Psychometric properties of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale in Serbian Sample
Abstract
Climate change is a growing threat to humanity and coping with its potentially disastrous effect will require widespread behavioural change at both societal and individual level. Theory and empirical research have emphasised the role of pro-environmental attitudes as antecedents of pro-environmental behaviour.
Using a large community Serbian sample (N=871 of adult population) assessed with face to face interviews, we searched for the psychometric characteristics of the New Ecological Paradigm scale (NEP), a widely used instrument for assessing pro-environmental attitudes worldwide. The dimensionality of Dunlap’s NEP scale is frequently questioned, because studies revealed three, four, or only one dimension; therefore there is ongoing call for further validation. This was the first time that psychometric characteristics of the NEP scale have been tested on a large adult sample in Serbia with addition of testing its predictive power to explain environmental behaviour (using environmental behaviour questionnaire).
The results of parallel analysis on the Serbian sample, pointed to the three factor structure: Human is (not)above nature; Ecological crisis; Human’s (non-)exception from nature, similar to the previous findings from the region. The three factor solution explained about half of variance. The factor ecological crisis emerged as the only significant predictor for the pro-environmental behaviour.
Further analysis of the pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour is needed in order to better understand and communicate the importance and urgency for earth protection.
References
Anderson, M. (2012). The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale. In: Spellerberg, I. et al. (Eds.). The Berkshire Encyclopedia of sustainability: measurements, indicators, and research methods for sustainability (260–262). Massachusetts, US: Berkshire Publishing Group. Retrieved March 22, 2022. https://umaine.edu/ soe/wp-content/uploads/sites/199/2013/01/NewEcologicalParadigmNEPScale1.pdf
Amburgey, J. W., &Thoman, D. B. (2012). Dimensionality of the new ecological paradigm: Issues of factor structure and measurement. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 235-256.
Aoyagi-Usui, M., Vinken, H., Kuribayashi, A., (2003). Pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors: an international comparison. Human Ecology Review, 10(1), 23-31.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Bronfman, N., Cisternas, C.P., López-Vázquez, E., de la Maza, C. &Oyanedel, C. (2015). Understanding Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behaviors in a Chilean Community. Sustainability, 7, 14133-14152; doi:10.3390/su71014133
Casey, P. J., & Scott, K. (2006). Environmental concern and behaviour in an Australian sample within an ecocentric–anthropocentric framework. Australian Journal of Psychology, 58(2), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530600730419
Convery, F., McDonnell, S., & Ferreira, S. (2007). The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environ Resource Econ., 38, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9059-2
Cruz, S. M., & Manata, B. (2020). Measurement of environmental concern: A review and analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00363
Dunlap, R.E. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18
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(3), 425-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875
De Groot, J. & Steg, L. (2007). General Beliefs and the Theory of Planned Behavior: The Role of Environmental Concerns in the TPB. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 37. 1817 - 1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00239.x
Globaltel (2021). Retrieved from http://reciklomat.rs/, on 12.11.2021
Ek, K. (2005). Public and private attitudes towards “green” electricity: the case of Swedish wind power. Energy policy, 33(13),1677-1689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.02.005
Erdogan, N. (2009). Testing the new ecological paradigm scale: Turkish case. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(10), 1023–1031.
Fleury-Bahi, G., Marcouyeux, A., Renard, E., &Roussiau, N. (2015). Factorial structure of the New Ecological Paradigm scale in two French samples. Environmental Education Research, 21(6), 821-831.
GIZ, (2019), Assessment of the effects of the introduction of the circular economy - the plastic packaging sector, Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) project “Waste menagement in the context of climate change - DKTI”.
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor Retention Decisions in Exploratory Factor Analysis: a Tutorial on Parallel Analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675
Hornsey, M., Harris, E., Bain, P., & Fielding, K. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622–626, https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2943
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. doi:10.1080/00958964.1987.9943
Hini, D., Gendall, P., & Kearns, Z. (1995). The Link between Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour. Marketing Bulletin, 6, 22-31.
IPSOS (2018). A throwaway world: the challenge of plastic packaging and waste. An Ipsos survey.
Jakobsen, J. C., Gluud, C., Wetterslev, J., & Winkel, P. (2017). When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials – a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17(1). doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
Karajić, N. (1999). Vrijednosne preferencije kao determinante ekološkog ponašanja u Hrvatskoj. Socijalna ekologija, 8(1-2), 1-21.
Kennedy, E. H., Beckley, T., Mcfarlane, B.L., Nadeau, S. (2009). Why We Don’t “Walk the Talk”: Understanding the Environmental Values/Behaviour Gap in Canada. Human ecology review, 16(2),151-160.
Leiserowitz, A. A., Kates, R. W., & Parris, T. M. (2006). Sustainability Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors: A Review of Multinational and Global Trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 413-444. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.31.102505.133552
Manoli, C. C., Johnson, B., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Assessing children's environmental worldviews: Modifying and validating the New Ecological Paradigm Scale for use with children. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(4), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.38.4.3-13
Madzkal, M., Gasic, M., & Ivanovic, I. (2018). Ekološka politika Srbije i Evropske unije. Istaknuti tematski zbornik radova vodećeg nacionalnog značaja Istočna evropa i postmoderni izazovi, Centar za strateška istraživanja nacionalne bezbednosti CESNA B, Beograd u saradnji sa Fakultetom za pravo, bezbednost i menadžment ‘’Konstantin Veliki’’ Niš Univerziteta Union Nikola Tesla u Beogradu, pp 241-257.
Maneesriwongul W, Dixon JK. Instrument translation process: a methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2004 Oct;48(2):175-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x. PMID: 15369498.
Ministry of Environmental Protection. (2020). Ministarstvo zaštite životne sredine (2020). Ekotaksa. https://www.ekologija.gov.rs/saopstenja/vesti/eko-taksa
Miščević Kadijević, G., Vasilijević, D. (2019). Utvrđivanje proekoloških pogleda budućih vaspitača i učitelja. U: Pavlović Breneselović, D., Spasenović, V. i Alibabić, Š. (ur.). Obrazovna politika i praksa: u skladu ili u raskoraku (103–107). Zbornik radova sa nacionalnog skupa Susreti pedagoga, 25. i 26. januar 2019. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu i Pedagoško društvo Srbije.
Montanelli, R. G., & Humphreys, L. G. (1976). Latent roots of random data correlation matrices with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal: A Monte Carlo study. Psychometrika, 41(3), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293559
Nawrotzki, R. J. (2012). The Politics of Environmental Concern: A Cross-National Analysis. Organization & Environment, 25(3), 286-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026612456535
Nooney, J. G., Woodrum, E., Hoban, T. J., & Clifford, W. B. (2003). Environmental Worldview and Behavior: Consequences of Dimensionality in a Survey of North Carolinians. Environment and Behavior, 35(6), 763-783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503256246
O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807
Ogunbode, C. A. (2013). The NEP scale: measuring ecological attitudes/worldviews in an African context. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(6), 1477–1494.doi:10.1007/s10668-013-9446-0
Petrović, N., Škrbić, B. (2016). Ekološke vrednosne orijentacije i spremnost na aktivizam u Srbiji. Zbornik radova Geografskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu, 64, 47–71. DOI:10.5937/zrgfub1664047P
Popov, B., Zorić, J. i Bodroža, B. (2023). Ekološki aktivizam i proekološko ponašanje u Srbiji: determinante i relacije sa subjektivnim blagostanjem. Psihološka istraživanja, 2, 323–342. DOI: 10.5937/PSISTRA26-46307
Polit, D.F. and Hungler, B.P. (1999). Nursing Research: Principle and Method. Philadelphia: Lippincott Company, P.P. 416-417.
Rauwald, K. S., & Moore, C. F. (2002). Environmental Attitudes as Predictors of Policy Support across Three Countries. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 709–739.doi:10.1177/001391602237243
Rideout, B. E. (2005). The Effect of a Brief Environmental Problems Module on Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm in College Students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.37.1.3-12
Rojas-Rivas, E., Antúnez, L., Cuffia, F., Otterbring, T., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Giménez, A., Ares,G. (2020). Time orientation and risk perception moderate the influence of sodium warnings on food choice: Implications for the design of communication campaigns. Appetite, 147. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104562
Ruggeri, K., Immonen, J., Benzerga, A., Kacha, O., & van der Linden, S. (2018). Energy and environment. In Rugerri, K. (Ed.), Behavioral Insights for Public Policy. Routledge: New York
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmentalbehavior: A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 540-558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198294003
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
Srbinovski, M., & Stanišić, J. (2020). Environmental worldviews of Serbian and Macedonian school students. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 36(1), 20–43.
Stanišić, J. M. (2021). Ekološki pogledi na svet učenika osnovne i srednje škole - primena NEP skale. Inovacije u nastavi - časopis za savremenu nastavu , 34(3), 76-94. https://doi.org/10.5937/inovacije2103076S
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 309-317. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322-348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., &Franěk, M. (2005). Values and their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457–475.doi:10.1177/0022022105275962
Srbinovski, M. S. (2016). Rodne razlike i ekološki pogled na svet - studija slučaja iz Makedonije. Inovacije u nastavi - časopis za savremenu nastavu , 29(4), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.5937/inovacije1604101S
Turner, N. E. (1998). The effect of common variance and structure pattern on random data eigenvalues: Implications for the accuracy of parallel analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(4), 541–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058004001
Van Petegem, P., & Blieck, A. (2006). The environmental worldview of children: a cross‐cultural perspective. Environmental Education Research, 12(5), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620601053662
Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41–71). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_3
Watson, K., & Halse, C.M. (2005). Environmental attitudes of pre-service teachers: A conceptual and methodological dilemma in cross-cultural data collection. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024968
Wu, Y., He, Y., Jiang, X., Zhao, Y., Cui, Y., Wang, H. (2023). Assessing ecosystem health of floodplain lakes using an Integrated Bioassessment Index. Ecological Indicators, 154(1-2):110644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110644.
Zak, K. & Munson, B. (2008). Аn exploratory study of elementary preservice teachers’ understanding of ecology using concept maps. Journal оf Environmental Education, 39(3), 32–46.
Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432
Authors retain the copyright of the published papers and grant to the publisher the nonexclusive right to publish the article, to be cited as its original publisher in case of re-use, and to distribute it in all forms and media. The published articles will be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-SA). It is allowed to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and remix, transform and build upon it for any purpose, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given to the original
author(s), a link to the license is provided, it is indicated if changes were made and the new work is distributed under the same license as the original. Authors are permitted to deposit the author’s publisher’s version (PDF) of their work in an institutional repository, subject-based repository, author’s personal website (including social networking sites, such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu, etc.), and/or departmental website at any time after publication, with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.