eco-centric beliefs (or, positively to anthropocentric beliefs). Early-life outdoor mechanized

experiences were not a significant predictor.

The additional independent variables were then added to the regression equation in

subsequent blocks: block two added formal education, block three added media, block four

TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables

Variable N M1 SD

Independent Variables

Outdoor Appreciative Experiences 522 2.44 .79

Outdoor Consumptive Experiences 532 3.44 1.01

Outdoor Mechanized Experiences 533 3.28 1.02

Education 527 2.69 .74

Media 533 2.72 .82

Witnessing Negative Environmental Events 530 2.78 .79

Involvement with Organizations 532 2.89 .89

Dependent Variable

Eco-centric/Anthropocentric2 522 2.16 .49

Valid N (listwise) 501

Note. 1All reported means are standardized with 1 = Strongly Agree, and 5 = Strongly Disagree.2For Eco-centric/Anthropocentric a lower score indicates a more eco-centric belief system.



TABLE 4 Comparison of the Five Sequential Regression Models

Change

Std. Error statistics

Adjusted R of the R square sig. F

Model R R square square estimate change F change df1 df2 change

1 .291 .084 .074 5.7102 .084 7.897 3 257 .000

2 .294 .086 .072 5.7150 .002 .570 1 256 .451

3 .348 .121 .104 5.6173 .034 9.979 1 255 .002

4 .375 .140 .120 5.5654 .020 5.778 1 254 .017

5 .379 .143 .120 5.5669 .003 .864 1 253 .353

Dependent Variable was Eco-centric/Anthropocentric Beliefs.Model 1 Predictors: OEMECH, OEAPP, OECON.Model 2 Predictors: OEMECH, OEAPP, OECON, EDUC.Model 3 Predictors: OEMECH, OEAPP, OECON, EDUC, MEDIA.Model 4 Predictors: OEMECH, OEAPP, OECON, EDUC, MEDIA, NEGEXP.Model 5 Predictors: OEMECH, OEAPP, OECON, EDUC, MEDIA, NEGEXP, ORGS.

added negative experiences, and block five added involvement with organizations. Only

blocks three and four produced significant improvements or changes in R2 (p < .05) in

the predictive power of the regression equation (see Table 4 for a comparison of the five

models). In model three, the media variable (p < .05, β = .219) was added, and the R-value

increased to .348. In model four, the negative experiences variable (p < .05, β = .172)

was added, and the R-value increased to .375.

The regression analysis indicates that early-life appreciative and consumptive outdoor

experiences can explain about 8.4% of the variance in eco-centric/anthropocentric beliefs.

The media and negative early-life experiences explained additional variance not accounted

for by direct outdoor experience. With the inclusion of these two additional variables,

the regression equation predicts about 14% of the variance in eco-centric/anthropocentric

beliefs, or about 5.6% more than was explained by direct experience alone.

All variables were related in the expected direction, i.e., higher scores on early-life

appreciative experiences indicated more eco-centric beliefs, higher scores on early-life

consumptive experiences indicated more anthropocentric beliefs. More early-life exposure

through the media to positive environmental beliefs led to more present day eco-centric

beliefs. In addition, more witnessing of negative environmental events led to more eco-

centric beliefs. Exposure to formal education about the environment and involvement in

organizations were not significant predictors of eco-centric or anthropocentric beliefs.

Cross-Validation

In an effort to determine if the regression equation generated by the first half of the sample can

be generalized, the second half of the sample was used for cross-validation. This procedure

involved using the regression equation generated from the first half of the sample with the

data from the second half of the sample. The raw scores on the four significant predictors

were plugged into the regression equation using the unstandardized regression coefficients or

b-values (as opposed to the standardized β-weights reported above), and, thus, a predicted

score on the dependent variable (eco-centric/anthropocentric beliefs) was obtained (see

Equation 1). This predicted score was then correlated with the reported score. The correlation

was .352 (p < .05) and compares favorably with the reported R-value for model four

(R = .375). Because the correlation is similar in magnitude and direction to the reported


234 A. Ewert et al.

R-value from the first half of the sample, the generalizability of the regression equation is

supported.

Predicted score = .386(OEAPP) − .215(OECON) + .510(MEDIA)

+ .710(NEGEXP) + 19.4 (1)

Discussion

Both intuition and past research would suggest that what individuals do earlier in their lives

often has an influence in what they believe later in their lives. This study adds support to

the idea that early childhood outdoor experiences (many of which are often recreational or

done during leisure time) are related to environmental views. More specifically, this study

suggests that participation in early-life appreciative outdoor activities, participation in early-

life consumptive outdoor activities, exposure to media events focusing on environmental

issues and witnessing negative environmental events are related to adults’ current beliefs

concerning the environment (i.e., eco-centric or anthropocentric).

Implicit in these findings is the belief that while outdoor education and recreation

programs can be effective in modifying environmental beliefs, individuals often bring with

them a set of pre-existing environmental beliefs and attitudes that were formed earlier in

life, regardless of the type or intensity of program being offered.

These findings are largely consistent with those of previous works (e.g., Bixler, 1997;

Bixler et al., 2002; Corcoran, 1999; Palmer, 1993; Peterson & Hungerford, 1981; Sward,

1999; Tanner, 1980). While a number of possible explanations exist for these findings, we

believe three (values, social influence, place attachment) have particular relevance for this

study.

Values

Early childhood outdoor recreational experiences may be instrumental in influencing en-

vironmental attitudes because of the contribution they can make toward the formation of

values. For example, Kahn and Lourenco (2002) found that children have the capacity to

develop complex value judgments regarding the environment. Likewise, Bixler et al. (2002)

reported a connection between play in natural environments as a child and preferences for

natural environments later in life. Thus, the values that a child forms through experiences

such as direct play in the natural environment may serve to “precondition” him or her to

developing a pro-environment, or eco-centric set of beliefs and attitudes, about the environ-

ment later in life. How these activities actually help form values is still conjectural at this

point. Szagun and Pavlov (1995) suggested that environmental awareness is, in part, a func-

tion of experience, and perhaps early childhood experiences serve to build an individual’s

experiential base from which to develop knowledge about the environment, and subsequent

values toward the environment. In addition to appreciative recreational experiences, values

also come from families and the organizations with which a child may experience outdoor

recreational experiences. Whether through instruction or simple observation, a child can

form values while participating in recreational activities with families and organizations

such as a summer camp experience.

Social Influence

Graumann and Kruse (1990) pointed out that environment-based constructs such as aware-

ness and attitudes are socially constructed, thereby suggesting that the people an individual



is associated with can play an important role in the formation of the attitudes and values

developed through outdoor play experiences. In addition, Olli et al. (2001) posited that the

social context in which an individual finds him or herself may influence how they view

the natural environment, envision their role in dealing with that environment, or alter their

perceptions of how they formed these perceptions.

Not surprisingly, Villacorta et al. (2003) reaffirmed that both parents and peers can

play important roles in the development of environmental attitudes. The influence that

parents and family may exert on an individual’s environmental beliefs is probably due,

in part, by the showing of interest in and discussing of environmental issues between the

parents and child. Thus, once again, awareness and knowledge are expanded, which may,

in turn, impact environmental attitudes and beliefs. In addition, the family has influence

over the type of outdoor recreational activities a child pursues and experiences early in life.

The family (as well as friends) has an influence on whether a child develops a fondness

for appreciative, consumptive, and/or mechanized recreational activities and as shown,

especially the appreciative recreational activities can play a role in the development of a

child’s environmental attitudes.

Not only can parents and family play an important role in the development of an

individual’s environmental beliefs, but so can external social components (i.e., friends and

organizations). For example, as Arnett (2000) pointed out, college students, in particular,

are likely to orient themselves with their peers. Likewise, college students typically receive

a great deal of exposure to the media, often featuring threats to natural environments. This

fact, combined with the increased sensitivity and awareness that students receive from the

education process typically result in more pro-environment attitudinal orientations among

the highly educated. Thus, it was not surprising that the majority of respondents in this

study also reported more eco-centric perspectives.

Place Attachment

Specific locations often represent more than simply a physical location to people, particu-

larly when there are emotional or spiritual connections (Brandenburg & Carroll, 1995; Cuba

& Hummon, 1993; Williams & Patterson, 1999). In particular, the term “place attachment”

is used to connotate a situation where a specific physical setting is imbued with emotional,

reflective, or other affective feelings. Stedman (2002) suggested that place attachment is

inherently linked with symbolic meanings. Within the context of this study, childhood

outdoor recreational experiences may serve as “place markers” by linking the child with

a specific natural environment and positive affective feelings, and ultimately formulating

more eco-centric attitudes. In addition, the loss of a particular natural or undeveloped area,

such as a park or open space, through actions such as regulation or development can also

serve to sensitize an individual about natural resources, environmental degradation, or loss

of natural places. As suggested in this study, negative environmental experiences such as

loss of a special natural space can play an important role in forming environmental attitudes

later in life.

Recommendations for Further Study

Several recommendations can be made for further research in the area of developing en-

vironmental attitudes. First, a need exists to examine the manner in which we determine

eco-centric and anthropocentric viewpoints of the respondents. Questions regarding envi-

ronmental attitudes on the questionnaire, which are based on research, need to be exam-

ined further to determine if they actually cause the respondent to answer inaccurately. For


236 A. Ewert et al.

example, are respondents concerned that addressing environmental questions or issues in

an anthropocentric manner would be antithetical to their desired projected image, and as a

result would they respond in a socially desirable manner (see Ewert & Baker, 2001)? Do

college students hold ill-informed or systematically biased views of the environment that

are “different” from other populations? While respondent anonymity in this study served to

somewhat offset the social desirability phenomenon, the question remains with this project

and similar studies using the self-report, namely, how honest are the responses? The issue

becomes even more clouded when one considers that some of the questions used in the

survey made assumptions that might not be accurate or were “leading.” For example, one

question is wording implied that the natural environment always exerted a positive influence

upon the individual. In addition, the two-item scale used to measure the early-life negative

experiences exhibited low internal consistency. Future research efforts should include more

neutral-based questions and should utilize more reliable and valid measures.

Second, while this study found that differences existed in environmental beliefs (eco-

centric/anthropocentric) between individuals who had different early childhood recreational

experiences in the outdoors, it is beyond the purview of this work to suggest that early

life experiences is the causal factor. Notwithstanding the wording of some of the survey

questions, a number of other competing variables may also contribute to these findings.

For example, Hartig, Kaiser, and Bowler (2001) suggested that natural environments are

often viewed by individuals as being restorative, and people may remember them from

their childhood within a positive framework, thus altering their perspective on their own

environmental perceptions and attitudes (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). Alternatively, individuals

may be simply born (genetic pre-disposition) with a desire to preserve or use the natural

environment, be affected by family political and environmental viewpoints (Boyce & Geller,

2001), or be influenced by some interaction between heredity and the environment.

Third, perhaps the findings of this study were a result of the respondents not remem-

bering or even knowing what relationship existed between their early childhood outdoor

recreational experiences and their environmental beliefs and attitudes. Future studies may

include an analysis of the relationship between environmental attitudes and the number or

quality of early childhood play experiences. While still subject to the challenge of relying

on respondent memory, this approach would provide a better understanding of the associa-

tion between the number of outdoor experiences and environmental attitudes similar to the

earlier work of Jackson (1986).

Fourth, the significant factors of appreciative and consumptive outdoor recreational

experiences, negative experiences, media, and education should be explored further. For

example, how will the relative decrease in camping and family outings available to many of

the younger generations impact their understanding and interest in natural environments?

It would be instructive to better understand the influence of life cycle on the development

of an individual’s environmental belief system.

Fifth, while non-significant findings are never conclusive, it is nonetheless interesting

that neither formal classroom and environmental education nor involvement in organizations

that provide outdoor recreation opportunities were significant predictors of environmental

beliefs in this study. It is possible that the variance explained by these factors was simply

masked by other variables (e.g., the portion of the variance that could be explained by

involvement in organizations was already accounted for by the direct experience variables).

Last, another possibility in explaining the linkage between early life experiences in the

outdoors and environmental beliefs, particularly within a leisure and recreational context,

may lie in other, less explored areas. Interacting with the natural environment early in one’s

life may create experiences from which an individual can “build meanings” into their lives

(Riese & Vorkinn, 2002). Regardless of whether or not these meanings emerge from a



spiritual context (Heintzman, 2003), a sense of responsibility to, and empowerment for,

the environment (Palmberg & Kuru, 2000), or a sense of identity (Hagvar, 1999), direct

experiences with the natural environment can serve as powerful formative agents. Often

these experiences take place in non-structured recreational formats. Not only do these

experiences have a profound and positive effect on both the human mind and quality of

life (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989), but this contact can help form attitudes and beliefs about the

importance and value of the natural environment.

The premise of this study was to determine which early-life experiences best-explained

current environmental beliefs. What this study has indicated is that there are several factors

that affect an individual’s environmental attitudes. While the early-life outdoor experience

explains a portion of why an individual has the environmental attitudes he or she possesses,

it is apparent that other factors also play a role in an individual’s environmental attitudes.

Whatever the mix of these factors, as Kaiser, Wolfing, and Fuhrer (1999) pointed out, the

search is an important one given the rapidly expanding global environmental problems

facing society.

References

Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E., & Nowak, P. (1982). The new environmental paradigm scale.

Journal of Environmental Education, 13(3), 39–43.

Arcury, T. A., Johnson, T. P., & Scollay, S. J. (1986). Ecological world view and environmental

knowledge: The “new environmental paradigm.” Journal of Environmental Education, 17(4),

35–40.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from late teens through the twenties.

American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.

Bixler, R. D. (1997). The role of “outdoor capital” in the socialization of wildland recreationists. In H.

Vogelson (ed.), Proceedings of the 1997 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Bolton,

NY (pp. 237–242). Radnor, PA: North Eastern Forest Experiment Station.

Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. F., & Hammitt, W. E. (2002). Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests

of the childhood play hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 34, 795–818.

Boyce, T. E. & Geller, E. S. (2001). Encouraging college students to support pro-environment behavior:

Effects of direct versus indirect rewards. Environment and Behavior, 33, 107–125.

Brandenburg, A. M. & Carroll, M. S. (1995). Your place or mine? The effect of place creation

on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society and Natural Resources, 8, 381–

398.

Catton, W. R. & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American

Sociologist, 13, 41–49.

Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of Environmental Educa-

tion, 31(1), 15–26.

Corcoran, P. B. (1999). Formative influences in the lives of environmental educators in the United

States. Environmental Education Research, 5, 207–220.

Cordano, M., Welcomer, S. A., & Scherer, R. F. (2003). An analysis of the predictive validity of the

New Ecological Paradigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 34(3), 22–28.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–

334.

Cuba, L. & Hummon, D. (1993). A place to call home: Identification with dwelling, community, and

region. Sociology Quarterly, 34, 111–131.

Dalton, R. J., Gontmacher, Y., Lovrich, N. P., & Pierce, J.C. (1999). Environmental attitudes and the

new environmental paradigm. In R. J. Dalton, N. P. Lovrich, J. C. Pierce, & J. M. Whitely (eds.),

Critical masses: Citizens, nuclear weapons production, and environmental destruction in the

United States and Russia (pp. 195–230). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dunlap, R. E. & van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental

Education, 9(4), 10–19.


238 A. Ewert et al.

Dunlap, R. E. & van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern

for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 1013–1028.

Dunlap, R. E., van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A.G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the

New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.

Eagly, A. H. & Kulesa, P. (1997). Attitudes, attitude structure, and resistance to change. In M. H.

Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, & K. A. Wade (eds.), Environmental Ethics and

Behavior (pp. 122–153). San Francisco: New Lexington.

Edgell, M. C. R. & Nowell, D. E. (1989). The new environmental paradigm scale: Wildlife and

environmental beliefs in British Columbia. Society and Natural Resources, 2, 285–296.

Ewert, A. & Baker, D. (2001). Standing for where you sit: An exploratory analysis of the relationship

between academic major and environmental beliefs. Environment and Behavior, 33, 687–707.

Fransson, N. & Garling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement

methods, and research findings. The Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369–382.

Gagnon-Thompson, S. C. & Barton, M. A. (1994). Eco-centric and anthropocentric attitudes toward

the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149–157.

Gooch, G. D. (1995). Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic states. Environment

and Behavior, 27, 513–539.

Graumann, C. F. & Kruse, L. (1990). Social construction and psychological problems. In H. T.

Himmelweit, & G. Gaskell (eds.), Social psychology (pp. 212–229). London: Sage.

Hagvar, S. (1999). Nature as an arena for the quality of life: Psycho-spiritual values—the next main

focus in nature conservation? The Environmentalist, 19, 163–169.

Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A. (2001). Psychological restoration in nature as a positive

motivation for ecological behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33, 590–607.

Heintzman, P. (2003). The wilderness experience and spirituality: What recent research tells us.

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 74(6), 27–31.

Jackson, E. L. (1986). Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment. Leisure

Studies, 5, 1–23.

Jackson, E. L. (1987). Outdoor recreation participation and views on resource development and

preservation. Leisure Sciences, 9, 235–250.

Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., & Cordell, H. K. (2004). Ethnic variation in environmental belief and

behavior: An examination of the New Ecological Paradigm in a social psychological context.

Environment and Behavior, 36, 157–186.

Kahn, P. H. & Lourenco, O. (2002). Water, air, fire, and earth: A developmental study in Portugal of

environmental moral reasoning. Environment and Behavior, 34, 405–430.

Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

28, 395–422.

Kaiser, F. G., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behavior.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1–19.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Langenau, E. E., Peyton, R. B., Wickham, J. M., Caveney, E. W., & Johnston, D. W. (1984). Attitudes

toward oil and gas development among forest recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 16,

161–177.

Lalonde, R. & Jackson, E. L. (2002). The New Environmental Paradigm scale: Has it outlived its

usefulness? Journal of Environmental Education, 33, 28–36.

Milbrath, L. W. (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a new society. Albany, NY: State University

of New York Press.

Mosier, C. I. (1951). Problems and designs of cross-validation. Educational and Psychological Mea-

surement, 11, 5–11.

Newhouse, N. (1990). Implications of the attitude and behavior research for environmental conser-

vation. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26–32.

Noe, F. P. & Snow, R. (1989). The new environmental paradigm and further scale analysis. Journal

of Environmental Education, 21(4), 20–26.

Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behaviors: Bringing

back social context. Environment and Behavior, 33, 181–208.



Palmberg, I. E. & Kuru, J. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility.


Palmer, J. (1993). Development of concern for the environment and formative experiences of educa-

tors. Journal of Environmental Education, 24(3), 26–30.

Peterson, N. J. & Hungerford, H. R. (1981). Developmental variables affecting environmental sen-

sitivity in professional environmental educators: A research abstract. In A. B. Sacks, L. A.

Iozzi, & R. J. Wilke (eds.), Current issues in environmental education and environmental studies

(pp. 111–113). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science and Mathematics Education.

Place, G. (2000). Impact of early life outdoor experiences on an individual’s environmental attitudes.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental be-

havior: A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36, 70–93.

Riese, H. & Vorkinn, M. (2002). The production of meaning in outdoor recreation: A study of

Norwegian practice. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 56, 199–206.

Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based

cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34, 561–581.

Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social

Issues, 56, 407–424.

Sward, L. L. (1999). Significant life experiences affecting the environmental sensitivity of El Sal-

vadoran environmental professionals. Environmental Education Research, 5, 201–206.

Szagun, G. & Pavlov, I.V. (1995). Environmental awareness: A comparative study of German and

Russian adolescents. Youth and Society, 27, 93–113.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper

Collins.

Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental education.


Tarrant, M. A. & Cordell, H. K. (1997). The effect of respondent characteristics on general environ-

mental attitude-behavior correspondence. Environment and Behavior, 29, 618–637.

Tarrant, M. A. & Green, G. T. (1999). Outdoor recreation and the predictive validity of environmental

attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 21, 17–30.

Teisl, M. F. & O’Brien, K. (2003). Who cares and who acts? Outdoor recreationists exhibit different

levels of environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 35, 506–522.

van Liere, K. D. & Noe, F. P. (1981). Outdoor recreation and environmental attitudes: Further exam-

ination of the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociology, 46, 505–513.

Vaske, J. J. & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior.


Villacorta, M., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2003). Further validation of the motivation toward the

Environment Scale. Environment and Behavior, 35, 486–505.

Vogt, W. P. (1993). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Williams, D. R. & Patterson, M. E. (1999). Environmental psychology: Mapping landscape meanings

for ecosystem management. In H. K. Cordell & J. C. Bergstrom (eds.), Integrating social sci-

ence and ecosystem management: Human dimensions in assessment, policy, and management

(pp. 141–160). Champaign, IL: Sagamore.


Early-Life Outdoor Experiences and an Individual's Environmental Attitudes

Documents