Title Page
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Background and significance
 Sampling methods
 Measurement methods
 Descriptive analysis
 The attitude domains
 Conclusions and future directi...
 Biographical sketch

Title: Comparing attitudes about forests between young adults in north-central Florida and the Peruvian Amazon
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00100687/00001
 Material Information
Title: Comparing attitudes about forests between young adults in north-central Florida and the Peruvian Amazon
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Frost, Christopher John, 1974-
Publisher: State University System of Florida
Place of Publication: Florida
Publication Date: 2000
Copyright Date: 2000
Subject: Forest Resources and Conservation thesis, M.S   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Forest Resources and Conservation -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Summary: ABSTRACT: Forest cover is decreasing worldwide. Because peoples' attitudes influence their behavior, understanding attitudes about forests is important for forest conservation. This study explored the attitudes about forests of young adults in Iquitos, Peru and North-Central Florida. The objectives were to explore the perception of the term "forest," to create a typology of attitude domains, to compare the attitudes about forests between Peruvians and Floridians, and to investigate other site-specific variables that might influence the attitude domains. To test the hypothesis that Floridian young adults would demonstrate attitudes that were more moralistic, naturalistic, humanistic, and less utilitarian than the attitudes of Peruvian young adults, a written survey instrument was designed and validated according to published protocols. One thousand two hundred thirty-one young adults participated. Four attitude domains, based on Kellert's typology of human values, were identified. The "HSN" domain was defined as a combination of humanistic, scientific, and naturalistic attitudes and represented emotional attachment to and curiosity about forests. The "UD" domain was defined as a combination of utilitarian and dominionistic attitudes and represented mastery, control, and use of forests. The Moralistic domain reflected the conferring of ethical standing to forest flora and fauna. The Negativistic domain represented fear or aversion to forests. The attitude profiles of the Floridian and Peruvian participants were unexpectedly similar. The Moralistic attitude domain was the strongest in both samples, followed by the HSN, UD, and Negativistic domains respectively.
Summary: ABSTRACT (cont.): In support of the hypothesis, Peruvians held significantly higher UD attitudes than Floridians. However, contrary to the hypothesis, Peruvians also held significantly higher HSN and Negativistic attitudes. Also, the attitudes of mastery and control (the UD domain) and attitudes of understanding and involvement (the HSN domain) were negatively correlated in the Floridian group but not in the Peruvian group. Multiple variables influenced the attitude domains differently in the Peruvian and Floridian groups. In Florida, all four attitude domains were influenced by the participant's sex and by talking with others about the environment. In Peru, age was the only variable that influenced all four domains. There were also consistent variable relationships in Peru and Florida. The HSN domain increased with time spent in a forest, talking with others about the environment, and among females. The UD domain increased as a forest was considered renewable. The Negativistic domain decreased with age, time spent in a forest, and knowledge. This research informs education and communication program development in Florida and Peru by better understanding the attitudes of the local young adults.
Summary: KEYWORDS: environmental education program development, Florida, Peru, attitudes, young adults, forest conservation
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2000.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 263-274).
System Details: System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details: Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility: by Christopher John Frost.
General Note: Title from first page of PDF file.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains xvi, 275 p.; also contains graphics.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00100687
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 45838194
alephbibnum - 002639313
notis - ANA6139


This item has the following downloads:

thesisforpublic ( PDF )

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
    List of Figures
        Page xi
        Page xii
    List of Tables
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
        Page xvi
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Background and significance
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
    Sampling methods
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    Measurement methods
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
    Descriptive analysis
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
    The attitude domains
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
    Conclusions and future directions
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
    Biographical sketch
        Page 275
Full Text






August 2000

Copyright 2000


Christopher John Frost

This thesis is graciously dedicated to each student who took the time and effort to
participate in the study, either by filling out a questionnaire or being interviewed, or both,
and to those students who were not selected to participate but nonetheless fall within the
realm of the inferences made herein. It is my hope that I listened well and have done a
good job at accurately representing what they told me.

I would like to specifically dedicate this thesis to one boy whose name I don't
know, who exists only as a number in my data set, but whose passion for the animals of
the forest re-kindled my own desire to fight to protect what remains.

Misericordia Ante Omnia


I know that I cannot properly thank the many people without whom this project

would have surely failed. With luck, I will strike a balance between mentioning those who

ought be mentioned and drowning out the important contributions with sheer quantity.

This study could not have happened without those mentioned below. This study required

flexibility, not just on my part, but on the part of administrators, teachers, and students

both in Florida and Peru.

I am grateful to Martha Monroe, the chairperson of my committee. I am not the

easiest person to advise: headstrong, independent, focused, and determined.

Second, there are the unnamed people who were so kind to me in the streets of

Iquitos. It was an odd sight for many to see a gringo traversing streets not typically

frequented by tourists. Every single person was kind and friendly, if a bit curious. I am

attracted to the interstices of Iquitos because I encounter the most unique and interesting

people. This time not only were they interesting, they were also my guides.

During the Peruvian field work, I was greatly assisted by Ms. Rosario Garcias,

who was then a guide-in-training at Dr. Paul Beaver's Amazonia Expeditions lodge. She

stayed with me in the villages and her presence made my work much easier.

Words cannot describe the high esteem in which I hold Don Josias, Dofia Luzdina,

and their children. They were so wonderful to me, allowing me stay in their home and

experience their lives. I am envious of their compassion.

In Iquitos, the field work would not have been completed without the support of

the director at each school. I also thank the teachers for allowing the intrusions in their

classrooms, though they really did not have any say in the matter, and for that I felt bad.

The directors told them I was coming in and that was that.

Such was not the case in Florida, where I coordinated with both the principals and

the teachers. I am indebted to those principals who allowed the study in their schools and

the teachers who modified their class schedules to make room for me.

In terms of just plain, solid colleague support, I cannot thank Janice Easton

enough. She is too humble to accept many accolades, so this will be brief. I will always

remember our conversations in the E.E. building.

Half of the pictures used in the forest pile sort interview were taken by Alison

Bowers and Dr. Martha Monroe.

I am grateful to Norman Breuer and Gabriella Scollo for each translating the

survey from English to Spanish, and to Cotton Randall and Alyson Dagang for back-

translating the Spanish version.

I am also grateful to Karla Wesley and Dr. Jim Armstrong for performing content

validity of the attitude section of the survey instrument.

I am indebted to Susan Jacobson, Taylor Stein, Jim Armstrong, and Stephen

Kellert for giving me copies of their old surveys while I was learning the process of survey

construction and developing my own.

The Peruvian field work was funded with the generous support of the Tropical

Conservation and Development (TCD) Program at the University of Florida and Dr. Paul

Beaver, owner of Amazonia Expeditions. The TCD program awarded me a field research

grant, while Dr. Beaver arranged airfare and room and board at his lodge on the Tahuayo


Funding for my graduate studies was provided by a teaching assistantship through

the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. This funding was supplemented by the

Graduate Student Council, The School of Forest Resources and Conservation, and Dr.

Martha Monroe.

I am greatly indebted to those with whom I pilot tested the survey. First, my

colleagues in TCD and Forestry who first reviewed the survey were very helpful. The

classes of Brian Marchman, Jerry Steele, and Tim Anderson at P.K. Yonge Developmental

School saw the next version of the survey and also offered very helpful suggestions for its

improvement. Specifically, I would like to thank Emily Edison, Madeline Edison, and

Mallori Cain, each of whom spent close to three hours with me going over the survey

questions explaining exactly how they interpreted each question. Though tedious, I think

we had fun doing it.

I would also like to thank Dr. Wayne Smith, the director of the School of Forest

Resources and Conservation.

Finally, my gratitude and love go to my parents Meryll and Susan and my two best

friends Rachael and Karla for their unconditional support of all my wacky ideas.


ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS ............................................ iv

LIST O F FIG U RE S ........................................ ....... xi

LIST O F TA B LE S ..................................... ........ xiii

ABSTRACT ............................................ ........ xv


1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................... .......... 1

Objective 1: Identify Perceptions of a Forest ................. .... 3
Objective 2: Develop Forest Attitude Domains ................ ... 3
Objective 3: Compare Peruvian and Floridian Attitudes about Forests ... 4
Objective 4: Determine the Influence of Other Variables on Attitudes
about F orests ......... .. ...... ... ...... ......... 5
Objective 5: Measure the Relationship between Perceived Forest
Renewability and Attitudes about Forests ............... .... 6

2 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE ..................... 7

The Components and Relevance of Attitudes ................. ... 8
Measuring Environmental Concern ....................... 12
The New Environmental Paradigm .................... . 12
Measuring Actual Environmental Commitment with Verbal
C om m itm ent ........................... ......... 16
Environmental Justifications ........................ 17
Typologies of Values Toward Natural Environments ............. 19
Identifying the Value of Different Wildlands and their Resources . 19
Basic Human Values of Nature ........................... 20
Attitudes in the United States ................................. 24
Attitudes about Animals .......................... . 24
Attitudes about Forests ................................. 27

Measuring Attitudes in Other Countries ..................... 31
D developed N nations .................................... 31
D developing N nations ........ ............... ......... 33
Factors that Influence Environmental Attitudes ................ . 37
Cross-Cultural Comparisons ........................... . 41
C onclu sions ............................................. 43

3 SAMPLING METHODS ................... ................ 45

N orth-Central Florida ............................... . 45
The Administrative Permission Process ................. 47
Randomizing the Sample ................................ 48
The Contact Situations ................................. 48
Iquitos, P eru ...................................... . 49
Identifying the Sampling Frame ........................... 50
The Administrative Permission Process ................. 54
Randomizing the Sample ................................ 54
The Contact Situations ................................. 55

4 MEASUREMENT METHODS ............................... 57

Developing the Attitude Statements for the Survey Instrument ........ 58
C ontent V alidity ...................................... 58
R response B ias ......... ......... ......... ......... 59
Developing the Other Components of the Survey Instrument ......... 59
Forest B benefits .................... ......... .......... 60
Perceived Forest Renewability ...................... 61
Forest K now ledge ..................................... 61
Environmental Behaviors ................................ 62
Forest Characteristics .................................. 63
D em graphics ................................. . 63
Pilot Testing the Survey in Florida ............................. 64
First E valuation ................................ . 64
P ilot T ests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 6 5
Pilot Test Interview s ................................... 67
Translating the Survey ...................................... 67
Pilot Testing the Survey in Peru ............................... 71
Final R visions ...................... ......... ......... 72
Data Entry, Coding, and Analysis .............................. 72

5 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS ......................... . 74

Sample Diversity . ............................... . 74
N on-Attitudinal Variables ............................. . 75
S ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 7 5
G rade L evel ....................... ...... ......... 75
Time Spent in a Forest ................. ................ 75
Perceived Forest Renewability ...................... 77
Knowledge Score .................. .. ............... 77
Talking with Family or Friends about the Environment .......... 82
Ethnicity (Florida Only) ................................. 86
Urban/Rural (Florida Only) ............................. 86
Tropical Forest Experience (Florida Only) ............... . 88
Perceptions of Ecotourism (Peru Only) ................. . 88
School Type (Peru Only) ................................ 88
Multidimensional Scaling, Hierarchical Clustering, and Factor Analysis 88
Objective 1: Forest Perceptions through Forest Characteristics ........ 90

6 THE ATTITUDE DOMAINS ............................... 100

Kellert's 7-Domain Typology ................................ 100
The Factor Analysis Solution ................................ 104
Attitude Scale Construction ................................. 113
The Four Attitude Domains ................................. 113
The H SN D om ain ......................... .......... 113
The UD D om ain .......................... ......... 115
The M oralistic D om ain ................................ 115
The N egativistic Domain ............................... 116
Correlations Among the Four Attitude Domains .............. 117

7 R E SU L T S ................................. ......... 122

M easuring Experimenter Bias ........................... . 122
The Comparison Between Peruvian and Floridian Participants ....... 127
The Big Com prison .................................. 127
Comparing Different Subpopulations .................. 130
Important Local Variables Affecting Attitudes about Forests ........ 136
Floridian G roup ...................................... 137
Individual V ariables ............................... 137
Stepwise Linear Regression ..................... 152
Peruvian G roup ........................... ......... 154
Individual V ariables ............................... 154
Stepwise Linear Regression ..................... 168

Perceived Forest Renewability in Relation to Attitudes about Forests . 169
D iscu ssion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1


General Conclusions from the Study Objectives ................ 178
Coexisting Attitude Domains ................................ 183
M ethodological Considerations .............................. 185
Lim stations ................ .... ............. ......... 185
Cross-Cultural Foundation of Forest Concern ................ 186
Directions for Future Research ............................... 187
Closing ....................................... ....... 192


D efining a Forest ......................................... 194
M ethodology ..................................... . 196
Participant Recruitm ent .................................... 196
D ata A analysis ................................ ......... 198
R esu lts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 8
D iscu ssion ....................................... . 2 13





LIST OF REFERENCES .................................... . . 263

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..................................... 275


Figure Page

2-1 The Theory of Planned Behavior .................................. 11

3-1 Map of North Central Florida Highlighting the cities of Gainesville,
N ewberry, and Branford ..................................... 46
3-2 Map of Peru Highlighting the city of Iquitos ......................... 51

4-1 Model of the Dual Front-Back Translation Process .................. 69

5-1 Self-reported Time Spent in a Forest by Region ................... 78
5-2 Frequency of Responses to Perceived Renewability of Local Forests ....... 80
5-3 Number of Correct Knowledge Questions by Region ................. 84
5-4 Percent of Correct Responses to Individual Knowledge Questions ......... 85
5-5 Forest Characteristic Descriptions ............................. 92
5-6 MDS and HC analyses of Forest Characteristics for the Entire Sample ...... 95
5-7 MDS and HC analyses of Forest Characteristics in Florida ............. 97
5-8 MDS and HC analyses of Forest Characteristics in Peru ............... 98

6-1 Collapsing Kellert's Seven Domains into Four ................... 106
6-2 Alpha Reliability Scores for the Four Attitude Domains ................ 111
6-3 Theoretical Alpha Reliability for Scales with Different Numbers of Items ... 112
6-4 MDS model of the Attitude Statements in the Four Attitude Domains ..... 118
6-5 Hypothetical Demonstration of the Overlapping Nature of Attitude Domains 119

7-1 Measuring Experimenter Bias in the Younger Age Group .............. 124
7-2 Measuring Experimenter Bias in the Older Age Group . . . . . . 125
7-3 Forest Attitudes between Peruvian and Floridian Groups ............. 128
7-4 Forest Attitudes between Females in Peru and Florida ............... 132
7-5 Forest Attitudes between Males in Peru and Florida ................. 133
7-6 Forest Attitudes between 12 tol3-year-olds in Peru and Florida .......... 134
7-7 Forest Attitudes between 16 to 17-year-olds in Peru and Florida ......... 135
7-8 Forest Attitudes by Sex in Florida ................................ 141
7-9 Forest Attitudes by Urban/Rural in Florida .......................... 142
7-10 Forest Attitudes by Age Level in Florida ........................... 143
7-11 Forest Attitudes by Level of Knowledge in Florida ................. 145

7-12 Forest Attitudes by Ethnicity in Florida ............................ 146
7-13 Forest Attitudes by Time in a Forest in Florida ................... . 147
7-14 Forest Attitudes by Tropical Forest Experience in Florida ............ 149
7-15 Forest Attitudes by Perceived Forest Renewability in Florida ............ 150
7-16 Forest Attitudes by Talking with Family and Friends in Florida .......... 151
7-17 Forest Attitudes by Sex in Peru .................................. 158
7-18 Forest Attitudes by Age Level in Peru ............................. 159
7-19 Forest Attitudes by Time in a Forest in Peru ........................ 160
7-20 Forest Attitudes by Level of Knowledge in Peru . . . . . 162
7-21 Forest Attitudes by Perceived Forest Renewability in Peru . . . . . .... 163
7-22 Forest Attitudes by Talking with Family and Friends in Peru ............ 165
7-23 Forest Attitudes by Perceptions of Ecotourism in Peru . . . . . . 166
7-24 Forest Attitudes by School Type in Peru ........................... 167
7-25 Results of the Forest Renewability Question in Florida ............... 172
7-26 The Relationships of the Forest Attitudes with the Other Variables ....... 174
7-27 Stepwise Linear Regression Results ............................... 176

A-1 "Forest" Frequencies in Iquitos, Peru .............................. 201
A-2 "Not Forest" Frequencies in Iquitos, Peru .......................... 202
A-3 "Forest" Frequencies in Chino, Peru . . . ........... . . 203
A-4 "Not Forest" Frequencies in Chino, Peru ....................... 204
A-5 Multivariate Analysis of Forest Pile Sort in Iquitos, Peru . . . . . .... 207
A-6 Multivariate Analysis of Forest Pile Sort in Chino, Peru . . . . . . 208
A-7 "Forest" Characteristic Correlations ............................... 211
A-8 The Ideal Forest Photograph Selections ............................ 212
A-9 The Ideal Forest Characteristics for the Peru Study ................. 215


Table Pag

1-1 Kellert's Typology of Basic Attitudes About Animals .............. . ... 4

2-1 The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale Questions .............. 15
2-2 Summary of Environmental Justification Categories ................ 18
2-3 Classification Systems for Environmental Values .................. 22
2-4 Kellert's Typology of Basic Values Modified for "Nature" ............... 23
2-5 Factors Influencing Environmental Attitudes ..................... 39

3-1 A List of the Sampling Frame of 14 Secondary Schools in Iquitos, Peru ..... 53

4-1 Number of Questions in the Final English and Spanish Surveys ........... 73

5-1 Basic Demographics for Florida and Peru Samples ................ . 76
5-2 Descriptive Analysis of Sex by Region .............................. 76
5-3 Descriptive Analysis of Age by Region ......................... 76
5-4 Descriptive Analysis of Self-Reported Time Spent in a Forest by Region . 79
5-5 Descriptive Analysis of Perceived Local Forest Renewability ......... ... 79
5-6 Descriptive Analysis of Knowledge Score by Age in the Florida Sample .... 83
5-7 Descriptive Analysis of Knowledge Score by Age in the Peruvian Sample ... 83
5-8 Descriptive Analysis of Knowledge Score by Region ............... 83
5-9 Frequency Talking with Family or Friends about the Environment by Region 87
5-10 Descriptive Analysis of Urban/Rural by Age in Florida .............. . 87
5-11 Descriptive Analysis of the Forest Characteristic Question ........... ... 93
5-12 Factor Analysis of Survey Forest Characteristic Question ............. 94

6-1 Correlations between Moralistic, Scientific, Humanistic, and Naturalistic
Attitude Statements ........ ...... ...................... 101
6-2 Correlations between Dominionistic, Negativistic, and Utilitarian Attitude
Statem ents ........ ... ............. ....... ......... 102
6-3 Alpha Reliability of Kellert's Seven Attitude Domains ............. . 103
6-4 Factors 1 and 4 of the First Factor Analysis ..................... 105
6-5 Rotated Component Matrix and Reliability of Four-Factor Structure ...... 107
6-6 The Four Forest Attitude Domains ........................... 109
6-7 Attitude Statements of Factor Component 1: The HSN Domain ......... 114

6-8 Attitude Statements of Factor Component 2: The UD Domain ........... 114
6-9 Attitude Statements of Factor Component 3: The Moralistic Domain ...... 114
6-10 Attitude Statements of Factor Component 4: The Negativistic Domain .... 114
6-11 Correlations among the Forest Attitude Domains in Florida ............. 121
6-12 Correlations among the Forest Attitude Domains in Peru ........... ... 121

7-1 Experimenter Bias among 12 to 13-year-old Participants ............. 126
7-2 Experimenter Bias among 16 to 17-year-old Participants ............. 126
7-3 Forest Attitudes Between Peruvian and Floridian Groups ............ 126
7-4 Forest Attitudes of Females in Peru and Florida .................. . 131
7-5 Forest Attitudes of Males in Peru and Florida ................... . 131
7-6 Forest Attitudes of 12 to 13-year-olds in Peru and Florida .............. 131
7-7 Forest Attitudes of 16 to 17-year-olds in Peru and Florida .............. 131
7-8 Forest Attitudes by Sex in Florida ................................ 140
7-9 Forest Attitudes by Urban/Rural in Florida .................... . 140
7-10 Forest Attitudes by Age Level in Florida ........................... 140
7-11 Forest Attitudes by Level of Knowledge in Florida ................. 144
7-12 Forest Attitudes by Ethnicity in Florida ............................ 144
7-13 Forest Attitudes by Time in a Forest in Florida .................. 144
7-14 Forest Attitudes by Tropical Forest Experience in Florida ............ 148
7-15 Forest Attitudes by Perceived Forest Renewability in Florida ............ 148
7-16 Forest Attitudes by Talking with Family and Friends in Florida .......... 148
7-17 Forest Attitudes by Sex in Peru .................................. 157
7-18 Forest Attitudes by Age Level in Peru ....................... 157
7-19 Forest Attitudes by Time in a Forest in Peru .................... . 157
7-20 Forest Attitudes by Level of Knowledge in Peru . . . . . . 161
7-21 Forest Attitudes by Perceived Forest Renewability in Peru . . . . . .... 161
7-22 Forest Attitudes by Talking with Family and Friends in Peru ............ 164
7-23 Forest Attitudes by Perceptions of Ecotourism in Peru . . . . . . 164
7-24 Forest Attitudes by School Type in Peru . . . . . . 164

A-1 A Few Definitions of a "Forest" ........................... 195
A-2 Forest Photograph Frequencies for the Iquitos, Peru Group ............. 205
A-3 Forest Photograph Frequencies for the Chino, Rio Tahuayo, Peru Group ... 206
A-4 Forest Characteristic M atrix .................................... 214

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science


Christopher John Frost

August 2000

Chairperson: Martha C. Monroe
Major Department: School of Forest Resources and Conservation

Forest cover is decreasing worldwide. Because peoples' attitudes influence their

behavior, understanding attitudes about forests is important for forest conservation. This

study explored the attitudes about forests of young adults in Iquitos, Peru and North-

Central Florida. The objectives were to explore the perception of the term "forest," to

create a typology of attitude domains, to compare the attitudes about forests between

Peruvians and Floridians, and to investigate other site-specific variables that might

influence the attitude domains. To test the hypothesis that Floridian young adults would

demonstrate attitudes that were more moralistic, naturalistic, humanistic, and less

utilitarian than the attitudes of Peruvian young adults, a written survey instrument was

designed and validated according to published protocols. One thousand two hundred

thirty-one young adults participated.

Four attitude domains, based on Kellert's typology of human values, were

identified. The "HSN" domain was defined as a combination of humanistic, scientific, and

naturalistic attitudes and represented emotional attachment to and curiosity about forests.

The "UD" domain was defined as a combination of utilitarian and dominionistic attitudes

and represented mastery, control, and use of forests. The Moralistic domain reflected the

conferring of ethical standing to forest flora and fauna. The Negativistic domain

represented fear or aversion to forests.

The attitude profiles of the Floridian and Peruvian participants were unexpectedly

similar. The Moralistic attitude domain was the strongest in both samples, followed by the

HSN, UD, and Negativistic domains respectively. In support of the hypothesis, Peruvians

held significantly higher UD attitudes than Floridians. However, contrary to the

hypothesis, Peruvians also held significantly higher HSN and Negativistic attitudes. Also,

the attitudes of mastery and control (the UD domain) and attitudes of understanding and

involvement (the HSN domain) were negatively correlated in the Floridian group but not

in the Peruvian group.

Multiple variables influenced the attitude domains differently in the Peruvian and

Floridian groups. In Florida, all four attitude domains were influenced by the participant's

sex and by talking with others about the environment. In Peru, age was the only variable

that influenced all four domains.

There were also consistent variable relationships in Peru and Florida. The HSN

domain increased with time spent in a forest, talking with others about the environment,

and among females. The UD domain increased as a forest was considered renewable.

The Negativistic domain decreased with age, time spent in a forest, and knowledge.

This research informs education and communication program development in

Florida and Peru by better understanding the attitudes of the local young adults.



Forests are the fountain of life for all the species that live on the earth.
Peruvian 16-year-old male

I think forest are important because they provide places for animals to live and because I feel that
they are an important resource for life on earth.
Floridian 12-year-old female

Forests are important in many ways. They provide environmental services, habitat

and refugia for animals, wood and non-timber products, recreational opportunities, and

spiritual benefits (Rolston and Coufal 1991). According to the FAO (1999), worldwide

forest cover decreased by an estimated 180 million hectares between 1980 and 1995.

While the rate of deforestation may be slowing, the global annual loss of forests is high

(FAO 1999). In light of these statistics, efforts to conserve forests have included

environmental education.

Environmental education is defined as "a process of developing a world population

that is aware of and concerned about the total environment and its associated problems,

and which has the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivation and commitment to work

individually and collectively toward solutions of current problems and the prevention of

new ones" (UNESCO 1978). Supportive attitudes are an important element of an

environmentally aware citizenry according to this definition. Understanding public

attitudes about the environment is one component of conservation. There is evidence that



independent reasoning begins to form during adolescence (Muuss 1982, Piaget 1965);

understanding young people's forest attitudes provides a framework for the future of

forest conservation, and informs future efforts in forest education.

Forest degradation occurs for different reasons in different parts of the world,

sometimes at the hands of local people and other times in spite of their opposition (FAO

1999). As cultures develop differently, specific attitudes about the natural world may

differ. Identifying the differences between groups will strengthen conservation efforts by

providing information from which to create site-specific conservation programs that

emphasize issues of local concern and are relevant to unique cultural and environmental

paradigms. While environmental attitudes have been studied in the United States (Dunlap

and Van Liere 1978, Thompson and Gasteiger 1985) and abroad (Furman 1998, Roth and

Perez 1989), studies comparing attitudes between developed and developing countries

have only recently been reported (e.g., Schultz and Zelozny 1998).

This leads to the question: to what extent and in what ways will attitudes about

forests be common, or unique, between young adults of a developing nation and a

developed one, and what implications might this have for international conservation efforts

using environmental education as the medium?

The purpose of this research was to measure the forest attitudes of young adults in

North Central Florida and the Peruvian Amazon, and to investigate the factors that

influence those attitudes. Chapter 2 discusses the literature relevant to the study.

Chapters 3 and 4 identify the sampling frames and discuss the development of the survey

instrument. Chapter 5 presents a descriptive analysis of the non-attitudinal variables and


addresses the issue of perceptions of a forest. Chapter 6 develops and explains the

attitude domains about forests. The results are presented and discussed in Chapter 7.

The final chapter draws conclusions from the study and suggests directions for future

research. Five objectives addressed this purpose.

Objective 1: Identify Perceptions of a Forest

The term "forest" may have multiple meanings that may or may not be consistent

between young adults in Peru and Florida. Attitudes about forests may very depending on

how a forest is perceived. A question on the survey dealt specifically with the perception

of a forest, and a number of multivariate analytical techniques were used to identify a


Objective 2: Develop Forest Attitude Domains

The theoretical foundation of the attitude domains measured in this study is a

typology of basic human attitudes toward animals developed by Kellert (1996). Though

elaborated in the next chapter, Kellert identified seven distinct attitudes (Table 1-1). This

study used forest-relevant attitude statements and factor analysis to explore the attitude

domains and attempted to reproduce them with forests as the attitude object.

Table 1-1 Kellert's Typology of Basic Attitudes About Animals (Kellert 1993b)

Attitude Definition

Utilitarian Practical and material exploitation of animals.

Naturalistic Direct experience and exploration of animals.

Scientific Systematic study of structure, function, and relationship with animals.

Humanistic Strong emotional attachment and "love" for animals.

Moralistic Spiritual reverence and ethical concern for animals.

Dominionistic Mastery, physical control, dominance of animals.

Negativistic Fear, aversion, alienation from animals.

Objective 3: Compare Peruvian and Floridian Attitudes about Forests

It was hypothesized that Peruvian respondents would express stronger utilitarian

and weaker moralistic and humanistic forest attitudes than Floridians (Kellert et al. 1996).

In one village near Iquitos, Peru, Wesley (1998) interviewed randomly-selected residents,

finding that they were explicitly aware of the close relationship between their survival and

local natural resources. Utilitarian attitudes might be associated with this awareness.

Floridians' livelihoods, in contrast, are typically not directly integrated with subsistence

needs, and they may not hold strong utilitarian attitudes. The American cultural climate is

also increasingly environmentally conscious (Bliss et al. 1994), which may generate

stronger humanistic and moralistic, and weaker utilitarian forest attitudes (Kellert 1996).

The objective focuses on what differences or similarities in attitudes exist between

Peruvians and Floridians, rather than what cultural factors are important determinants of


the attitudes. These data have implications in the development of conservation initiatives

using forest-specific environmental education in both sites.

Objective 4: Determine the Influence of Other Variables on Attitudes about Forests

The underlying factors influencing forest attitudes are of interest because they may

be site specific. In this study, the older students were expected to be more moralistic,

humanistic, and naturalistic, and less negativistic, dominionistic, and utilitarian than the

younger students (Kellert 1985a). It was expected that the effect of gender on the forest

attitudes would closely resemble studies using the same theoretical model, in which

females tended to be more moralistic, negativistic, and humanistic, and less scientific,

utilitarian, and dominionistic than males (Kellert 1996). A number of variables specific to

this study were also measured. It was hypothesized that the degree of recognized

resource dependency and urbanization would have the greatest effect on attitudes about

forests (Parry and Campbell 1992). Forest ecosystem knowledge was not expected to

significantly affect forest attitudes, though it was expected to be low in both populations.

This objective examines the relationship between socio-demographic variables and

forest attitudes in two socio-cultural environments. Results may support the predictive

power of specific explanatory variables and suggest a multidimensional model of forest

attitude determinants.


Objective 5: Measure the Relationship between Perceived Forest Renewability and
Attitudes about Forests.

Perceived forest renewability is the degree to which a person believes that a forest

can be used and restored indefinitely. It seems reasonable that there may be an innate

concern for resources that are perceived to be limited. DeYoung (1996) suggests that

"frugality" is a determinant of environmental behaviors. In the current study, it was

hypothesized that a positive relationship would exist between perceived forest renewability

and utilitarian attitudes, and that an inverse relationship would exist between perceived

renewability and humanistic, naturalistic, and moralistic attitudes. An exploratory study

suggested such a relationship (Monroe et al. 1999). The relationship specific to forests

has not been previously measured and reported in the literature. This association could

prove to be an important tool for environmental education programs, as discussion of

forest renewability could indirectly contribute to changes in attitudes about forests.


I do not know what I seem to be to others, but to myself I seem to have been like a boy walking on
the seashore, picking up another pebble more beautiful that the one before, while the great ocean of
truth lay all undiscovered before me.
Issac Newton

They are beautiful habitats and I love the beauty of the forests but we need to cut down trees to
make homes, pencils, desks, etc. It is nice that we want to protect the rainforest but most of the
people who cut it down are poor and don't have much money but they make it from cutting down
Floridian 13-year-old female

Attitude surveys are one effective means of determining how people perceive the

natural world and their degree of environmental concern (Parry 1992). Interest in the

identification and measurement of attitudes about the environment (or "environmental

attitudes") began, in the scientific literature, in the mid-1970's and has expanded since.

Today, running the search string "attitudes about the environment" in the dissertation

abstracts alone reveals over 1200 entries, most of which have been completed in the

1990's. This chapter outlines the literature to date surrounding the complex endeavor of

environmental attitude measurement. While it would be impossible to review all the

environmental attitude studies in the literature and present them here, there are common

threads that situate this study within the body of scientific knowledge. This review

addresses a number of key themes: (1) the basic notion of an attitude and why it is


important; (2) the measurement of general environmental concern; (3) the theoretical

identification of different typologies of values of specific wildlands including forests; (4)

justification for selecting Kellert's typology in the experimental design and modifying it

for forest ecosystems; (5) measurement of attitudes about specific environmental issues in

(i) the United States, (ii) other "developed" nations, and (iii) "developing" nations; and (6)

cross-cultural comparisons of environmental attitudes. Specific attention is given to

studies focusing on young adults.

The Components and Relevance of Attitudes

An attitude is a disposition to react positively or negatively to some object (e.g., a

person, place, event, etc.) (Ajzen 1988). The characteristic attribute of an attitude is its

evaluative nature. "I like trees," "Spiders are scary," "Wood products are beautiful!" are

all examples of attitudes because they express a positive or negative evaluation about

something. Attitudes can also be neutral in the sense that the evaluation of a belief may

not be strongly positive or negative. Everyone has attitudes, though they are difficult to

measure because they are hypothetical constructs that are not tangible (e.g. attitudes can

not be held like a flower), so they must be inferred from measurable responses.

Attitudes are traditionally composed of two components: a belief about an object

and the evaluation of the belief (Fishbein 1963). This has been termed the Expectancy-

Value (EV) Model of attitudes. The belief is a subjective probability function that an object

has some attribute (i.e., how expected the relationship is). For example, the phrase "trees

are tall" is a belief statement associating the object (trees) with an attribute (tallness). The


evaluation of the belief is the determination of whether the association of the belief and the

attribute is good or bad. "I like tall trees," or "I don't like tall trees" are both attitudes

because they evaluate the belief. Typically, an object has more than one possible attribute.

As a result, the EV model is typically expressed as a summative function, where the

overall attitude about an object is considered to be all the beliefs about an object and their

individual evaluations,


A = > b ie (Equation 2-1)

where A= the attitude, bi= a belief about an attitude object, and ei= the evaluation of the

belief (Fishbein 1963).

For example, some young adults may view forests as scary places where they

might get hurt (belief), and this could be considered bad (evaluation of the belief). Young

adults might also identify forests as being a home for many animals (belief) and consider

this a good thing (evaluation of belief). The perceptions of a forest (both positive and

negative) influence the attitudes about the forest. An overall positive attitude about the

forest may be sufficient to gain support for forest conservation initiatives, though it may

be insufficient to engender action to implement the initiatives.

It has been suggested that attitudes may serve certain functions. For example,

Katz (1960) described four functions of attitudes: ego-defensive, value-expressive,


knowledge, and utilitarian. The ego-defensive function of attitudes helps people protect

themselves from unflattering truths about themselves. The value-expressive function

allows a person to express an important value. A person may like driving high-efficiency

cars because this shows an important concern for energy conservation and reduced

consumption of fossil fuels, which is an expression of a value. The knowledge function

helps people better understand events and people around them. Finally, the utilitarian

function helps people gain rewards and avoid punishments.

Attitudes may also act to create a cognitive structural base from which to identify

new experiences. If a person has a positive experience with a snake, the attitude (e.g., "I

like snakes," or "snakes are good") might be carried over to the next snake experience.

Most importantly, attitudes are thought to be predictors of behavior. Gordon

Allport (1935) called attitude "the most distinctive and indispensable concept in social

psychology" because attitudes were thought to direct (and thus allow the prediction of)

behaviors. There has been much debate in the psychological literature concerning the

formation and maintenance of attitudes, and their relationship with overt behavior (please

see Eagly and Chaiken 1993 for a review). One example of the relationship between

attitudes and behavior is the Theory of Planned Behavior (Figure 2-1) (Ajzen 1988). In

this model, attitudes are considered to be antecedent to behavior. While there are other

variables involved, the notion that attitudes influence the intention to act, which in turn

influences the action, is of utmost importance. Thus, understanding the attitudes of an

audience gives some indication (though certainly not 100%) to what behaviors they might

be likely to engage. This relationship has potential importance in the arena of

Figure 2-1 The Theory of Planned Behavior. The theory suggests that the best single predictor of
behavior is the intention to engage in the behavior. Further, the intention to act in mediated by
three main factors: a person's attitudes about the object, the subjective norm, and the perceived
behavioral control that taking action would have the intended result. This model, adapted from the
Petty and Cacioppo (1996) treatment of Ajzen's work, provides that the attitudinal and subjective
norm components will have different levels of influences (or weights) depending on the person and
the attitude/behavior object.


environmental conservation, and there have been numerous attempts to measure

environmental attitudes.

Measuring Environmental Concern

Attitudes about the environment have been measured at different levels of

specificity. Some studies have looked at broad environmental concern, while others have

focused on specific components of concern for nature and the environment (e.g., concern

specifically for animals).

The New Environmental Paradigm

Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) thought there was an awakening environmentalism

in America that reflected a resolve against what they called the Dominant Social Paradigm,

which was characterized by a highly anthropocentric and anti-ecological attitudes about

the natural world in which humans are seen as above the rest of nature. They termed this

emerging movement the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP); it was characterized by

such concepts as "spaceship earth" and the "balance of nature." They endeavored to

measure the NEP by creating a scale that could accurately reflect the paradigm shift in the

population. According to Dunlap and Van Liere (1978), the literature of the time already

reported "dozens of studies of environmental attitudes." However, these studies focused

on specific issues such as pollution, population, or natural resources, rather than on the

broader issues such as "limits to growth" and the "balance of nature." As a results, they

designed a 12-item scale that would measure the strength of the NEP (Table 2-1, p. 15)


and reported a test of the scale on two samples from Washington state: a general public

sample (GPS) and an environmental organization sample (EOS). Not unexpectedly, the

environmentalists supported the NEP more than the general population. Significant

differences were recorded between the two groups for all twelve statements.

More important to the authors was the internal consistency of the scale. The

authors suggested that if the scale was actually measuring the "emergence of a true

'paradigm'" (p. 14) then there should be consistency between the responses to each

statement by individual respondents. Chronbach's alpha values for the EOS and GPS

samples were .813 and .758, respectively. The first unrotated principal factor accounted

for 69.2 percent of the variance in the GPS and 63.3 percent in the EOS. From these data,

the authors concluded that the scale formed "an internally consistent and unidimensional

scale" (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978, p. 14).

Geller and Lasley (1985) were also interested in a broad measure of environmental

concern but questioned the dimensionality of the NEP scale. They also tested the scale in

three different settings to assess its stability. They could not confirm the scale's

unidimensionality as previously reported, but rather concluded that the scale was three-

dimensional when nine of the twelve original questions were used. Their analysis used

confirmatory factor analysis rather than principal factor analysis. The main difference of

the model was that the hypothesized factors could be defined prior to analysis, thus

confirming a factor structure rather than exploring for statistical association. Conclusions

drawn should keep this analytical difference in mind. Using the entire NEP scale, four or

five factors were required to fit the data, depending on the sample. The three sub-


dimensions were (see Table 2-1): (1) items 2, 5, 8, 12; (2) items 7, 9, 11; and (3) items 3

and 4. However, the authors did not find evidence that the three factors were measuring

the same constructs across the different samples. They concluded that while the truncated

scale represented three dimensions, the assumption should not be made that the

dimensions are the same across groups. In essence, measuring such a broad category

across a broad group of people was problematic.

Using samples of visitors to National Parks, the dimensionality of the scale was

again tested. Noe and Snow (1990a) found evidence of two statistically significant

factors, rather than three. The two factors closely mimicked factors (1) and (3) identified

by Geller and Lasley (1985) except that question 6 (Table 2-1) associated with the second

factor. The authors concluded that the scale was not unidimensional. The alpha values

for each scale ranged from .63 to .71. Noe and Snow (1990b), however, had difficultly in

translating several items of the scale for a cross-cultural analysis in Florida. Though they

were again able to report either a two- or three-dimensional scale, the alpha values were

considerably lower, from .27 to .70 in the Hispanic sample while the non-Hispanic sample

ranged from .55 to .73 (Noe and Snow 1990b).

Schultz and Zelozny (1998) also found translating the scale problematic. Their

five country survey of college students yielded alpha values of .81 and .78 in the United

States, while the alpha values were relatively low in Mexico (a=. 58), Nicaragua (a=.62),

Spain (a=.64), and Peru (a=.50). Considering this, they found evidence of environmental

concern and what they termed "altruism" present in varying degrees in all five countries.


Table 2-1 The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale Questions

1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.
2. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
3. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
4. Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.
5. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
6. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.
7. To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a "steady-state" economy where
industrial growth is controlled.
8. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive.
9. The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.
10. Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their
11. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrial society cannot expand.
12. Mankind is severely abusing the environment.


Though it has not been suggested, there might be a difference not just in translation but

also in message content.

Measuring Actual Environmental Commitment with Verbal Commitment

The weak correlation between attitudes and behavior, especially when considering

environmental issues, has been recognized for some time (Van Liere and Dunlap 1981,

Schuman and Johnson 1976). Parallel to the early development of the NEP scale,

Maloney et al. (1975) developed a 128-item environmental concern scale that measured

four subscales: verbal commitment (the attitude about the concern), actual commitment

(the behavior resulting from the concern), affect (the "degree of emotionality" about the

issues), and factual knowledge related to ecological issues. Alpha values for each scale

were very high (a=.95, .94, .92, .94). However, Chronbach's alpha is a function of the

mean interitem correlation and the number of items in the scale. As Bernard (1995) notes,

a correlation of only 14 using a 25-item scale yields an alpha score of a=0.80. Figure 6-3

shows the alpha reliability as a function of interitem correlation and number of scale items.

With such a large number of scale items, the reported alpha values could have resulted

from interitem correlations ranging from r=0.2 to r=0.9. The interitem correlations were

not reported and cannot be specifically determined from the alpha scores.

The NEP scale items are probably too complex for children or even young adults,

and there have been a number of attempts to make it relevant to young adults. A modified

form of the Maloney et al. (1975) scale was used in Ireland on urban and rural school

children 11 years of age. Affect about the environment was not correlated with actual


commitment to preserve it (Williams and McCrorie 1990). Interestingly, while the

children's knowledge of the physical environment was low, affect and cognition of

environmental problems was relatively high.

Environmental Justifications

Kahn and Friedman (1995) have reported on the development of children's

affiliation nature, proposing a second model of note. They proposed two categories of

environmental justification: homocentric and ecocentric. They interviewed children in

an inner-city community concerning their attitudes toward nature. As a precursor to the

research, they wondered "...what does it mean to say that we have an obligation not to

harm the natural environment? Does the natural environment feel pain? Does it have

rights?" (p. 1043). Using a hypothetical case of a polluted waterway, the children were

asked to judge whether a number of different circumstances were acceptable (e.g.

throwing trash in the bayou [Houston, Texas]). They identified two general forms of

response justification when polluting the bayou was not acceptable. The first, and most

common, justification was based on homocentric reasoning, where the environment is

given consideration but only because harm to the environment causes harm to people.

The second justification was based on biocentric reasoning, where the environment has

intrinsic value and is given consideration because of this. A third category was identified

as unelaboratedd harm to nature" in which the child did not provide a justification but

still considered the pollution wrong. Homocentric and biocentric justifications were

further categorized based as shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Justification Categories (Kahn and Friedman 1995)
Justification Description Explanation

Personal Interests



Punishment Avoidance
Influencing Others

Intrinsic Value of Nature


An appeal to personal interests and projects for recreation, fun,
Preservation of the environment for the viewing or experiencing
pleasures of humans
Referring to the physical, material, psychological welfare,
especially avoiding sickness
How other humans would judge the polluter, especially negative
That the polluter might get caught
That the pollution will influence others to pollute

Nature has intrinsic value, validity that is not derived solely
from human interests
Nature deserves respect and has rights
Appeal to a relationship between humans and nature



Typologies of Values Toward Natural Environments

One potential explanation for the poor relationship between verbal commitment

(e.g., expressions of attitudes) and actual commitment (e.g., behaviors) when related to

the environment is that the attitudes (and the beliefs and values that create them) are not

unidimensional, but rather exist in a multidimensional matrix. One of the principal

weaknesses of the NEP scale was its assumed unidimensionality. In retrospect, one could

question whether a unidimensional measure of environmental concern would be achievable

with any degree of internal or external validity. Indeed, when tested on different

populations, even the 12 questions in the NEP scale did not conform to a single unit


The next group of studies identified environmental values. A value is a

consideration of worth. Attitudes are not values, though they can be considered important

in the process of valuation. For example, a person who has strong moralistic attitudes

about a natural area may value the area as a sanctuary for wildlife.

Most of the valuation articles are not empirical and assume the value structure.

The last set of studies, conducted by Stephen Kellert, was based on an empirically

confirmed multidimensional attitude structure.

Identifying the Value of Different Wildlands and their Resources

Attitudes about the environment reflect an individual's preferences and values.

The concept of environmental concern is broad and nebulous. Issues as diverse as

pollution, human population, and natural resources could all be considered under the aegis


of environmental concern. Efforts have also been made to measure people's attitudes

about specific ecosystems or similar concepts such as "wilderness" and "wildlands."

Table 2-3 shows nine ways to consider the different values of specific

environmental types. While the emphasis of each typology is reasonably unique, the

typologies are consistent in identifying broad groups of values. The main distinction

between the different value categorizations is the degree of specificity. Driver et al.

(1987) chose to identify three main groups and a number of values within each group.

Rolston (1985) chose to list what he considered to be wildland values without creating

broad category groupings.

Kellert's typology differs substantially from the others in Table 2-3 in an important

way. The other authors considered the actual values of the specific environments,

providing a framework for understanding what nature provides regardless of whether

people perceive those benefits. Kellert, on the other hand, defined the typology from a

set of human attitudes about nature, which he empirically tested by creating attitude

scales. As a result, there are some semantic differences between Kellert's typology and

the others. The greatest overlap of Kellert's typology is with the "Personal Benefits"

category suggested by Driver et al. (1987), which is to be expected as Kellert's typology is

a reflection of individual valuation. Specifics of Kellert's typology follow.

Basic Human Values of Nature

Kellert (1979; 1985a; 1985b; 1991; 1993a; 1993b; 1995; 1996) has investigated

human attitudes toward nature, refining a typology of nine values that "are thought to


reflect a range of physical, emotional, and intellectual expressions of the...tendency to

associate with nature" (Kellert 1996, p.26). While it is difficult to understand the

substance of the values, the concepts behind the values can be grasped in Table 2-4. More

thorough explanations of the values can be found elsewhere (Kellert 1993b; Kellert 1996).

Kellert's original typology was developed to as a result of investigation into human

attitudes toward animals.

These values are not considered mutually exclusive and, if accurate, conspire

together to determine individual tendencies toward nature. One basic premise of this

typology is that the individual attitude domains, when taken together, form an attitude

profile. It is this attitude profile that is useful from the perspective of understanding the

larger picture of the audience of interest. While Kellert originally developed this typology

for people's evaluations of animals (Kellert 1985a), he later applied the model, including

hypothesized biological "functions" for the values, to "nature" in general (Table 2-4). A

"symbolic" value was added later in the literature.

Kellert used these basic values to investigate attitudes toward animals and nature

based on differences in gender (Kellert 1996), age (Kellert 1985a), ethnicity (Kellert

1996), in other countries (Kellert 1991), and between countries (Kellert 1993a). He also

applied the typology to discuss practical methods for endangered species conservation

(Kellert 1985b), large carnivore conservation (Kellert et al. 1996), and economic cost-

benefit analysis (Kellert 1984).

It is interesting to note potential overlaps between Table 2-2 and Table 2-4.

Kellert's humanistic and moralistic values loosely associate with biocentric reasoning.

Table 2-3 Classification Systems for Environmental Values

Study Environment Categories of Value

1. life support
2. economic
3. scientific
4. recreational

5. aesthetic
6. wildlife
7. biotic

8. natural history
9. spiritual
10. intrinsic

1. value I market value (i.e. economic)
2. value II non-market value of public goods and services that can be given
economic value (e.g. recreation, flood control, etc.)
3. value mI non-market value of public goods and services that are intangible (e.g.,
habitat for wildlife and native people, global carbon balance and
atmospheric stability, etc.)

rain forests 1. genetic material
2. wildlife habitat
3. economic

wilderness 1. stress removal
2. personal achievement
3. spiritual value
4. social value
5. nature appreciation


1. economic
2. aesthetic

nature 1. economic
2. life support
3. recreational
4. scientific

wildlands 1. market
2. life support
3. recreational
4. scientific

wilderness 1. Personal Benefits
a. developmental
i. self-concept
ii. self-actualization
iii. skill development
b. therapeutic/healing
c. physical health
d. self-sufficiency
e. social identity
f. educational
g. spiritual
h. aesthetic/creativity
i. symbolic
j. other recreation benefits
k. commodity-related
1. nurturance

4. basic research
5. climatic regulator
6. protect water supply

6. ecology
7. quality recreation
8. fishing
9. wildlife reservations

3. moral
4. psychological

5. aesthetic
6. life value
7. diversity/unity value
8. stability value

5. genetic diversity
6. aesthetic
7. culturally symbolic
8. historical

2. Social Benefits
a. aggregate personal
b. spinoffbenefits
c. historical/cultural
d. preservation-related
i. representative
ii. species diversity
iii. air quality
iv. unique landforms
v. historic sites
vi. educational
vii. scientific
viii. stewardship
e. quality of life
f. commodity uses
g. economic

7. source of raw material
8. national heritage
9. recreation

10. watersheds
11. creativity
12. historical value
13. future generations

5. social
6. intrinsic

9. spontaneity value
10. dialectical value
11. sacramental value

9. character building
10. therapeutic
11. religious
12. intrinsic natural

3. Intrinsic Benefits
-Benefits to non-
human organisms

1. utilitarian
2. naturalistic
3. ecologistic/scientific

4. aesthetic
5. symbolic
6. humanistic

7. moralistic
8. dominionistic
9. negativistic

Rolton and

Farnsworth et
al. (1981)





Peterson and
Driver (1990)



Driver et al.



Table 2-4 Kellert's Typology of Basic Values Modified for "Nature" (Kellert 1996)

Value Definition Function

Practical and material exploitation of nature

Direct experience and exploration of nature

Systematic study of structure, function, and
relationship with nature

Physical appeal and beauty of nature

Use of nature for language and thought

Strong emotional attachment and "love" for
aspects of nature

Spiritual reverence and ethical concern for

Mastery, physical control, dominance of nature

Negativistic Fear, aversion, alienation from nature

Physical sustenance/security

Curiosity, discovery, recreation

Knowledge, understanding, observational

Inspiration, harmony, security

Communication, mental development

Bonding, sharing, cooperation,

Order, meaning, kinship, altruism









Mechanical skills, physical prowess, ability
to subdue

Security, protection, safety, awe


Homocentric reasoning is associated with utilitarian, aesthetic, and dominionistic values.

Naturalistic and scientific values could be associated with both justifications, while

negativistic is likely not to be associated with environmental justification at all. The

values and their environmental justifications have provided one method for

understanding human attitudes toward the natural environment.

Attitudes in the United States

Attitudes about Animals

Kellert's original surveys focused on people's attitudes towards animals. In

general, the American public scored relatively high humanistic marks and relatively low

dominionistic marks with the scientific value representing the lowest scoring value

(Kellert 1996). However, American society is notably diverse (Milbrath 1985) and

generalizing about the population without teasing apart influencing factors would be both

inappropriate and misleading.

Between genders, Kellert reports strikingly different composites. Females tended

to express higher humanistic, moralistic, and negativistic sentiments but lower

dominionistic and utilitarian attitudes compared to males. Their knowledge score was

moderately low. Males tended to maintain moderate levels for each category except

negativistic, which was low (Kellert 1996). Their knowledge score was moderately high.

The difference between urban and rural America was also distinct. Urbanites

tended to express lower utilitarian, but higher moralistic sentiments than rural residents.

The most distinct group was the livestock producers, who expressed extremely high


utilitarian, but very low moralistic values. The scores of the general population survey

fell in between the rural and urban population marks (Kellert 1996).

Striking differences between European-American and African-American

populations were noted. Compared to European-Americans, African-Americans scored

very low naturalistic and ecologistic marks, but moderately high utilitarian and high

negativistic marks. Their knowledge score was considerably lower than European-


Differences in age-related attitudes about animals was investigated (Kellert

1985a). As age (and consequently level of education) increased, humanistic and

moralistic values increased while dominionistic and negativistic values decreased.

Naturalistic and ecologistic values also increased. This trend continued through graduate

school, with those respondents completing college and entering graduate school

expressing very high naturalistic, humanistic, ecologistic/scientific, and moralistic

tendencies, but very low utilitarian, domionistic, and negativistic scores. Not

surprisingly, knowledge increased with level of education. These general levels were

corroborated by at least one other study (Yore and Boyer 1997), where knowledge level

was directly correlated to ecologistic (r=.4086), naturalistic (r=.4123), scientific

(r=.4106), humanistic (r=.2725), and moralistic (r=.2325) attitudes, but inversely

correlated with negativistic (r=-.4153), utilitarian (r=-.3064), and dominionistic (r=-

.2822) attitudes. Further, Vigorito (1996) reported that entering and majoring

psychology students expressed generally negative views of animal research (i.e. low


dominionistic attitude), but generally a positive attitude toward the environment and

animal rights (i.e. humanistic/moralistic attitudes).

One question that arises from these results is for what animal type are people

most likely to express humanistic values? Kellert primarily determined the humanistic

value component by respondent expression of "love" for pets. Eddy et al. (1993) reported

that dogs and cats were considered by respondents to be similar to humans and to have

similar cognitive abilities. Only primates were rated closer to humans in "similarity and

active cognitive thought" (p.96). Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and non-domesticated

animals were not considered similar to humans and respondents did not believe that these

organisms engaged in cognition. Invertebrates were designated furthest from humans,

considered to be dissimilar to humans and possessing little if any cognitive ability. If

empathy truly does derive from perception of similarity or commonality, then these data

engender considerable concern when viewed in light of the current biodiversity crisis, as

Kellert (1985b) notes that many of the species most imminently threatened with

extinction are invertebrates in tropical regions.

Plous (1993) performed a similar cognitive mapping experiment with children

and adults, asking respondents to rank six species in order of preference for saving from

extinction, assuming that, for the purposes of the survey, all organisms on the list were

equally threatened with extinction. The gorilla ranked first in both similarity and

preservation preference, while the beetle ranked last. This is somewhat disturbing

considering the relative importance of these organisms to ecosystem functions. The

researchers also asked children and adults about animals' levels of happiness under


certain conditions: on a farm, as a companion animal, in a zoo, and in the wild. The

children overwhelmingly felt that animals liked being in zoos, there was enough space,

and the animals were happier than if they were in the wild. The adults sampled

contrasted markedly to these sentiments, conceding that animals did not like zoos and

would be happier in the wild. The children, however, were convinced that farm animals

were happier than wild animals.

Attitudes about Forests

Using children as sample interviewees, Strommen (1995) investigated perceptions

of forests and their wildlife. The children (first grade students) were asked to draw

pictures of forests, and were subsequently interviewed about the drawing they made.

Drawings primarily contained trees (97.5%), mammals (64%), and the sun (62%). Less

common in the drawings were grass (55%), birds (43.6%), clouds (22.5%),

reptiles/amphibians (22.5%), water (18%), bugs (13%), flowers (13%), and fish (8%).

During the interview, children were asked to name creatures that inhabited forests.

While forest inhabitants such as deer, beaver, bobcat, moose, ladybug, and bear were

mentioned, whales, dolphins, alligators, cheetahs, and hermit crabs were also mentioned.

This suggests that children may consider "forests" as repositories for the strange and

exotic creatures not part of daily life. While most children recognize forests as being

dominated by trees, what lies inside the forest remains somewhat of a mystery. As

children this young are generally not equipped to cognitively interpret conservation

issues (Kellert 1985a), they were not surveyed using Kellert's format.


Older students, however, have sufficiently developed reasoning skills to consider

conservation issues surrounding forests and animals (Kellert 1985a; Vigorito 1996; Yore

and Boyer 1997), and even develop patterns of moral thought concerning nature as the

moral object (Nevers et al. 1997).

A series of studies has attempted to gauge the adult American public's attitudes

about forests. A public focus group in Florida suggested that their core values for forests

were aesthetics and economic development (Miles et al. 1997). This differed from the

Department of Forestry (DOF) focus group, which listed protecting forest and nature at

the top of their core values (Miles et al. 1997).

Another recent study in Florida revealed that the public near Eglin Airforce Base

was relatively in favor of environmental protection and ecosystem management

(Jacobson and Marynowski 1997). The research also indicated a relatively low level of

knowledge among the public about ecosystems, fire management, or local endangered

species. These data suggest that attitudes about nature may be independent from

biological or ecological knowledge. The public, however, was specifically opposed to

controlled burning of Eglin forested land even if it would increase wildlife habitat.

Correspondingly, the public revealed little knowledge about the importance of fire in

maintaining the longleaf pine (Pinuspalustris) ecosystems (Jacobson and Marynowski

1997). Another study found support for prescribed burning among different groups of

forest users, even when the fires occasionally escape control (Gardner et al. 1985). This

variation may be a function of the samples' knowledge of the importance of fire in

certain ecosystems, or there may be other factors at play.


Other studies have found the public's knowledge of biological and ecological

processes to be low (Diefenbach et al. 1997; Trauger et al. 1995). Diefenbach et al.

(1997) examined the attitudes of Pennsylvania sportsmen toward white-tailed deer

management. In general, the respondents disagreed that deer aversely affected

Pennsylvania forests when overpopulated. As a result, opposition to management

programs was noted.

As the public appears relatively unknowledgeable about ecosystem functions,

they are potentially vulnerable to persuasive communication strategies (Tarrant et al.

1997). Participants in this study, who were rural residents, were persuaded through a

combination of high relevance and a strong argument that preservation of species and

conservation of resources through ecosystem management was important. Further, their

overall attitude about resource management and nature was also significantly affected.

Despite this, none of the persuasive arguments convinced the respondents that reduced

harvesting (p=.13), reducing jobs (p=.38), or increasing costs (p=.61) were acceptable

consequences of environmental protection and management (Tarrant et al. 1997).

Similarly, Brunson and Reiter (1996) reported that a five minute information message

significantly increased the acceptability of ecosystem management stands versus

clearcuts or commercially thinned stands near roadways among office workers.

In a study of Tucson, Arizona residents living near federally protected land, the

respondents emphasized that high density housing (93.6%), golf courses (78.8%), and

commercial development (83.3%) were inappropriate land uses in the Tucson area (Harris


et al. 1997). However, low density housing was viewed as an appropriate land use


Forest users were also surveyed concerning their environmental attitudes (Nord et

al. 1998). Again, the distinction was drawn between proenvironmental behavior and

environmental concern. Pro-environmental behavior included donating money to

environmental organizations, consumer advocacy for environmentally friendly products,

watching a television show about the environment, and voting for a political candidate

based on his/her position on the environment. Environmental concern was measured by

asking respondents to rate the "quality of the environment" from "not serious at all" to

"very serious" (p.239). On the whole, forest recreation was correlated with

proenvironmental behavior (R2=.252) and very weakly correlated with environmental

concern (R2=.042).

Despite the weak correlation between environmental concern and forest

recreation, opinion polls taken over the past decade demonstrate a growing perception

among the American public that natural resources such as clean water are dwindling, and

given a choice between environmental protection and economic growth, most Americans

say they would choose the environment (Bliss et al. 1994). Shindler et al. (1993) reported

that 75% of the public favored managing federal forests as a whole and not for individual

parts (such as owls or trees), 73% felt that more wilderness areas should be established,

63% agreed that clear cutting should be banned on federal land (57% of Oregon residents

also agreed), and 76% agreed that greater efforts should be made to protect remaining

old-growth forests. In contrast, only 17% of Americans felt that endangered species laws


should be set aside to preserve timber jobs, and 37% felt that the economic vitality of local

communities should be given highest priority when making federal forest decisions

(Shindler et al. 1993). The general public felt that governmental officials should be most

responsive to locally affected communities when environmental concerns conflict with

economic concerns. Though the public tended to be pro-environment, they seemed to

empathize with people whose livelihoods were affected.

Vining (1992) compared the responses and expectations of forest managers, an

environmental group, and the public. The public and the environmental group were

found to be similar to each other but different from the managers in terms of decisions

and emotions. Interestingly, all three groups accurately predicted the responses of each

of the other groups, with the exception of the managers and environmental group

perceiving the public sample to be less emotional than it was. Not only is there a

reasonable understanding of American attitudes about nature, some interest groups can

accurately predict the perceptions and attitudes of other groups.

To date, Kellert's attitude typology is not well represented in the literature as a

tool for measuring attitudes about forests in the United States.

Measuring Attitudes in Other Countries

Developed Nations

Japan has been the focus of a study by Kellert (1991), which was based on issues

generated from Wantanabe (1974) and Moreby (1982). Moreby (1982) contended that

whaling had deep cultural and religious roots and that Japanese were unlikely to modify


their habits if the practice was vilified. This may stem from the observation that no

human/nature dichotomy existed in Japanese culture (Wantanabe 1974), that humans live

as a part of nature. However, Japan has been identified as a primary contributor in many

areas of global environmental destruction (Kellert 1991). This general trend was

expressed as a relatively high dominionistic score and a low moralistic score. The

humanistic value was the highest score recorded. As Kellert (1993b) noted:

Japanese appreciation for animals was generally restricted to species possessing unusual
aesthetic and cultural appeal in certain highly controlled circumstances. [One] respondent
described [the Japanese appreciation of animals] as reflecting a Japanese preference for an
artificial, highly abstract, and symbolic rather than realistic experience of animals and
nature; a motivations to "touch" nature, but from a controlled and safe distance. (p.59)

Japanese attitudes toward nature were also dependent upon age, with the notable

exception of the moralistic score, which remained consistent throughout.

A study of German attitudes revealed an "unusually" high moral attitude toward

nature, typified by a willingness to sacrifice practical human benefits for the sake of

nature and animals (Kellert 1993b).

The German public consistently expressed considerable opposition to the exploitation of
animals and a strong concern for their welfare. They frequently indicated a willingness to
extend rights to animals even when such rights entailed a substantial loss of benefits to
humans. (p.60)

Very low dominionistic and utilitarian sentiments in the German population were also


Wilson (1992) surveyed landowners in New Zealand about native forests on

farmland, reporting that a majority of respondents regularly visit nearby parks. When

asked when the "conservation movement" arrived in their area, about 26% of the

respondents thought it had always been there, while about the same number indicated

that the movement took hold in the 1970's. Just under 10% of the respondents thought


the movement had yet to reach them. Forty-six percent of respondents subscribed to

conservation-oriented publications and 22% of the farmers were members of

conservation groups. They concluded that older landowners and less educated

landowners were more likely to have utilitarian attitudes to their native forest holdings.

In contrast, farmers whose families have been on the land for a longer period of time

tended to express more naturalistic attitudes.

Developing Nations

The majority of studies from developing nations focus on participatory

conservation. The park/preserve system in the United States has often served as the

model for conservation in developing nations. As a result, studies have given specific

emphasis to the attitudes of local residents about the parks (Harcourt et al. 1986; Infield

1988; Heinen 1993; Newmark et al. 1993; Dhar 1994; Fiallo and Jacobson 1995;

Richards 1996). The focus is more on application of management principles and

participatory conservation. This is primarily due to the needs of the local people in

developing nations, where creation of national parks sometimes results in loss of land

potentially valuable for hunting or subsistence agriculture.

Protected areas (PA's) represent one form of conservation of ecosystem that is of

growing popularity in developing nations (Ite 1996, Mkanda & Munthali 1994). In

response to the creation of the Cross River National Park in southeast Nigeria, residents

of four villages were asked if they perceived a need for protected areas, and over 91%

responded affirmatively. The residents recognized the benefits of having the park


nearby, the two most important of which being employment and tourism (over 50% of

respondents); and 34% of all respondents related that their households derived benefit

from the park. In general, the residents understood the importance of protected areas and

felt positively about the nearby park.

Hartup (1994) investigated attitudes of landowners participating in the

Community Baboon Sanctuary (CBS), a voluntary conservation program in Belize. The

authors noted that the project will only be successful with local participation. Ninety-

four percent of the participants surveyed felt the baboon (Black Howler Monkeys,

Alouatta caraya) should be protected. Reasons given for the protection were non-

economic, that "the monkey is a unique, human-like animal." Eighty-nine percent of the

respondents considered there to be less game than ten years ago, 64% of whom expressed

that overhunting was the reason for game decline. Considering cattle grazing, 73% of

landowners reported leaving a vegetation buffer strip between the cleared land and the

river. However, 27% mentioned the need to clear completely to the river so the cattle

would have direct access to the water source. The issue of subsistence is critical and

often signifies a barrier between attitudes and actions. While most of the participants

recognize the benefit of conservation, the necessities of harvesting food or raising cattle

tend to outweigh even the most conservation-oriented people.

This sentiment was found to be true in Africa as well. Newmark et al. (1993)

found that 71% of the sample in Tanzania were in favor of keeping protected areas (or

"opposed to the park's suggested abolition"), but that 47% of the respondents thought the

park staff did nothing that was "good." A large 74.8% felt poachers were law-breakers,


yet a clear distinction was made between killing for subsistence and poaching in the

minds of the respondents. This led the authors to suggest that individuals who

experience or perceive a resource shortage or problem are more likely to support the

abolishment of the adjacent conservation area (Newmark et al. 1993). Parry and

Campbell (1992) found the local residents in the Chobe Enclave, Botswana to have

negative attitudes towards wildlife because they perceived crop damage. Again, a

distinction was drawn between people who depend on local natural resources and those

who do not. In this case, the family's level of affluence was not a significant predictor.

Infield (1988), similarly, found that the perceived benefit to the household of a

conservation area (usually in terms of employment) was a strong predictor of support for

the conservation area in Natal, South Africa. Level of affluence was not a good predictor

of support for the conservation area (Infield 1988). Hill (1998) reported that those

respondents in Uganda who did not consider elephants to be dangerous were more likely

to express positive attitudes towards their conservation.

Heinen (1993) found that of those expressing favorable attitudes toward the Kosi

Tappu Wildlife Reserve in Nepal, 62% said that permission to collect thatch within the

reserve was the main reason. Most (65%) of the respondents disliked the reserve.

Support for conservation was again tempered by subsistence reality in Equador

(Fiallo and Jacobson 1995). While almost every respondent agreed with the statement,

"it is important to protect the forest for our children", most also thought that park land

should be used for agriculture and gathering firewood. Perceived benefit from the park

was indicated as a significant predictor of a positive attitude towards the protected area.


A study of the NEP in Istanbul again revealed a relatively low level of knowledge

regarding environmental problems, though at least some degree of environmental

concern was noted (Furman 1998). Despite this, knowledge correlated positively with

environmental concern. The author explicitly mentioned that some of the scale items

were reworded to apply to a developing nation.

Roth and Perez (1989) found that 12th grade students in the Dominican Republic

who had received no exposure to environmental education averaged a score of 55% on an

attitude scale. Poverty and deforestation were ranked as the most critical environmental

problems, indicating again a potential relationship between environmental concern and

subsistence needs. Kahn et al. (1996) surveyed 13 year olds in Brazil and found that

concern for the environment was prevalent in both urban and rural environments. They

speculated that the children had yet to be hardened by subsistence reality. For example,

most of the children in the rural sample considered logging to be morally wrong, yet

many village members evidently derived their livelihoods from logging. The authors

wondered at what age positive attitudes about the environment would be tempered by the

need to survive. It can be inferred from Roth and Perez (1989) that by the time

Dominican students reach the 12th grade, they have come to that realization. Of

particular note here is the observation that positive attitudes toward the environment are

not necessarily shifted as people transition from adolescence to adulthood. Studies

presented above tend to show relatively strong verbal commitment from adults in

developing countries. That verbal commitment may not be a strong predictor of overt

behavior has been suggested and observed in other venues as well, and it is reasonable to


suggest that subsistence realities would further decrease the efficacy of verbal

commitment as a predictor of behavior.

Also, if attitudes about forests are multidimensional and mutually exclusive,

utilitarian attitudes could increase as moralistic, humanistic, and naturalist are held

constant. The multidimensional feature would provide a plasticity to attitudes about

forests allowing modifications to the overall attitude profile without disrupting

previously identified values or, as a result, forcing re-evaluation of previous attitudes.

Factors that Influence Environmental Attitudes

Attitude studies have identified a constellation of different factors that could be

involved in expression of environmental attitudes (Objective 2). As Fiallo and Jacobson

(1995) summarize from six international studies, there are a number of factors that

consistently show significant correlation with attitudes toward conservation, even when

measured on different continents: level of education, level of affluence, and the people's

perceived benefits associated with conservation. However, there are also cases where

even these factors had no effect on conservation attitudes (Heinen 1993, Parry and

Campbell 1992). Other factors that have been implicated include age, knowledge,

perceived problems with wildlife, land shortage, and residence length (Fiallo and Jacobson

1995). Some demographic variables have been shown to significantly contribute to

attitudes about natural resources in more than one cultural group (Kellert 1993b). Despite

this, there is little consensus of opinion as to what factors are most important in the


development of conservation attitudes. Indeed, ubiquitous factors may not exist. If

culture does influence attitudes about natural resources, factors that influence

conservation attitudes will vary in accordance with localized situations.

Table 2-5 identifies potentially explanatory variables and some of the studies that

have either corroborated or refuted their involvement in the expression of environmental

attitudes. While a majority of studies provide support for a link between level of

education and environmental attitudes, other independent variables are less clear.

Considering urbanization, Blum (1987) found urban respondents to be more concerned

about the environment and suggested this was so due to their romantic notions of nature.

Rural respondents, by contrast, would not develop such notions because they live

"closer" to nature and witness its ambivalence. This was supported by Kellert (1996)

who found higher humanistic and moralistic scores and lower utilitarian and

dominionistic attitudes in the urban sample. Williams and McCrorie (1990), on the other

had found rural children to be significantly more concerned about the environment than

urban children, and suggested that the rural children's experience, knowledge, and

immersion in nature might engender the concern.

Inconsistent results have also been achieved measuring the relationship between

level of knowledge and environmental attitudes. Where there was a relationship (Lyons

and Breakwell 1994, Kellert 1996), it was positive. However, there are also cases where

level of knowledge had no effect. While it hasn't been explicitly stated, the discrepancy

is likely due to how the respondents were sampled, and what type of "knowledge" was

being sampled. For example, the relationship Fiallo and Jacobson (1995) measured was

Table 2-5 Factors Influencing Environmental Attitudes

Influence on Environmental Attitudes

Factor Positive (+) Negative (-) Significant No Effect

Blum (1987)

Borden and Schettino
Van Liere and Dunlap
Furman (1998)

Williams and McCrorie

Blum (1987)
Roth and Perez (1989)

Kellert (1985)

Kellert (1985)
Hill (1998)

Williams and McCrorie
Lyons and Breakwell
Kellert (1985a)

Van Liere (1980)

Kellert (1985)
Kellert (1993a)
Samdahl and Robertson
Fiallo and Jacobson

Lyons and Breakwell
Kellert (1996a)
Harcourt et al. (1996)
Fiallo and Jacobson


Maloney et al. (1975)
Borden and Schettino
Williams and McCrorie

Kellert (1985)
Noe and Snow (1990b)
Heinen (1993)

Van Liere (1980)

Level of Education

Perceived Benefit to

Level of Affluence

Kellert (1993a)
Kellert (1996a)
Infield (1988)
Maloney et al. (1975)
Mordi (1987)
Fiallo and Jacobson
Heinen (1993)
Pennington (1983)

Infield (1988)
Fiallo and Jacobson
Parry and Campbell
Ite (1996)

Infield (1988)
Newmarket al. (1993)

Parry and Campbell

Heinen (1993)

Parry and Campbell

Newmarket al. (1993)

Household Modernity Infield (1988)






Social Class



between knowledge of conservation issues and management plans and local residents'

attitudes towards the Machalilla National Park, Equador. In this case, the type of

knowledge sampled directly related to a specific conservation issue: the park. Borden

and Schettino (1979), in contrast, measured "environmental knowledge" and regressed it

with "environmental feelings." The concepts measured were more general and difficult

to specify. Many concepts could be considered under the aegis of "environmental

knowledge," some of which might directly relate to "environmental feelings," but others

might not.

Respondent age as a predictor of environmental attitudes has yielded inconsistent

results. In general, the direction of the relationship in the literature depended on the

parameters of the sampling frame. For example, Van Liere and Dunlap (1981) indicated

that there was a strong negative relationship, i.e. the older the respondent the less

concerned he/she is with environmental problems. The sampling frame was all age

groups from young adults to the elderly. As people grow older, it was interpreted, they

care less about the environment and more about their local concerns. For studies whose

sampling frame was more restricted (e.g., Kellert 1985), however, there was a positive

relationship between age and moralistic, humanistic, and naturalistic attitudes about

animals. Kellert (1985) sampled four age groups between first grade and high school. It

should be noted that at this age, respondents are increasing their level of education

parallel to their increased age. As a result, the relationship between age and

environmental attitudes might be spurious.


Cross-Cultural Comparisons

Identical measurement methodology is paramount in making justifiable

comparisons between different regional groups or populations in different countries

(Blum 1987). The NEP scale provides one version of that methodological consistency.

Schultz and Zelozny (1998) focused on "altruism" with the NEP in Mexico, Nicaragua,

Peru, Spain, and the United States. The authors concluded that values (attitudes) are

important predictors of pro-environmental behavior.

Kellert (1993b) compared attitudes about animals between people in the United

States, Japan, and Germany. However, the author warned against generalizing from the

findings and that statistical analyses of significance were not appropriate because the

independent studies differed slightly in methodology and the German sample was not

randomly selected. Despite this, there were striking differences between the samples that

are of note. First, the standardized mean moralistic score for the German sample was

more than two times greater than the American sample, which was higher than the

Japanese sample (Kellert 1993b). A similar circumstance was noted for the

dominionistic values, where the Japanese sample was over two times greater than the

American sample, which was larger than the German sample. The German sample

scored lower on negativistic and utilitarian scores, but higher on the naturalistic score,

than American or Japanese samples, whose scores were similar. In general, American

respondents were more knowledgeable than Japanese respondents about basic biological

concepts. Japanese respondents were conspicuously less opposed to hunting than

Americans, regardless of the reasoning. Eighty-five percent of the German sample,


however, opposed hunting under all circumstances, higher than the American sample. In

summary, the Japanese sample displayed a fairly consistent dominionistic attitude

generally lacking in concern for the well-being of wildlife. The German cohort,

however, displayed a high degree of concern for the well-being of wildlife, even

extending moral standing to non-human animals at the expense of practical human


Kahn et al. (1996) report a preliminary tool for understanding how children from

unrelated cultural and physical backgrounds value nature. The authors combined data

from rural and urban cohorts in Brazil with the results of a study of inner-city black youth

in Houston, Texas (Kahn and Friedman 1995). Results were discussed in terms of

foundational ethical reasoning, which provides an addition to Kellert's values. There were

few significant differences between the two groups but rather striking similarities. For

example, both groups primarily used homocentric reasoning (74% in Houston, 78% in

Brazil) to defend their statements that polluting the river or bayou was wrong. Polluting

the bayou in Houston was considered unacceptable under any circumstance; polluting the

river in Brazil was also considered unacceptable under any circumstance. Even more

striking was the similar wording of responses to the questions. For example,

Because the river was not made to have trash thrown in it, because the river belongs to nature.
(Brazilian Child)
Because water is what nature made; nature didn't make water to be purple and stuff like that, just
one color. When you're dealing with what nature made, you need not destroy it. (Houston Child)

Even if the animals are not human beings, for them they are the same as we are, they think like we
do. (Brazilian Child)
Fish don't have the same things we have. But they do the same things. They don't have noses, but
they have scales to breathe, and they have mouths. And they have eyes like we have eyes.
(Houston Child) (Kahn et al. 1996, p.985)


As the authors suggest, there may be some factors operating in the development of our

relationship with nature that transcend regional influence.

Blum (1987) coalesced five previous studies of ninth- and tenth-grade students in

the United States, Australia, England, and Israel into one report. In general, Israeli

students held stronger environmental beliefs than those in the other countries.

Knowledge of facts and concepts was highly correlated to local situations, as might be

expected. For example, students in Israel, which has no fossil fuel resources of its own,

were more aware than respondents in other countries that natural resources are unevenly

distributed over different countries.


A few important conclusions can be drawn that relate specifically to this project.

First, the literature suggests that environmental support is high in the United States

among the general public of various ages. A similar sympathy seems to exist

internationally, although participants in developing nations are moderated by subsistence

considerations, which tend to force a contradiction between what the respondents are

saying and what they can realistically do. Conservation initiatives in these countries

must address local subsistence issues simultaneously for program support to survive.

Kahn et al. (1996) suggest that studies with children older than 13 might reveal at

what point children in the Amazon recognize their relationship with the local natural

environment. The difference between attitudes about forests between 12 to 13-year-olds

and 16 to 17-year-olds might shed light on this subject. Similarly, Kellert (1985)


suggests that environmental education programs should be tailored to different age

groups, because his study revealed age-related differences in attitudes about animals in

the United States. These age-related difference may or may not exist in Peru or other


Knowing the attitude of the target audience greatly informs the process of

developing suitable educational materials. Blum (1987) recognized that his report

characterized developed nations, and suggests that a comparison between a developed

nation and a developing nation would be useful. From this perspective, the analysis

provided by Ham and Castillo (1990) is also useful. They documented the infrastructure

problems hindering the exportation of U.S. environmental education models to rural

Honduras. What they did not address, but implicitly suggested, was that the attitudes and

perceptions of the students might be different as well, which would affect the potential

success of the programs. This is equally true in a study comparing Floridians and

Peruvians considering living conditions between the two regions are so different.


I have to say that all people should take care of our ecosystems because they benefit everyone.
Peruvian 13-year-old female

Well, I feel forests are very important in many ways, they are also pretty but I feel it's not a place
you could hang out in because they are dangerous in many ways.
Floridian 13-year-old female

This study was based on two inherently different samples of young adults in the

Peruvian Amazon and North-Central Florida. Environmental and cultural differences

create two quite distinct study milieus. This chapter outlines the two study sites and

describes the sampling methods used. As there are differences in the sampling methods,

each study population will be separately described.

North-Central Florida

The survey in Florida was conducted from late September 1999 to early December

1999, except for one school that was not visited until late February 2000 for logistical

reasons. The study was limited to Alachua and Suwannee counties. Both urban and rural

youth were included in the survey, with the urban/sub-urban sample representing schools

in the city of Gainesville, Florida (Figure 3-1). The two rural locations were Newberry

and Branford, Florida. Newberry is located in Alachua County approximately 15 miles

from Gainesville. Branford is in Suwannee County, approximately 45-50 miles from


Figure 3-1 Map of North Central Florida Highlighting the Cities of Gainesville,
Newberry, and Branford. Map modified from Bell, C.R., Taylor, B.J., 1982. Florida
Wildflowers and Roadside Plants. Laurel Hill Press: Chapel Hill, NC.


Gainesville along the Suwannee River. Although Gainesville is a metropolitan area, it is

very different from a true urban center. As a result, this study compares young adults in a

small city to those in the surrounding rural area.

To investigate potential age-related differences in forest attitudes, two age groups

were sampled: 12 to 13-year-olds and 16 to 17-year-olds. In the Floridian academic

system, this translated to middle school 7th graders and high school 11th graders.

The Administrative Permission Process

The administrative permission process played prominently in the overall inferential

power of the sample. In Alachua County, the permission process was a hierarchy

beginning at the School Board of Alachua County. After the school board agreed to the

study, the principal (or assistant principal) at each school signed off. The principals'

decisions whether or not to allow the survey was primarily determined by teacher interest.

When an teacher expressed interest, the principal investigator was instructed to contact

the teacher directly. In Gainesville, three schools refused to participate in the study. At

the first, the decision was made unilaterally by the assistant principal for curriculum

without consulting teachers, which did not give the teachers the opportunity to express

interest. At the other two schools, there were no interested teachers.

Outside of Alachua County, the permission process was more relaxed. At the

Branford K-12 school, the principal was the primary contact. The teachers still had to

agree to the class disruption. The classes of only two of the three interested teachers

were visited for logistical reasons, though each grade level was represented.

Randomizing the Sample

Participants in the sample naturally cluster in classrooms, and the original sampling

design was a stratified random sample that utilized the classroom as a cluster of individual

participants. Unfortunately, the Florida sample was determined primarily by teacher

interest. As a result, there was not a sampling frame from which to choose students (or

classes) randomly. The Florida sample can not be considered random, and the inferential

power of the statistical results should be lessened accordingly. However, the principal

investigator had no say in who was actually chosen to participate, so there was no

experimenter-based selection bias in the sample. Further, the results of the experimental

survey are similar to the results of the pilot tests in Florida, providing some degree of


The Contact Situations

The principal investigator administered the survey to each class and informed the

participants of their rights. As such, the potential for experimenter bias was high. That is,

there was concern that the students might form initial impressions of how the principal

investigator might answer the survey (or want them to answer the survey), and then

answer the questions based on the impression. This was a point of extreme concern.

Experimenter bias was dealt with qualitatively in Peru and Florida and quantitatively in

Florida. The quantitative measurement of the effect of experimenter bias is described in

Chapter 6.


To reduce experimenter bias (or at least keep it constant), the principal

investigator chose attire that would not directly support any position, but would rather be

relatively neutral. The same attire was worm for each school visit. The experimenter

appearance was one that did not contribute any explicit cues to a position on the forest

attitudes that were being measured. However, it is impossible to eliminate the implicit

assumptions that might be made regardless of attire.

The brief introduction to each classroom was consistent as possible. Participants

in each class had been given parental permission forms by the teacher, and only those who

returned signed forms were allowed to participate in the actual survey. The principal

investigator visited each classroom once to deliver the survey. Response rate from the

parental permission form was 80%. The students were informed that there were no right

or wrong answers to the survey, it was not a test, they did not have to answer any

question they did not want to answer, and they could stop taking the survey at any point

without any penalty. Also, the students were told to omit their names to ensure


The survey took between 8 and 20 minutes to complete. The older students

averaged 10 minutes to complete the survey, while the younger students completed in 12-

13 minutes.

Iquitos, Peru

The Peruvian section of this study was completed in nine weeks: from June 13,

1999 to August 14, 1999. All components of the study, which included pilot tests,


coordination, and sampling, were completed in this time frame. Sampling in such a short

period of time required organization and flexibility on the part of school administrators

and teachers in Iquitos. The written survey format was inappropriate for the rural sample

because of literacy constraints. As a result, no direct comparison could be made between

the urban and rural samples based on the survey methodology. However, an interview

methodology, described in Appendix A, was substituted for the written survey.

Iquitos is located in Northeast Peru (Figure 3-2). It is the largest city in the Loreto

province, which is the largest province in the country. Iquitos is very much a frontier

town in the sense that it is relatively isolated from the rest of the country. There are no

roads connecting Iquitos to any other large city, and the only ways to reach the city are by

plane, boat, or foot. It would be fair to classify Iquitos as an island surrounded by a sea of

humid tropical forest. The only exposure that the young adults in the city would have to

other forest types would be through travel, classroom materials, and television, which are

primarily restricted to the more wealthy. Iquitos has a remarkable history, including its

major development during the South American rubber boom. Much of the city's

architecture is vestigial to that time period.

Identifying the Sampling Frame

The target populations for the survey were school children of two distinct grade

levels that approximated the 7th and 11th grades in the school system of the United States,

which represented 12 to 13-year-old and 16 to 17-year-old students. Only school children

who lived in the city of Iquitos were included in the sampling frame. All schools servicing






- ,-


- -

Figure 3-2 Map Of Peru Highlighting the City of Iquitos. This map was modified from


children from the city of Iquitos were included in the frame. The two main school types in

Peru are primary and secondary. Primary school contains six grade levels, beginning

roughly at age 6 and continuing through age 11; secondary schools contain five grade

levels (lst-5th grades) and begin roughly at age 12 and extend through age 16-17. To be

equivalent to the Florida Study, 2nd graders and 5th graders in secondary school were

chosen as the sample age groups.

A list of schools in the city of Iquitos and in villages along riverways near the city

was obtained from the Ministry of Education in Iquitos. The city of Iquitos is divided into

districts, the two largest of which are Iquitos proper and Punchana. The sampling frame

was restricted to Iquitos proper due to time limitations of the study. Fourteen schools

were identified from the school list to represent the sampling frame for the study (Table 3-

1). The estimated total number of students in the sample population was 6885 (3944 12

to 13-year-olds; 2941 16 to 17-year-olds).

School students were chosen for sampling due to their ease of accessibility. This

excludes any young adults who did not matriculate during the academic year in which the

study was conducted. There is some indication by an unpublished study from UNICEF

that the rate of matriculation may be as low as 50% in Iquitos. The UNICEF study

engaged matriculated students in the project by giving each school child a one-page survey

form/information sheet and instructing her/him, if possible, to identify someone in their

neighborhood who was about their age but not matriculated during this academic year.

All non-matriculated students encountered were asked to complete the one-page survey.

The survey asked whether the student had ever been enrolled in school and, if so, why

Table 3-1 A List of the Sampling Frame of 14 Secondary Schools in Iquitos, Peru

School School Abbreviation Second Grade 5th Grade
# of # of total avg.# # of # of total avg. #
morning afternoon students/ morning afternoon students/
classes classes class classes classes class

Republica de Venezuela

A.D. Venir*

Colegio Loreto

Colegio Nacional de Iquitos

Colegio Corpus Cristi*

Colegio Sagrado Corazon

Colegio de la Fuerza Aerea del Peru (FAP)*

Colegio San Martin de Porres

Colegio MORB

Colegio 61004 (sin nombre)

Colegio Mariscal Andres Avelino Cacares*

Colegio Rosa. A. Donayre

Colegio Plaza 28 de Julio*

Colegio San Augustine*

* Private Schools










COL. 04



COL. 28























































































they were not enrolled during this year. Every student who participated in the study found

another young adult in the community who was not matriculated. It is not uncommon for

students to matriculate one year and not the next because of fluctuations in family income,

and the UNICEF study confirmed that the primary reason for non-matriculation was lack

of family funds. This suggests that the sampling frame might only represent half of the

young adults in Iquitos within the two age groups.

The Administrative Permission Process

In general, the permission process consisted of talking with the director at each

school. The directors were generally receptive to the idea and interested in facilitating.

With director approval, the permission process was completed. During the first visit to

each school, it was possible to coordinate a time to return and conduct the survey and

interviews (Appendix A). Most of the teachers were not informed of the visit.

One of the military schools required additional paperwork from the Ministry of

Education, which was obtained. In this school, the study was conducted during break

periods to not disrupt the classroom lessons.

Randomizing the Sample

The Peruvian sample could be randomized because a distinct sampling frame was

created from which to draw a sample. A stratified random sample design was chosen

because the participants naturally clustered in classes. The director at each school

provided the number of classes per grade taught during the day and the approximate


number of students per class. From this number, it was determined that a sampling design

with one class per school per grade would generate a sufficient sample size of an estimated

800 students. A random numbers table was used to select the individual classes that

would be visited in each school. In the schools with both morning and afternoon sessions,

the randomization process included all the classes in the random selection. Some schools

were visited in the morning session and others were visited in the afternoon session

depending on what class number was selected. Again, this required a high degree of

flexibility on the part of the school directors who, in all cases, understood the

randomization procedures and were open to either morning or afternoon sampling.

Randomization was facilitated by the lack of teacher involvement and the flexibility

of the school directors, who provided the carte blanche to enter their school at whatever

time the research dictated.

The Contact Situations

While the first contact situation of the study was conducted in Peru, the plan of

introduction had been formulated during the survey pilot testing in Florida. The

wardrobe for all contact situations was determined in Peru with the first contact situation.

The school visits progressed similarly to what is described above. However, there are a

few potentially important notes from the contact situations.

The survey took the Peruvian participants longer than the Floridians: an average of

16 minutes for the older students and 22 minutes for the younger students. Unfamiliarity

with survey taking and a propensity for discussion during the survey process may have led


to increased times. Despite this, there were students who finished in under 8 minutes,

which paralleled the fastest students in Florida. It was difficult to keep the participants in

the public schools from speaking to one another during the surveying and, even though it

was stressed that there were no right or wrong answers, the desire to be socially consistent

led a number of students to work together on the survey. There were occasionally surveys

handed in by two participants who had been working together that were identical in

responses. As the unit of analysis in this study was the individual participant, these

surveys were marked and eliminated from analysis. The number of surveys eliminated

because of discussion between participants varied between schools. Forty-two surveys

were eliminated, representing approximately 5% of the sample.


Here the people of Iquitos are rich in glory and we have a diversity of plants that we don't know
how to care for and, like the irresponsible people that we are, we allow foreigners to come to our
city and enter our forests to study and take back with them an enormous quantity of the diverse
species of plants that exist in our forest.
Peruvian 17-year-old female

I love forests and hope to visit all of the tropical rainforests of the world.
Floridian 12-year-old female

The primary methodological tool of the study was a written survey instrument

developed by the principal investigator. This chapter deals with the measurement tool and

the methods used to strengthen the validity of the survey instrument in both the English

and Spanish versions. Reliability and validity are the two most important characteristics to

consider in the development of any survey (Kosecoff and Fink 1982). An instrument is

reliable if it provides consistent measurements, and it is valid if it yields accurate

information (Kosecoff and Fink 1982). The final English and Spanish survey instruments

are Appendix C and D, respectively. Data entry and coding are presented at the end of the


All components of the written survey were influenced by an exploratory study to

identify the range of forest perceptions of North-Central Floridians (Monroe et al. 1998).

Semi-structured interviews surrounding a simple pile sort of "forest" photographs


provided the participants the freedom to elaborate and identify the scope of their beliefs

about forests. The goal of the exploratory study was to identify areas of interest for

further systematic study. The exploratory study qualitatively suggested a multidimensional

structure of forest attitudes.

Developing the Attitude Statements for the Survey Instrument

Individual attitude statements about forests were developed that fit within Kellert's

seven attitude categories: utilitarian, dominionistic, negativistic, scientific, naturalistic,

humanistic, and moralistic (Table 1-1). Some of the questions were modifications of

previous attitude surveys provided by Stephen Kellert, Susan Jacobson, Jim Armstrong,

Taylor Stein, and the NEP scale. Other questions were unique to this survey. Of all

statements developed, sixty were considered adequate identifiers of the forest attitude


Content Validity

Content validity is concerned with whether a measurement tool actually measures

what it is supposed to measure (Bernard 1995). To ensure content validity, the questions

developed for the attitude scales were grouped by attitude category and sent to experts

outside the University of Florida for validation.

Two experts were selected for content validity. One was an anthropologist in the

Peruvian Amazon and the other was a researcher who studies attitude validation processes

(Armstrong and Hutchins 1996). Both investigators were asked whether a question would


measure the concept with which it was associated. Neither had seen a copy of the

instrument or the questions prior to receiving the content validity form.

For each statement, the content validators were asked to mark if the statement fell

within the selected attitude domain. Only those questions that were considered by both

reviewers to fit within an attitude domain were kept, all others were eliminated. This

reduced the attitude statement pool from 60 to 55, which represented almost eight

questions per attitude domain. For the purposes of pilot testing the survey, four questions

per attitude category were selected to create the forest attitude section of the survey. The

decision about which questions to put in the pilot tests was made based on comments from

the two experts.

Response Bias

Some of the attitude questions were reversed in direction to ensure that

participants were actually reading the survey rather than simply marking without

consideration. For example, the statement "I like trees" could also be measured with the

statement "I do not like trees," though the polarity would be reversed. The direction of

each individual statement was randomly determined.

Developing the Other Components of the Survey Instrument

Forest attitudes were not the only area of interest on the survey instrument. As

mentioned in Chapter 2, a number of attitude studies dealing with the broad range of

topics under the aegis of the environment have attempted to isolate the most important


explanatory variables for environmental attitudes. Other components of the survey were

developed to measure previously identified variables that have been shown to influence

attitudes (e.g., level of knowledge, gender, grade level/age) and others relating specifically

to forests. In all cases, the order of the statements within each question was randomized

using a random numbers table to prevent subconscious experimenter bias.

Forest Benefits

This section was created for two reasons: to provide a measure of internal

reliability and to explore the perceived benefits of local versus tropical forests in the

Floridian sample. As the importance of the forest benefit increases, so should the attitude

most closely associated with the benefit. This provides a degree of internal stability to the

survey. That is, the attitude domains would be triangulated by a measure that should

represent the attitudes in the expressive "action" of associating with attitude-relevant

forest benefits.

The forest benefit section was also created to compare the importance of Florida

forests to tropical rainforests in the Floridian sample. There has been an increasing

emphasis in the popular media and educational units about the importance of the tropical

rainforests. The initial exploratory study indicated that there might be a distinction

between the importance local, natural forests and tropical rainforests in the minds of the

young adults, with tropical rainforests being held in greater esteem.

The forest benefit section consisted of six questions, each of which could be

associated with an attitude domains (please see Chapter 6). The question asked how


important each of the forest benefits were to the participant and were measured on a 5-

point Likert-type scale anchored by "not at all" and "very much."

Perceived Forest Renewability

A measure of perceived forest renewability was important yet problematic to

develop. A relationship might exist between the perceived renewability of an object and

the attitudes towards its use. Measuring perceived forest renewability began as a modified

semantic differential scale, with "non-renewable" and "very renewable" as the anchors and

seven blank-line answer choices in between. This format was misunderstood by many

pilot test participants. As the numeric format was understood, the seven blank spaces

were replaced with a 7-point scale, though only the two anchors were given titles.

The participants were asked to rate the renewability of four items: trees, tropical

rainforests, local natural forests (Florida and Peru specific), and pine plantations. The

placement of each item in the question was randomly determined.

Forest Knowledge

Items measuring knowledge about forests were included because knowledge is one

component of attitudes. However, this measure is perhaps the most contentious. Unlike

attitude studies of specific national parks (e.g., Fiallo and Jacobson 1995) in which the

knowledge measured was site specific, measuring knowledge of "forests" by nature is

more general. The more general the measurement object, the more difficult it is to claim


validity of measurement using a small number of items combined into a single-measure


This scale was developed using nine questions with three response categories: true,

false, don't know. The "don't know" option gave the participants a way to avoid random


The nine questions broadly reflect forest ecosystem knowledge: ecosystem

process, anatomical specifics, and photosynthesis. These questions were content validated

with professors and graduate students in the School of Forest Resources and

Conservation. One method of increasing the knowledge scale validity is to run

confirmatory analysis on the scale. It would be expected that knowledge increases with

age; if knowledge scores are significantly higher in the older age group than the younger

group, then there is some evidence for an adequate knowledge measure (please see

Chapter 5).

Environmental Behaviors

Attitudes and behaviors are thought to be linked. This section was included to

relate the forest attitudes to behavioral variables such as: "How often do you speak to

your family and friends about the environment?" Five other modest behaviors that vary in

their likelihood and might be related to one or more of the attitude domains were included.

The behavior questions were measured on a 4-point scale: never, rarely,

sometimes, often.

Forest Characteristics

A section on forest characteristics was included to address the first study objective

of what is connoted by the term "forest." This section consisted of 13 characteristics

generated from the results of the exploratory study. The linkage between the

characteristic and a "forest" was measured on a 5-point scale anchored with "not at all"

and "very much." The interviews presented in Appendix A complement this survey



The demographics reported in the literature to affect environmental attitudes

include gender, age, and ethnicity. These three variables were measured in the Florida

sample; ethnicity was omitted from the Peruvian survey because pilot testing suggested

that the responses lacked validity. Additional variables were included to explore the

determinants of forest attitudes. The self-reported time that the participant spent in a

forest was measured on a 6-point scale: never, a few times per year, a few times per

month, 1-2 times/wk, 3-5 times/wk, everyday. The Floridian participants were asked if

they had been to a tropical rainforest and where. Only those who answered "yes" and

correctly identified a tropical forest were coded as affirmative. In Peru, students were

asked if they felt ecotourism had been a good thing for the area of Iquitos, with a "don't

know" response category for those who were unsure or ambivalent.


Pilot Testing the Survey in Florida

The pilot test process increased the validity of the survey instrument. This section

describes the pilot test process and goals but omits the actual pilot test results. The final

survey was improved from the results of the pilot tests. Several methods were used to

pilot test the survey: a first exploration with college students, classroom group

discussions, and personal interviews. There were two classroom pilot tests conducted in

Florida, with modifications made to the overall survey after each pilot test. In addition to

the group pilot tests, in-depth interviews were conducted with four students in the target

age groups.

First Evaluation

Twenty-nine college students and adults volunteered to take the survey, provide

initial feedback about the survey items, and help determine if the attitude items identified

different attitude domains. This test cannot be considered a pilot test because it was not

conducted with members of the target population. Because there was uncertainty about

how people would react to the specific questions and statements, the focus of this

evaluation was on interpretation rather than understanding. The purpose was to present

the survey to people older than the target age so the issue of survey understanding would

not be in question, which would allow the exploration of reactance to the survey, and to

elicit responses about the manner in which questions were presented. The sample was

composed of 16 women and 13 men. The college students were drawn from three

graduate-level classes: Ecotourism Planning and Management, Ecological Economics, and


Field Methods in Tropical Conservation and Development. Each of these classes arguably

attracts more environmentally aware and/or concerned students than the average student

body. The literature reports that college education, whatever the discipline, tends to result

in greater environmental concern (Kellert 1996).

The adults were administered the survey one on one and each had the opportunity

to comment on the survey. Each of these three surveys lasted approximately 1 hour. For

the college students, the survey was administered to individuals in a classroom setting.

The students were asked to comment on the survey by first completing the survey, then

making written suggestions on the survey itself.

Pilot Tests

Two pilot tests were conducted with members of the target audience. One school

in Gainesville, the P.K. Young Developmental Research School, was selected for the pilot

because its affiliation with the University of Florida meant that the administrative

permission process did not require approval at the county level.

The first pilot test was conducted with four 7th grade classes. This test was

designed to be conducted in a manner similar to how the experimental samples would be

treated. The main purpose of the test was to identify problem questions in the survey,

look for areas of poor question understanding and identify the participants' general

impressions. This test was also designed to explore the influence of different

introduction/presentation styles on the students. Several different introductions were


practiced to see which format elicited the most survey-friendly response1. All students

were instructed to circle any words or concepts that they did not understand, a more

reliable technique for identifying problems than group discussion given the probable

influence of peer pressure. Group discussions followed the survey to explore how the

survey was interpreted and elicit the students' general impressions of the survey.

Modifications were made to the survey questions and statements based on the results of

the pilot test. Also, preliminary factor analysis and Chronbach's alpha reliability analysis

were conducted on the attitude statements to determine if the attitude questions created

Kellert's 7-domain typology as predicted. The pilot test suggested that the questions were

being understood, the attitude scales were reasonably consistent (but with domain

overlap), and the method of introduction had little influence on the overall scores. This

version of the survey instrument was translated into Spanish.

The second pilot test was conducted with one 6th grade class and two 11th grade

classes using a survey instrument modified from the previous pilot test. In addition to

testing item wording and interpretation, this test explored the potential differences

between a 3-point response scale and the more traditional 5-point response scale for the

attitude questions. Half of the participants in each grade level completed the survey with a

3-point scale and half answered with a 5-point scale. Post-survey discussions focused on

problematic questions and on their interpretation. Students in the third pilot test were

' With four classes, there were four introduction styles: (1) principal investigator introduced with a
pro-conservation message; (2) principal investigator introduced with a pro-development message;
(3) principal investigator introduced with a no-explicit-cues introduction; (4) teacher introduced
with a no-explicit-cues introduction.


asked to circle any words, phrases, statements, or questions that they did not understand.

General results from this test were that the survey was understood well and that the 5-

point scale was understood by the students equally well as the 3-point scale.

Pilot Test Interviews

Four in-depth interviews were conducted with students in the target age groups:

12, 13, and two 16 year old students. All interviews were conducted between the first

and second pilot tests so the resultant survey modifications could be tested on a larger

sample. The interviews with the two younger students were conducted together for

logistical reasons; the two interviews with the two older students, one female and one

male, were conducted independently. Each interview lasted approximately two hours.

The main focus of the interviews was to have the students describe how they interpreted

each attitude statement, and to pilot test a group of photographs to be used in the

interview methodology (please see Appendix A). The interviews began with the attitude

statements. The students' general impressions were that the attitude statements were easy

to understand. Most questions were interpreted consistently and as had been expected.

Items whose interpretation was problematic were reworded with the help of the


Translating the Survey

Perhaps the largest threat to the statistical appropriateness of the attitude

comparison between Floridians and Peruvians was Translation Validity. That is, are the


attitude statements interpreted in the same way by all participants regardless of language?

This consideration was paramount to the study's validity and, as a result, the process of

translating the survey was treated with substantial care.

Survey translation began during the Florida pilot testing of the survey. The draft

used for translation was the one administered to the first pilot test group. Although this

was not the final English version, both versions were altered as improvements were made.

Using this draft of the survey subjected more question than would eventually be used to

the translation process because it was unclear what questions would be in the final survey.

There were three new questions added between this draft version and the final version of

the survey, and their translation is dealt with below.

A front/back method of translation is typically used to validate the translation. In

this method, the original version is translated to the second language and then back

translated to the original language, yielding two copies in the original language. This

identifies the places where the language nuances compromised the message interpretation.

For this survey, a dual front/back translation methodology was chosen to increase

its accuracy (Figure 4-1). The survey was translated independently by two graduate

students who neither had any other connection with the study nor saw the survey before

translating it. The two graduate students' native language was Spanish. One translator

was from Peru, the other was from Paraguay. To overcome the potential bias of gender,

one translator was male and the other female.

The Spanish versions were then put into a format similar to the original English

version, and the three surveys compared. Interestingly, the key differences between the

\ \ I I

'I 1I
\ I I

Figure 4-1 Model of the Dual Front-Back Translation Process. The final English and
Spanish versions were influenced by all five translations.


two translated versions were primarily stylistic rather than content based, with the

exception of a few vocabulary word choices. The translators commented that capturing

the "essence" of the meaning in the translation was difficult. One translator frequently

offered two translations of the same statement: the literal translation and the translation

that captured the essence of the question or sounded better in Spanish. Both translators

suggested that the word "love" has different meanings to people in the United States and

Latin America, and that questions containing the word "love" may be biased because of

the cultural difference in meaning.

Without modifying either of the two Spanish versions, each version was then back-

translated by two graduate students from the United States, both of whose native language

was English. One back-translator was female and the other was male. The female was

given the translation completed by the male, the male was given the translation completed

by the female.

The two back-translated surveys were then compared to the original survey in

form, content, and meaning. The knowledge, benefits, behavior, and characteristics

questions were fairly straightforward, and the translations yielded similar results. The

attitude questions, because of the issue of specific meaning, were more problematic. The

five versions of the survey, the original, two Spanish translations, and two English back-

translations were then used to critically examine the attitude statements.

Where the two lines of translation resulted in the same back-translation that also

matched the original wording, the Spanish wording of the Peruvian translator was used as

these word choices might more closely match the vocabulary of the target audience.


Three questions were translated by the principal investigator and confirmed with

another Peruvian student. They were added to the survey as a result of the pilot testing

process. The modifications to the Spanish version were informed by the translation

process. The Spanish version also underwent a validating series of pilot tests.

Pilot Testing the Survey in Peru

The Spanish version of the written survey was pilot tested in Iquitos on a small

sample of the target population. From this sampling frame (please see Chapter 3), one

school was chosen to pilot test the survey because there was only one class per grade level

and the number of students in each class was relatively low. Therefore, the pilot test

would not significantly reduce the experimental sample size. This school was also

relatively isolated from the other schools, which avoided biasing the survey by not alerting

other students to the study.

The pilot test was conducted similarly to the actual survey. The standard

introduction was given and the survey administered. Students were asked to circle any

words or phrases that they did not understand. As the students responded to the survey,

they were asked to mention anything they did not understand. The students in both

classes were engaging and open about questions that were confusing. When everyone

finished, the students reviewed the confusing parts of the survey and how they interpreted

the questions, and explained how the questions could be better worded.

This inquiry was further augmented via personal interviews with four students

from each grade level, lasting approximately 20 minutes each. The main purpose of the


interviews was to investigate how the students interpreted the attitude statements.

Because the interviews occurred after the classroom pilot tests, many of the suggestions

from the interviews had been made during the group discussions.

Modifications were made to the survey based on the suggestions made in the focus

groups and the attitude statement interpretations from the personal interviews. The major

change to the survey was to measure Perceived Forest Renewability on a point scale.

There were also a few word choice modifications made to attitude statements.

Final Revisions

A final version of the English survey was created from the Florida pilot test

process and modified with improvements from the Spanish pilot test. The English and

Spanish versions of the survey are Appendices C and D, respectively. Table 4-1 shows the

number of questions in the final survey instrument. Two attitude statements in the English

version dealt with fire and were Florida-specific. The demographics sections differed

between English and Spanish versions, though the number of questions was the same. The

final question in the survey was an open-ended opportunity for the participants to write

anything else they wanted to add about their feelings about forests.

Data Entry, Coding, and Analysis

All surveys were entered into a computer spreadsheet in unmodified form and

double-checked to eliminate the possibility of data entry error. The attitude statements

that were reversed in polarity to reduce response bias in the survey were coded to yield


consistent measures for analysis. The attitude statements were structured so that larger

responses represented agreement with the attitude. The data were analyzed primarily

using SPSS software (version 8.0) and Sigma Plot (version 2.0).

Table 4-1 Number of Questions in the Final English and Spanish Surveys.
Survey Version
Section English Spanish
Attitude Statements 33 31

Native forest 6 6
Tropical forest 6 0

Knowledge 9 9

Behavior 6 6

Forest Characteristics 13 13

Demographics 11 11

Total Number of Questions 84 76


I have woods and they are really nice. I would love to go to a forest. FOREST: many different
trees, bigger, many more different animals. WOODS: many different trees, smaller, smaller
variety of animals.
Floridian 13-year-old female

I want to say that forests are very beautiful and that people should take care of them and not
destroy them because trees are the lungs of the earth.
Peruvian 17-year-old male

This chapter outlines the sample demographics and other explanatory variables that

will be used in later analyses. Further, multivariate analytical techniques are presented and

used address the first study objective to explore forest perceptions using the forest

characteristic survey question.

Sample Diversity

The total sample size for the study was 1231, with 58.4% (n=719) in Peru and

41.6% (n=512) in Florida (Table 5-1). In the younger age group, there were more

females than males in the Floridian sample, but equal numbers between genders in the

Peruvian sample. In the older age group, there were slightly more females than males in

the Floridian sample, but more males than females in the Peruvian sample. Overall, there

were more females in the sample than males, and there were more younger students than

older ones.

Non-Attitudinal Variables


There were 630 (51.9%) females and 584 (48.1%) males, with 17 non-responses

(Table 5-1). Significantly more males were in the Peruvian sample; more females were

in the Floridian sample (Table 5-2).

Age Level

The younger grade (x=12.96 years old, SD= 0.8991) comprised 54.3% (n=669) of

the sample; the older grade (x=16.39 years old, SD=0.8805) comprised 45.7% (n=562) of

the sample (Table 5-2). There was no significant difference between the numbers of

younger and older students by region (Table 5-3).

Time Spent in a Forest

Environmental educators assume that experience forms awareness and breaks

down perception barriers, and that awareness forms attitudes that influence preferences

and behaviors. This variable measured how often the participants spent time in a forest,

which is a behavior that may influence attitudes, but that may also be influenced by

attitudes. Figure 5-1 shows the frequency distribution of responses by region. There

seemed to be a distinction between those who spent time in a forest on a weekly basis

and those who did not. The 6 response categories were collapsed to two by combining

"never," "a few times per year," and "a few times per month" to create a "not weekly"

Table 5-1 Basic Demographics for Florida and

12-year-olds Florida



16-year-olds Florida









Florida 12-year-olds:
Peru 12-year-olds:
Total 12-year-olds:

Florida 16-year-olds:
Peru 16-year-olds:
Total 16-year-olds:

Florida Female:
Peru Female:
Total Female:

287 Florida Male:
343 Peru Male:
630 Total Male:

221 Total Florida Sample:
363 Total Peru Sample:
584 Total Samole Size:

Table 5-2 Descriptive Analysis of Sex by Region
female male
n % n %
Region Peru Observed 343 48.6 363 51.4
Expected 366 340

Florida Observed 287 56.5 221 43.5
Expected 264 244
Chi-Squared df p
7.409 1 0.006
a Expected count assumes the null hypothesis and is used to calculate the x2 statistic.

Table 5-3 Descriptive Analysis of Age by Region
12-year-olds 16-year-olds
n % n %
Region Peru Observed 394 54.8 325 45.2
Expected' 391 328

Florida Observed 275 53.7 237 46.3
Expected' 278 234
Chi-Squared df p
0.143 1 0.706
a Expected count assumes the null hypothesis and is used to calculate the X2 statistic.



Peru Samples


category, and combining "1-2 per week," "3-5 times per week," and "daily" to create a

"weekly" category. This produced comparable sample distributions between regions

(Table 5-4), with just over twenty percent of the entire sample saying they spend time in

a forest on at least a weekly basis.

Perceived Forest Renewability

Based on the sample distribution and discussions with participants, the perceived

forest renewability variable was collapsed into three response categories for analysis.

(Figure 5-2). Through discussion with the Peruvian and Floridian students, there was a

clear distinction between "non-renewable" and "very renewable," though collapsing a 7-

point scale into a dichotomous variable did not seem appropriate because a third

grouping, a "somewhat renewable" category, was also elaborated in discussion. The

major distinction between regions is that the majority of Peruvians considered forests to

be very renewable, while Floridians were more moderate (Table 5-5), with 38.6% of the

Florida sample considering forests non-renewable.

Knowledge Score

The knowledge questions were converted to dichotomous responses by combining

the incorrect response category and the "don't know" category, and given the value "0."

The correct responses received a score of "1."

With two response categories, probability suggests that 50% of the correct

answers could be obtained by random guessing. This holds even with a "don't know"



o 20



never few times/month

few times/yr

1-2 times/wk

M Peru



Time Spent in a Forest

Figure 5-1 Self-reported Time Spent in a Forest by Region. In both groups, there is a
distinction between the first three and last three response categories.

Table 5-4 Descriptive Analysis of Self-Reported Time Spent in a Forest by Region
Time Spent in Forest
Weekly Not-Weekly
n % n %
Region Peru Observed 526 73.2 172 23.9
Expected 535 163

Florida Observed 395 77.1 109 21.3
Expected 386 118
Chi-Squared df p
1.485 1 0.223

a Expected count assumes the null hypothesis

and is used to calculate the x2 statistic.

Table 5-5 Descriptive Analysis of Perceived Local Forest Renewability
Perceived Forest Renewability
non- somewhat very
renewable renewable renewable
n % n % n %
Region Peru Observed 77 12.0 185 28.9 378 59.1
Expected' 151 245 245

Florida Observed 189 38.6 247 50.4 54 11.0
Expected' 115 187 187
Chi-Squared df p
284.15 2 <0.001
a Expected count assumes the null hypothesis and is used to calculate the x2 statistic.







0 Florida
Non-renewable 3 5 Very renewable
2 4 6

Perceived Forest Renewability

Figure 5-2 Frequency of Responses to Perceived Renewability of Local Forests. This
distribution was collapsed into a 3-response variable based on this distribution and
discussions with the students. Category 6 and "very renewable" were united; "Non-
renewable" and category 2 were united to balance. Also, there seemed to be
categorization of non-renewable and very renewable. Categories 3, 4, and 5 were united.
Peruvian participants tended to consider their local forests highly renewable, while the
Floridian participants tended to consider their local forests non-renewable to somewhat


category because only those who marked "true"or "false" might be guessing; those who

marked "don't know" were not guessing. As a result, it remains appropriate to collapse

"don't know" with the incorrect response because the participant concedes not knowing,

and the probability of correctly answering the questions remains at 50% in any case of

random guessing. As a result, a dichotomous knowledge score was created with "low

knowledge"= 0-5 correct responses and "high knowledge"= 6-9 correct responses.

It was expected that older students would be more knowledgeable than younger

students (Chapter 4). Confirmatory chi-square analysis showed older students scored

significantly higher than younger students in Florida and Peru (Tables 5-6 and 5-7,


The Floridians tended to answer the knowledge questions more correctly than the

Peruvian participants (Table 5-8, Figure 5-3), which may be an outcome of the inherent

bias in a question that was designed by a North American and may be more knowledge-

relevant to North American students.

In some cases, the Peruvian participants scored higher on individual questions

(Figure 5-4). More Peruvians (48.6%) than Floridians (34.3%) knew that xylem conducts

water from the roots to the leaves of plants. More Peruvians than Floridians knew that

temperate forests were not as biologically diverse as tropical forests (35.1% and 25.6%,

respectively). Considering the recent educational emphasis in the United States on the

biological diversity of the tropical rainforests, this result seems remarkable.

Well over half of the participants in both regions knew that the majority of flowers

contain both male and female parts (59.3% in Florida, 60.2% in Peru), that photosynthesis


uses carbon dioxide and produces oxygen (67.1% in Florida, 60.3% in Peru), and that a

dead tree remains important in an ecosystem (81.5% in Florida, 61.7% in Peru). Over half

of the Florida sample also knew that producers were organisms that converted light

energy into food (53.7%) and that insects do not have 8 legs (68.1%). On the other hand,

fewer than one quarter of the participants knew the major part of the mass of a tree does

not come from the soil (25.1% in Florida, 11.8% in Peru). It is possible that this question

was confusing to and misinterpreted by the Peruvian participants: while 54% of the

Florida sample marked the "don't know" category, 57% of the Peruvian sample marked

the incorrect response.

While the overall knowledge scores were fairly low, certain questions were

answered correctly by a majority of students in both regions. Further, the bell-shaped

distributions and the higher scores in the older population suggest a reasonable knowledge

scale (Figure 5-3).

Talking with Family or Friends about the Environment

Peruvians reported talking more frequently with their family and friends about the

environment than Floridians (Table 5-9). However, the overall pattern for both samples

was consistent, with most (77.2% in Peru, 71.7% in Florida) reporting rarely or

sometimes talking about the environment. Almost one-fifth of the Floridian sample

reported never talking with their family or friends about the environment.

Table 5-6 Descriptive Analysis of Knowledge Score by Age in the Florida Sample.
Knowledge Score
low high
n % n %
Age 12 to 13-year-olds Observed 238 86.5 37 13.5
Expected 192 83

16 to 17-year-olds Observed 119 50.0 118 50.0
Expected 165 72
Chi-Squared df p
79.614 1 <0.001
a Expected count assumes the null hypothesis and is used to calculate the x2 statistic.

Table 5-7 Descriptive Analysis of Knowledge Score by Age in the Peruvian Sample.
Knowledge Score
low high
n % n %
Age 12 to 13-year-olds Observed 366 92.9 28 7.1
Expected' 341 53

16 to 17-year-olds Observed 256 78.8 69 21.2
Expected' 281 44
Chi-Squared df p
30.442 1 <0.001
a Expected count assumes the null hypothesis and is used to calculate the x2 statistic.

Table 5-8 Descriptive Analysis of Knowledge Score by Region.
Knowledge Score
low high
n % n %
Region Peru Observed 622 86.5 97 13.5
Expected' 572 147

Florida Observed 357 69.7 155 30.3
Expected' 407 105
Chi-Squared df p
51.735 1 <0.001
a Expected count assumes the null hypothesis and is used to calculate the x2 statistic.





o 10



0_ F Florida
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of Correct Responses

Figure 5-3 Number of Correct Knowledge Questions By Region. Bell curves resulted
in each region, though the mean of the Floridian sample was statistically higher than the
mean of the Peruvian sample (x[Florida]=4.46; x[Peru]=3.57; t=8.364, df=1129,

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs