1 / 32

Doç.Dr . Nazmiye Erdoğan Baskent University

Exploring the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale on Environmental Worldviews of Turkish University Students . Doç.Dr . Nazmiye Erdoğan Baskent University. This study was designed to . Environmental / ecological crisis. Industrial Production Distrubution Consumption.

gryta
Download Presentation

Doç.Dr . Nazmiye Erdoğan Baskent University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exploring the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale on Environmental Worldviews of Turkish University Students Doç.Dr. Nazmiye ErdoğanBaskentUniversity

  2. This study was designed to

  3. Environmental/ecologicalcrisis IndustrialProduction Distrubution Consumption

  4. Theanthropocentric view (a) Human are superior and above nature (b) There is abundance of natural resources and there is no need for conservation (c) Human beings, by virtue of possessing culture and technology, are able to adapt nature to human ends. (d) Humansareexempt from ecological constraints.

  5. Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) • A belief in limitless resources, continuous progress, and the necessity of growth (2) Faith in the problem solving abilities of science and technology

  6. New Ecological Paradigmworldwiev High valuation of nature Generalized compassion toward other species, other peoples and other generations Careful planning and acting to avoid risks to humans and nature Recognition that there are limits to growth to which humans must adapt Consultative and participatory new politics emphasizing on foresight and planning

  7. Environmental attitude measures

  8. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) 12-item NEP scale • To measure environmental valuesthe extent to which people are endorsing new worldview. • They argued that their NEP scale is • Reliable • Valid • Unidimensional

  9. The New Ecological Paradigm Scale • which was designed to measure pro-environmental orientation, enabled specialists to quantifiably assess human concerns about the environmental problems, as well as to relate their environmental values and attitudes to conservation behavior.

  10. Theotherresearchers • Some studies argue that the degree to which the original NEP scale remains a valid and reliable measurement tool is open to discussion. • Furthermorelargenumber of researchers found that NEP scale is not unidimensional

  11. Dimensions

  12. Dunlap et al. (2000)

  13. METHODStudy Population and Sample 1295 UndergraduateStudents Fouruniversities

  14. 941 studentsBaskent University 145 Mustafa Kemal University 107 Karadeniz TechnicalUniversity 102 Ankara University Study Population and Sample

  15. Measurement and Analysis

  16. *Agreement with the eight odd-numbered items indicates pro-NEP orientation. **Agreement with the seven even-numbered items indicates pro-DSP orientation.

  17. FINDINGS. Environmental worldviews • The study findings indicate that there is no widespread support for the NEP. • 56.0 % of students hold pro-NEP views • 24.9 % embrace pro-DSP views • 19.1 % have unsure/ambivalent views

  18. Frequency and mean distribution of the NEP scale items a a SD = Strongly disagree, MD= Mildly disagree, U= Unsure, MA= Mildly agree, SA= Strongly agree b Mean Likert scores after adjustment for direction. Higher score indicates pro-environmental worldview.

  19. The mean score for the 15 items • The mean score for the 15 items, after correcting for the directionality of the items • was found to be 3.50 which indicate that the overall NEP views of students falls at the lower rank of pro-NEP orientation.

  20. pro-NEP /DSP • The mean scores for eight pro-NEP • items range from 3.40 to 4.58 • The mean scores for seven DSP • items range from 1.60 to 3.78.

  21. Frequency distributions • Distributions on the Pro-NEP • Agree (75.3%) • Disagree(10.5 %) • Distributions on the pro-DSP • Agree (45.6 %) • Disagreeing (28.6%) • Undecided (25.8 %)

  22. Hence, examination of the overall frequency and mean distributions reveals that majority of students support for the NEP statements to varying degree • But there is no widespread support for pro-NEP view in general.

  23. Findings • The NEP assumes that people reject the human exemptionalism. Namelyhumans are exempt from the constraints of nature. • This view supports the human domination and domination of economy over nature. • Findingsshowthat 46.8 % studentshave exemptionalist views and 32.3% have ambivalent opinion.

  24. Findings • The NEP does not accept the idea that nature exists primarily for human use and has no inherent value of its own (item 12)Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs (item 2). Findingsprovidedlargesupport. • The Anti-anthropocentric statement about the right of existence of plants and animals (item 7) is supported by the vast majority (91.0%). • The great majority of students (78.1%) agree with two statements about human abuse (item 5) and probable ecological catastrophe (item 15).

  25. Reliability and Dimensionality • A reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered "acceptable" in most research situations. • The coefficient alpha for 15 items was .53 • The removal of items with low correlation changed the alphas of the scale up to .58 • The findings on the corrected item-total correlations for each item show very low to low correlations, ranging from .045 to .364 • This result indicates that the NEP scale is low consistency in Turkish case.

  26. Item-Total Correlations and Cronbach’s Alphas (n= 1295)

  27. In order to check the possible dimensionality • Principal ComponentAnalysis using varimax factor rotation produced four factors. • These four factors explained 44.8 % of the total variance, indicating that the • NEP is not unidimensional.

  28. Principal Component Analysis of NEP scale with Varimax Rotation

  29. NEP subscales (1) Fragility of nature’s balance(Items 3, 8, 13) (2) The possibility of eco-crisis(Items 5, 10, 15) (3) Anti-anthropocentricism(Items 2, 7, 12) (4) Anti-exemptionalism(Items 4, 9,14) (5) Thereality of limits to growth (Items 1, 6, 11)

  30. Conclusion • The present study results show that majority of students (56.0%) hold pro-NEP views. • However, about one quarter of students have pro-DSP oriented ideas in varying degree. • Thus, these results indicate that there is no widespread adoption of the NEP orientation by students.

  31. NEP 1, NEP 6 ,NEP 11items • Furthermore, agreeing or disagreeing about the items 1, 6 and 11 does not necessarily make a person a supporter of the NEP (or DSP) view. These three items should be reconsidered, revised or eliminated. • The present study found that the New Ecological Paradigm scale has more than one dimension and each dimension should be evaluated separately.

  32. Conclusion Thisstudywas found that the NEP scale has low consistency and four dimensions, thus, the NEP items should be taken cautiously as a single internally consistent measuring device, and carefully constructed and evaluated according to the historical and cultural context and characteristics of the population under study. Thankyouforlistening

More Related