THE HUMAN NATURAL WORLD RELATIONSHIP

Research Method

145

Measuring the ecological orientation and nature values of the community located near

Croajingolong National Park can also reveal attitudes or beliefs, which help to form

ecological views and values. Understanding beliefs and attitudes is important because

according to Bagozzi (1992) and Fishbein and Ajzen (1974a), attitude is a predictor of

behaviour. Additionally, changing an attitude requires a change in salient beliefs (Bright et

al., 1993).

The implications for this research lie in the park agency’s ability to understand attitudes and

beliefs towards the national park, so that marketing and communication strategies can be

developed to influence the community’s conservation behaviour.

6.4.1 New Ecological Paradigm Scale

A revised version of the New Environmental Paradigm by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978)

referred to as the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP) was used for this study. The NEP

scale was designed to test ecological orientation. The scale was developed to examine

changing worldviews from the mid 70s Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP), to the New

Environmental Paradigm (NEP) where Dunlap and Van Liere challenged the fundamental

view of the human-environment interaction at that time. The NEP scale has been used to test

the environmental orientation of respondents (Crick-Furman & Prentice, 2000), and to

measure the relationship between people and the rest of nature (La Trobe & Acott, 2000).

While many studies support the view that “a pro ecological orientation should lead to pro

environmental beliefs and attitudes on a range of issues” (p. 428), Gardner and Stern (in

Dunlap et al., 2000) propose caution in expecting a strong relationship to emerge due to the

range of issues that can influence pro environmental behaviours in specific situations.

The scale has been updated and revised and has been used in many environmental studies to

measure human-environment views of volunteers (Schuett & Ostergren, 2003), local

community (Corral-Verdugo & Armendariz, 2000) visitors (Jurowski, Uysal, Williams, &

Noe, 1995; Uysal, Jurowski, Noe, & McDonald, 1994) and in relationship to wildlife (Edgell

Research Method

146

& Nowell, 1989). The Australian Environmental Protection Authority continues to employ

the NEP scale for its analysis of industry and environmentalism (Geno, 2000).

Although the NEP scale was originally designed to examine pro ecological views,

contemporary use of the scale has measured attitudes, beliefs and values (Dunlap et al.,

2000). The most typical use of the scale is to test “whether the underlying anthropocentric or

ecocentric dominated orientation channeled the views of the respondents” (Crick-Furman &

Prentice, 2000, p. 70). The scale does not measure values but rather an underlying ecological

orientation. A criticism of the scale is that it is not grounded in social-psychological theories

of attitude structures (Stern, Dietz & Guagnano, 1995). However, these authors concluded

that the scale does measure generalised beliefs about human-environment interactions, which

are influenced by values and social structure.

NEP Scale Structure

The revised NEP scale shown in Box 4, consisted of 15 statements each with a five point

response category from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Box 4: New Ecological Paradigm Scale

New Ecological Paradigm Scale 1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people that earth can support. 2. Humans have a right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 3. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences. 4. Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable. 5. Humans are severely abusing the environment. 6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. 7. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrialised nations. 8. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. 9. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature. 10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing human kind has been greatly exaggerated. 11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. 13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. 15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.

Research Method

147

The scale was designed to include five dimensions of ecological orientation, with three items

representing each dimension. The dimensions are; the reality of limits to growth (1,6,11),

anti anthropocentrism (2,7,12), referred to as ‘domination’ in this study, the fragility of

nature’s balance (3,8,13), rejection of exemptionalism (4,9,14), and the possibility of an

ecological crisis (5,10,15). Human exemptionalism means “humans unlike other species are

exempt from the constraints of nature” (in Dunlap et al., 2000, p. 432; Dunlap & Catton,

1994). Dunlap and colleagues explain that “the odd numbered items were worded so that

agreement indicated a pro ecological view, and the seven even numbered items so that

disagreement indicated a pro ecological view” (p. 432). A high score will indicate a pro

ecological orientation, while a low score represents an anti ecological orientation (Dunlap et

al., 2000).

The scale is considered to have predictive validity of behavioural intentions and known group

validity (Casey & Scott, 2006; Edgell & Nowell, 1989), which suggests that it also has

criterion validity (Dunlap et al., 2000). The scale does not purport to examine values,

however it has been used extensively in recent times for that purpose. The results of this

study will use this instrument to reveal either a pro ecological or an anti ecological

orientation.

6.4.2 Natural Area Value Scale

While the NEP scale is useful in measuring the broad ecological orientation of the

community, the Natural Area Value Scale (NAVS) can measure an individual’s nature values

by classifying values as intrinsic, instrumental or non-use values (Winter & Lockwood,

2004). According to Winter and Lockwood (2004, p. 12), “From a decision-making point of

view, there is limited value in identifying broad value orientations.” This view is illustrated

in studies which showed that different groups can hold similar broad biocentric views but

express quite different values when examined more closely (Winter & Lockwood, 2004).

In order to capture individual dimensions, the Natural Area Value Scale (NAVS) developed

by Winter and Lockwood (2004) has been used. The scale examines instrumental, intrinsic

Research Method

148

and non-use values. Winter and Lockwood drew on definitions of instrumental value from

the economic literature and intrinsic value from the environmental philosophy literature

(Winter, Lockwood & Morrison, 2003). They used a definition for instrumental value from

O’Neil (in Winter & Lockwood, 2002) who stated, “An object has instrumental value insofar

as it is a means to some other end” (p. 2). Referring to O’Neil’s definition, the NAVS

developers suggest that non-use values are linked to instrumental values, as non-use values

“are a means to some other end”, while an object has intrinsic value if it is an end in itself.”

(Winter & Lockwood, 2002, p. 2). The recently developed NAVS scale has been used to

segment Australian communities (Winter, Lockwood, & Morrison, 2003), campers (Winter,

2005a; 2005b) and community views on forest management systems (Ford, Williams,

Bishop, & Webb, 2005).

The environmental ethics literature reviewed previously considers that environmental values

rely on the consideration of the moral status afforded to nature (Attfield, 2003). Moral status

that is afforded to humans alone is referred to as an anthropocentric view, which is aligned

with instrumental values, while moral status afforded to non-humans explains an ecocentric

view, which is aligned with intrinsic values (Benson, 2000). Individuals with anthropocentric

views consider that nature is important for what it can provide to humans. Ecocentric views,

on the other hand consider that nature has value as an end in itself outside human use

(Benson, 2000). Non-use values consider nature to have value into the future. The

researcher considers that non-use values may align with either intrinsic or instrumental

values. For instance, a person with strong intrinsic values supports non-use due to their

ecocentric views, and a person with instrumental values considers non-use values due to their

anthropocentric views.

The original scale used by Winter and Lockwood consisted of seventeen items, five intrinsic

items, five non-use items, five use items (instrumental) and two recreation items. The study

has used a scaled down version of 15 items. A decision was made to exclude the two

recreational items as the scale was used with a place attachment scale, which encompassed

recreational use in its dimensions. The developers confirmed that dropping the two

Research Method

149

recreational items dropped from the scale would not affect the scales sub scale validity. The

remaining 15 items examined the intrinsic, instrumental and non-use dimensions of nature

value. The scale consists of five reverse coded intrinsic value items (1,2,3,4,5), four use

items which represent instrumental value items (6,7,8,9,10) and five non-use items

(11,12,13,14,15) as shown in Box 5.

Box 5: Natural Area Value Scale

6.4.3 Place Attachment

The place attachment scale used in this study was developed by Williams and colleagues

(Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989; Williams & Patterson, 1995; Williams et al., 1995;

Williams et al., 1992). The scale developers identified 61 place attachment items to choose

from, each with a five-point response category from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Many studies have used six place dependence and six identity items with reliable outcomes.

Versions of William’s scales have been used to study place attachment of winter

backpacker users (Gibbons & Ruddel, 1995), host communities (Jurowski, Uysal &

Natural Area Value Scale 1. The value of nature exists only in the human mind. Without people, nature has no value. 2. The only value that a natural place has is what humans can make from it. 3. Ugliness in nature indicates that an area has no value 4. The value of an ecosystem only depends on what it does for humans. 5. Only humans have intrinsic value – that is, value for their own sake. 6. Forests are valuable because they produce wood products, jobs and income for people. 7. To say that natural areas have value just for themselves is a nice idea but we just cannot afford to think

that way the welfare of people has to come first. 8. All plants and animal’s lives are precious and worth preserving but human needs are more important

than all other beings. 9. Our children will be better off if we spend money on industry rather than on the natural environment. 10. It is better to test new drugs on animals than on humans. 11. I’m seeing natural areas the next generation [of children] may not see, and that concerns me. 12. I need to know that untouched, natural places exist. 13. Natural areas are valuable to keep for future generations of humans 14. We have to protect the environment for humans in the future, even if it means reducing our standard of

living today. 15. Even if I don’t go to natural areas, I can enjoy them by looking at books or seeing films.

Research Method

150

Williams, 1997), rail trail users (Moore & Graefe, 1994), and attitudes of local residents to

resource management (Vorkinn & Riese, 2001).

The two main items identified by Williams (1995) are place dependence and place identity.

Place Dependence is the use of a place for functional activities such as employment or

sport. Place Identity describes a personal link to a place developed through special

childhood or adult memories or as a symbol of heritage. This study has used 17 of the 61

place attachment items to examine place dependence (items 2, 4, 6, 8, 12), place identity

(items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11), lack of attachment (items 10, 13, 14, 15), place commitment (item

17) and community identity (item 16). The items used in this study have been tested by

Williams and colleagues in a range of studies and have shown to be reliable measures. The

17 place attachment scale items used in this study are shown in Box 6.

Box 6: Place Attachment Scale

6.5 RESEARCH DESIGN

A mixed methods research design was used as shown in Figure 18. The research question

and the purpose for the study were defined, following the interactive process outlined by

Place Attachment Scale 1. I feel like CROAJINGOLONG NATIONAL PARK is a part of me. 2. This NATIONAL PARK is the best place for what I like to do. 3. This NATIONAL PARK is very special to me. 4. No other place can compare to this NATIONAL PARK. 5. I identify strongly with this NATIONAL PARK. 6. I get more satisfaction out of visiting this NATIONAL PARK than from visiting any other place. 7. I am very attached to this NATIONAL PARK. 8. Doing what I do in this NATIONAL PARK is more important to me than doing it in any other place 9. Visiting this NATIONAL PARK says a lot about who I am. 10. The things I do at this NATIONAL PARK I would enjoy just as much at another site. 11. This NATIONAL PARK means a lot to me. 12. I wouldn't substitute any other area for doing the types of things I do in this NATIONAL PARK. 13. I feel no commitment to this NATIONAL PARK. 14. The time I spent here could just as easily be spent somewhere else. 15. I do not really feel that I relate at all to this NATIONAL PARK. 16. I identify with the lifestyle and values of the people who live here (or come to) this NATIONAL PARK. 17. I have (or am willing to) invest(ed) my heart and soul into this NATIONAL PARK.

Research Method

151

Figure 18: Research Design

Research Question

Research Purpose

Research Methods

Literature Review

Experience Interviews Pilot Survey

Focus Groups

Data Analysis-SPSS Data Analysis NVivostep 6

step 2

step 1

S

ta ge

1

S ta

ge 3

M ix

ed M

et ho

ds step 3

S ta

ge 2

Semi Structured Interviews

step 5

step 4

Self Administered Survey open and closed items

Research Method

152

Tashakkori & Teddlie (2003). The research design encompassed the literature review, pilot

survey, experience interviews, focus groups and semi structured interviews, the distribution

of a self-administered survey with closed and open-ended questions, and the analysis of the

data.

Research Question

The first part of the research question, “What is the extent of the Human Natural World

Relationship within a community…” is addressed through qualitative and quantitative

methods described in this chapter, which examined the place attachment, environmental

orientation and nature values of the community. To engage the community in the study

snowballing techniques and experience interviews were used, then the data were gathered

through focus groups, semi structured interviews’ and a self administered survey.

The second part of the question “How can this understanding enhance protected area

conservation and management strategies” was addressed through the use of the qualitative

methods. While the literature has clearly identified ways and means of integrating

community views into management policy and decision-making, this research has also

identified a number of key issues about conservation and management, from the

community's perspective, which is discussed in Chapter Seven, Results and Discussion.

Research Purpose

In terms of addressing the research question, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003, p. 186) describe

the interactive process between the purpose of the study and the research question, as a

prerequisite to choosing the research methods. The study has followed Tashakkori and

Teddlie’s design, to incorporate the research purpose and methods, which are determined by

the research question. Tashakkori and Teddlie identified nine research purposes of which

three were relevant to the study as shown in Table 21.

Research Method

153

Table 21: Interactive Research Process Research Question Research Purpose

Research Methods

Have a Personal, Social, Institutional, Organisational Impact Set priorities, Influence change, Improve practice, Change structures

Qualitative research (context-bound, value laden, politically conceptualised as well as quantitative (mixed) research to test hypothesis relating to values idiosyncratic to the context

Understanding People

Qualitative research (holistic, inductive studies of settings, cultures, people) and quantitative (mixed) research that uses multivariate techniques and considers multiple communities

“What is the extent of the Human Natural World Relationship within a community and how can this understanding enhance protected area conservation and management strategies.”

Inform Constituents Enlighten, Public relations, Describe present

Qualitative and Quantitative descriptive research (mixed methods)

Adapted from Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003, p. 186)

The purpose of the study is to allow park management a greater understanding of the local

community who are the main users of the park. This knowledge may help inform policy,

improve practices and influence change in the way parks are managed.

Community place attachment and environmental ethics may inform management of the value

of the park to the community, so that this information can be incorporated into management

decisions. Ultimately, this study explores the relationship between place attachment and

environmental ethics and conservation activism.

Methods

The Literature Review

The literature review has shown that views, values and attachments can assist management

agencies to understand communities. Additionally, the literature has shown that place

attachment can be disrupted, and that views and values are predictors of conservation

behaviour. Given that we know that these values help management agencies, methods

Research Method

154

highlighted in the literature, to measure environmental ethics and place attachment, have

informed the methods used in this study.

Pilot Survey

As suggested by Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003), a pilot version of the hard copy survey and

the identical electronic version were used to test the survey on 30 participants, which

included the general public, university staff and Parks Victoria employees. The pilot

survey tested the structure, terminology and wording, and the time it took to complete, and

the results are discussed in Chapter Seven, Results and Discussion.

Experience Interviews

Informal experience interviews were conducted with 12 key members of the community,

which included park rangers and business and community representatives from Mallacoota,

Cann River and Bemm River. The basis of experience interviews and surveys according to

Zikmund (1984, p. 106) is exploratory for the purpose of “clarifying and formulating”

information rather than “developing conclusive evidence”. As the knowledge of the

national park and the community lies with the local park management and the community,

experience interviews were valuable in sourcing this local knowledge. The researcher

visited the site prior to the study to establish and confirm the recreational sites in the

national park, the most suitable time to conduct the focus groups and the most appropriate

way to distribute the survey. The interviews were informal for the purpose of gaining local

knowledge of the area and gaining contact with the community.

Focus Groups

Following the experience interviews, a snowballing technique was used to engage

participants for the focus groups and the semi-structured interviews. Snowballing was used

to ensure that there was a level of homogeneity within each group, so that the discussion on

views and values could move forward without argument about positions.

Research Method

155

Participants representing community, business and conservation from the areas of

Mallacoota, Cann River, Bemm River, Genoa and Gipsy Point were invited to take part in the

focus groups held in Mallacoota. Due to the large number of residents wishing to participate

in the focus groups, two community group sessions were held, one conservation group and

one business group. The focus groups consisted of sixteen representatives from the

community, ten representatives from conservation and six representatives from business.

According to Zikmund (1984, p. 109) focus groups are popular due to their “unstructured free

flowing interview” style. This style is suitable for topics about how people feel and why they

hold certain views (Bryman, 2004). Focus groups and interviews may also “add good

interpretative validity” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. 308) to the quantitative data.

The focus groups provided insight, depth and richness to the environmental orientation,

nature value and place attachment experiences of the community, which according to Flick

(2002), is a general strength of focus groups. Methodological triangulation was used to add

robustness to the study and “to extend and complete the possibilities of knowledge

production” (Flick 2002, p. 227), from the quantitative data. The focus group questions

explored experiences related to place attachment, environmental orientation and nature value,

as well as views on managing the national park.

Semi Structured Interviews

While preparing for the business focus group, it became clear that the business community

was divided in their views to the extent that some businesses did not attend the focus group.

Subsequently, the business group was conducted with a small number of business owners. A

decision was made to conduct semi-structured interviews with a further six business owners,

to ensure that the range of business views were represented. The businesses that declined the

focus group invitation were contacted and these businesses agreed to be interviewed. The

semi-structured interviews addressed the same questions and followed the same format as the

focus groups. According to Flick (2002, p. 84) semi-structured interviews can “reveal

existing knowledge in a way that it can be expressed in the form of answers and so become

Research Method

156

accessible to interpretation”. They also provide depth to information (Tashakkori & Teddlie,

2003).

Self Administered Survey

A self administered survey that included both qualitative data and quantitative Likert-type

statements was distributed to the major communities surrounding the national park. A

hard copy survey was distributed through the post, and copies made available through a

number of outlets in the towns. Initially, a hard copy and an identical electronic version

of the survey were developed for businesses and for those with email access. After

speaking to the business community, it was determined that many of the small businesses

did not use email and even fewer used email in the local community. The electronic

version was discarded and the survey was distributed by post. A Census style approach

was used to ensure that the whole community had the opportunity to participate in the

study.

The survey measured environment orientation, nature values and place attachment. The

data was explored by a combination of parametric and non-parametric analysis. This

process identified the level of the community’s ecological orientation, nature values and

place attachment. The survey also included participant demographics, locations visited in

the region by the respondents, their activities and conservation behaviour. The purpose of

the open-ended questions in the survey was for methodological triangulation. The

questions were placed at the end of each of the three instruments to allow a range of

views to be expressed. A copy of the survey is in Appendix B.

Data Analysis

The quantitative and qualitative data were analysed. The focus groups were examined, then

the quantitative data, and finally the open ended questions, for methodological triangulation

and to further inform and explain the quantitative findings. The quantitative data was

Research Method

157

examined using a number of statistical techniques in SPSS, which are outlined in Table 22

and the results are discussed in Chapter Seven, Findings and Recommendations.

Table 22: Quantitative Analysis Analysis Method

Purpose Variables Outcome

Descriptive Descriptive Statistics

Population demographics

Age, Gender, Location Profile of survey population

Confirmatory factor analysis, a priori criterion, orthogonal confirmatory rotation and extraction.

Reduce the metric data into dimensions

Place Attachment

Reduced 17 items to 5 factors and explained 76% of the place attachment data

Confirmatory factor analysis, a priori criterion, orthogonal confirmatory rotation and extraction.

Reduce the metric data into dimensions

Nature Value

Reduced 15 items to 4 factors and explained 68% of the nature value data

Data Reduction

Confirmatory factor analysis, a priori criterion, orthogonal confirmatory rotation and extraction.

Reduce the metric data into dimensions

Ecological Orientation

Reduced 15 items to 5 factors and explained 65% of the ecological orientation data

Form groups Cluster Analysis using K means Cluster

Allocate respondents into three groups

Fourteen factors used Three groups formed with memberships of 38, 22, 84

Identify differences

Descriptive of Clusters

Identifies differences between clusters in terms of mean and std dev of factor scores

Fourteen factors used Clusters described in terms of factors

MANOVA

Confirm the relationship between the fourteen factors and their group membership

Three cluster groups and fourteen factors at once

Relationship confirmed between the factors and group membership

Confirm relationships

ANOVA

Independent variable consists of more than two non metric categories; dependant variable is metric

Three cluster groups and fourteen factors individually

Groups identified as different

Crosstabulation using Chi Square Test

Test non metric variables against the three groups at once

Age, gender, postcode, significant sites used, conservation and use activities, attachment sites

More detail provided for groups to build profile

Identify differences

T-test

Test metric variables to explore relationships

Place Attachment Nature Value Ecological Orientation

Confirmatory factor analysis with a priori criterion and using varimax and rotated component

matrix was used to reduce the statements in each scale, environmental ethics, nature value

and place attachment to their respective factors. A total of fourteen factors were found,

Research Method

158

which represented the underlying themes within each scale. The respondents’ were allocated

into three groups through cluster analysis. To identify the differences across the three cluster

groups for the variables regarding attachment, ecological orientation and nature values,

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. T Test’s were used to identify the differences

between two groups at a time, while crosstabs were used to test for differences across the

three groups at once.

Focus Groups and Semi Structured Interviews

The qualitative data collected from the focus groups and the semi-structured interviews and

the open-ended questions in the survey were analysed using the qualitative analysis program

NVivo 7, and the results are discussed in Chapter Seven. Identical questions were used for

the focus groups and interviews and were combined and analysed together. Each of the eight

questions was examined and the collective answers from all the participants were divided into

nodes, which produced a thematic interpretation of the answers. Each question in the series

explored the concepts of place attachment, environmental views and nature values as shown

in Table 23.

Table 23: Focus Group and Interview Questions

FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Question Type Topic Question

1 Introduction Question

Values and views What is the first picture or idea that comes to mind with the words “humans and the natural environment.

2 Transition Question

Attachment Can you think back to a memorable experience you have had in a natural setting? (These can be good or bad experiences)

3 Transition Question

Influences on attachment

In your opinion has your experiences influenced your view towards natural settings?

4 Transition Question

Values and views What behaviours would typify someone with a strong connection to natural settings?

5 Transition Question

Values and views What behaviours would typify someone with a weak connection to natural settings?

6 Key Focus Question

Attachment to national park

How you come to live in this region? Did the national park influence your choice? What does it means to you to live near a national park?

7 Key Focus Question

National park purpose

What would you consider the most important purpose or role of a national park?

8 Key Focus Question

National park changes

With this in mind, what changes would you like to see in [Croajingolong] National Park?

Research Method

159

The questions were designed using one introduction question to introduce the topic to the

participants and four transition questions to move the participants towards three key focus

questions as suggested by Hurworth (1996). The questions were designed for triangulation to

provide descriptive meaning and depth to the topics.

Two persons, the moderator and assistant moderator conducted each focus group, as

suggested by Hurworth (1996). The groups were audio taped and detailed notes taken. The

audio recordings were transcribed and the transcripts entered and analysed in NVivo 7.

Open-Ended Questions

The open-ended questions within the self administered survey related to the place

attachment, environmental orientation and nature values scales as shown in Box 7.

Box 7: Open-Ended Questions.

OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS IN THE SELF ADMINSTERED SURVEY

1

Environmental Worldview

Please explain any other views you have about the natural environment that you consider important.

2

Nature Value

Please explain any other views you have about the value of plants, animals and nature that you consider important.

3

Place Attachment

Please tell us about other places within the park that are of special significance to you and why.

The responses to each of the three questions were examined and coded to represent a

thematic interpretation of responses. The narrative provided by the participants was used

for triangulation purposes to explain and provide meaning to their views, values and place

attachment. The narrative also allowed participants to express views that they considered

were not adequately covered within the confines of the survey. The open-ended questions

were transcribed into a word document prior to analysis in NVivo 7.