Developing Ecological Citizenship The Role of Political
Agents Using Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Model
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
Less than 5% of the North American grasslands, also known as the
North American prairie, remain because of increased agricultural production,
urbanization, and other human activity (National Park Service, 2016; Pieper,
2005; WWF, 2016). The United States protects less than 1% of the
remaining grasslands through the National Park Service (National Park
Service, 2016), which places protection and reconstruction of the ecosystem
primarily on states, organizations, and individuals within in that region
(United Nations Environmental Programme, 2012). The ecological citizen
accepts personal responsibility for the health of the ecosystem and its role
within the global environment through demonstrating proenvironmental
behavior and participating in the political system to ensure a healthy
environment for future generations (Dobson, 2003; Howell, 2013; Wolf,
Brown, & Conway, 2009).
Several studies have focused on individual proenvironmental
behaviors such as bird watching (Cox & Gaston, 2016) and visiting local
parks (Muratet, Pellegrini, Dufour, Arrif, & Chiron, 2015; Shwartz, Turbé,
Simon, & Julliard, 2014), as well as how social constructs (Shapiro et al.,
2016; Soga, Gaston, Yamaura, Kurisu, & Hanaki, 2016) and an innate desire
to connect with nature (Wilson, 2009) aid in the development of
proenvironmental behavior, but none have focused on how ecological
citizenship is developed and how states, organizations, and political systems
influence its development. Understanding how external influences modify
internal behavior will aid in the development of policies and programs that
garner more support from individuals while supporting an increase in
personal awareness and concern for the community’s environment.
In this quantitative study, I will focus on the role of the state, formal
state organization partnerships, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
in the development of ecological citizenship within North Dakota, South
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa. These five states’ borders are fully
within the North American grasslands and represent the last stand to
protecting and rejuvenating this vital global biome. Grasslands, like forests,
are essential to carbon sequestration and are vital participants in the carbon
cycle (Freedman, 2014; Paustian et al., 2016; Smith, 2014). Smith (2014)
argued that public policy and biome management are essential to
maintaining the environmental impact of grasslands on the carbon cycle and
its ability to store carbon. Both Freedman (2014) and Smith (2014) noted
that although strong public policy and managed land use can be effective,
individuals within the region also contribute to the role of the biome within
the carbon cycle. One goal of the ecological citizen is to reduce individual
ecological footprints, which supports the role of the grasslands within the
carbon cycle. The results of the current study promote positive social
change by increasing the body of knowledge regarding the development of
the ecological citizen that will help agencies and organizations create action
plans that will promote individual participation and augment political actions
aimed at improving the health of the grasslands ecosystem.
Improved understanding of the role state legislators and agents, state
organization partnerships, and NGOs have in the development of ecological
citizenship will also help international organizations develop programs that
promote the individual call to collective action. In this chapter, I present a
background of the problem and how I address the gap in understanding of
how ecological citizenship is developed. I also provide a brief overview of
the bioecological model that will frame this study and assist in the
development of the research questions. I then define assumptions,
limitations, and delimitations.
Background of the Study
Contemporary environmental policy is the result of a long, slow social
process that began with environmentally aware individuals such as John
Evelyn, William Bartram, Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, and Rachael
Carson. Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) is often viewed as a driving force
behind the environment’s most recent transition from social issue to national
issue. Global policies, such as the World Heritage Convention (1972),
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (1973), and Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), and
national policies, such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (2016), Clean
Air Act of 1963 (2016), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(2016), create a unified view on environmental need from a political
perspective. This new political perspective drove new global discussions on
citizenship and its role in environmental protection.
Two main perspectives of the environment and citizenship exist. The
first view is a classical liberal view in which citizenship is a byproduct of
being a member of the community (Marshall, 1950), and the second view,
the civic republican view, involves “a commitment to the common good”
(Dobson, 2007, p. 280). Melo-Escrihuela (2008) expanded on these
perspectives to include the role of the individual in environmental
protection. The contemporary division in environmental citizenship
literature and theory follows Melo-Escrihuela’s division in which
individuals either have a personal duty to help the environment through
proenvironmental behavior, or actively participate in protecting the
environment through personal and political processes (Schild, 2016).
Environmental citizenship exemplifies the personal duty perspective and the
emphasis on proenvironmental behavior with a local context (Bell, 2005).
Bell (2005) described the environmental citizen as acting “differently for the
sake of the environment” (p. 180) by recycling, repurposing items, and using
mass transit. However, environmental citizenship goes far beyond personal
behavior and enters the political process as a complex identity subject to
ideological interpretation (Bell, 2005). Dobson (2003) argued that
environmental citizenship is liberal in nature, relies on rules and regulations
to elicit proenvironmental behavior, and exists “exclusively in the public
space” (p. 89), and so another form of citizenship is required to address
environmental need within the political space (Dobson, 2003). This new
form of citizenship is ecological citizenship. Ecological citizenship is a
form of postcosmopolitan citizenship that is “nonreciprocal” and
“nonterritorial” in nature where political space includes the public and
private realm (Dobson, 2003, p. 82). As with environmental citizenship,
ecological citizenship has been subject to challenges because of differing
political interpretations (Hayward, 2006; Isin & Wood, 1999); however,
many studies have demonstrated how ecological citizenship can directly
influence the public and political realm. Like environmental citizenship,
ecological citizenship is not easily conceptualized, but it does have a clear
set of tenets. At its core, ecological citizenship, and individual ecological
citizens “know that today’s acts will have implications for tomorrow’s
people” (Dobson, 2003, p. 106) and “will avail themselves of the
opportunities for collective action with which political systems present
them” (Dobson, 2003, p. 103).
Several scales have been developed to measure various aspects of
ecological citizenship and its components including: Alisat and Riemer’s
(2015) environmental action scale that measures civic engagement, Keiser’s
(2008) general ecological scale that measures proenvironmental behavior,
and Dunlap’s (2000) new ecological paradigm scale that measures
receptiveness to new forms of environmental citizenship. These scales share
the acknowledgement that ecological citizenship involves personal values,
beliefs, lifestyle, and behavior. As with the concept itself, interpretation of
values, beliefs, lifestyle, and behavior can be politically motivated; however,
proenvironmental behavior, as the basis for ecological citizenship, is defined
as an intentional action (Dobson, 2003) that is “environmentally driven”
(Alisat & Riemer, 2015, p. 15). Predicting proenvironmental behavior is
complicated by “ill-defined preferences” (Lee, Hochman, Prince, & Ariely,
2016, p. 2), “personal and social influences” (Carmi, Arnon, & Orion, 2015,
p. 2), and complex networks of social identity (Gifford & Nilsson, 2014).
Wilson (2009) argued that proenvironmental behavior was innate as
individuals are born with a desire to connect to nature, but many studies
have shown that this desire fades by late childhood (e.g., Soga & Gaston,
2016) and is highly influenced by regional and cultural constructs
(Hanspach, Loos, Dorresteijn, Abson, & Fischer, 2016; Shapiro et al., 2016;
Soga et al., 2016). Dresner, Handelman, Braun, and Rollwagen-Bollens
(2015) found that proenvironmental behavior is developed and promoted
through an internal sense of connection to others. This connection to others
can lead to a sense of guilt for not exhibiting the same behavior (Bissing-
Olson, Fielding, & Iyer, 2016), and create a sense of place in the community
(Hausmann, Slotow, Burns, and Di Minin, 2015). Many studies have
focused only on the personal and social constructs of proenvironmental
behavior, which creates a fragmented understanding of both
proenvironmental behavior and ecological citizenship (Islar & Busch, 2016).
Dobson (2010) argued that proenvironmental behavior is a key component to
ecological citizenship, whereas Wright (2015) and Jagers, Martinsson, and
Matti (2014) posited that ecological citizenship is a driver of
proenvironmental behavior. Understanding the circular and symbiotic
relationship between ecological citizenship and proenvironmental behavior
is complicated through the focus on internal motivation for demonstrating
proenvironmental behavior, which largely ignores external influences on
individual behavior.
External influences on individual behavior regarding the promotion of
proenvironmental behavior and the development of ecological citizenship
include public policy and NGO programs. Forrester et al. (2016) and
Lewandowski and Oberhauser (2015) found that opportunities provided by
NGOs increase proenvironmental behavior by providing the social
opportunities needed to foster internal behavioral change. Increasing
environmental education also increases proenvironmental behavior
(Lummis, Morris, Lock, & Odgaard, 2016). Melo-Escrihuela (2015)
expanded external influences to include ideological changes in local
governance by suggesting that ecological citizenship requires the
development of the green state.
A green state is a form of democracy that involves the public in
environmental decisions (Eckersley, 2004). Changes in public policy was
also recommended by Soga and Gaston (2016) to break the “cycle of
disaffection towards nature” (p. 94) that occurs between childhood and
adulthood. Creating more social and public policy to elicit
proenvironmental behavior may have contradictory results, because having
too many environmental policies can lead individuals to believe “that the
government has assumed responsibility for protecting the environment”
(Turaga, Howarth, & Borsuk, 2000, p. 221), thereby restricting the
development of ecological citizenship.
Internal and external influences on individual behavior are not self-
contained spheres of influence, but rather act in a cyclic nature of influence
where individuals influence social change that results in public policy
changes, and changes in public policy create changes in social programs that
then produce changes in individual behavior. For example, Seyfang (2016)
studied how individual demand and willingness to pay influenced
sustainable farming practices, which resulted in an increase in organic food
supply, whereas Kansas offers financial incentives through the Habitat First
and Backyard Wildlife Habitat Improvement programs to elicit
proenvironmental behavior among state residents (Rohweder, 2015). Many
researchers have focused on the internal to external flow of influence, but
few have studied the external to internal flow of influence. Understanding
how political systems influence the development of ecological citizenship
and proenvironmental behavior has been noted by Wright (2015), Islar
(2016), and Scoville (2016) as essential to further understand sustainability.
Problem Statement
Despite decades of research on environmental behavior, it is unknown
how various political actors aid in the development of ecological citizenship.
Ecological citizens “will avail themselves of the opportunities for collective
action with which political systems present them” (Dobson, 2003, p. 103).
State agencies, NGOs, and state organization partnerships provide such
opportunities for collective action through citizen scientist programs, public
program development, environmental education, and environmental
volunteer opportunities. Anderson (2016) reported that 74% of adults
believe the environment should be protected, yet the Corporation for
National and Community Service reported that only 25.3% of Americans
volunteered in 2015. This gap between belief and action reflects the gap in
knowledge of ecological citizenship development. Lummis et al. and
Odgaard (2016), Wright (2015), Islar (2016), Scoville (2016), and Melo-
Escrihuela (2015) examined the development of ecological citizenship from
the individual and political perspective exclusively while concluding that
more knowledge is needed to fully understand how external forces, such as
political systems, influence the development of ecological citizenship.
In this quantitative study, I examined how state legislators and agents,
state organization partners, and NGOs perceive their roles in the
development of ecological citizenship within their states. Filling this gap in
the literature is important because state legislators represent public
environmental interest, state organization partners develop state wildlife
action plans, and NGOs develop environmental programs that provide social
and policy-influencing opportunities to interact with nature and other
environmentally friendly individuals. When these three entities present a
unified external response to an environmental need, individual compliance is
increased; however, when ecological citizenship is increased, the need for a
unified external response is decreased because individuals are accepting a
greater personal responsibility for the local and global environment (Dobson,
2003).
Purpose of the Study
My purpose in this quantitative study was to explore how state
legislators and agents, state organization partnership directors, and NGO
staff and administrators perceive their roles in the development of ecological
citizenship within five states: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and
North Dakota. State legislators and agents, such as the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, create laws, rules, and programs that promote
conservation behavior through a variety of mechanisms including
environmental justice and financial incentives. Many state environmental
laws, rules, and programs, such as the state’s Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP),
are created through partnerships with environmental organizations, such as
Ducks Unlimited and the Sierra Club, that aid in increasing public
knowledge and compliance. Environmental organizations that focus on
direct community conservation development, such as the Iowa Association
of Naturalists and Kansas Association of Conservation Districts, interact
directly with the public to improve environmental knowledge and
awareness, as well as provide social opportunities that encourage
conservation behavior. These three entities, state legislators and agents,
state organization partners, and environmental NGOs, exist and operate
within the most removed sphere of influence over individual development,
the exosystem, but influence individual development through direct and
indirect methods These three entities are also members of the local political
system that influence the development of ecological citizenship and
conservation behavior, but researchers have neglected to fully explore this
source of influence and the development ecological citizenship (Lummis et
al., 2016; Islar, 2016; Melo-Escrihuela, 2015; Scoville, 2016; Wright, 2015).
I selected Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa
for this study because their borders lie solely within the U.S. temperate
grasslands. The temperate grasslands are one of most threatened biomes in
the world because of human activity, and they are also the least protected
global biome (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2016).
Species variation, or biodiversity, in the temperate grasslands is low, but
species saturation, species population, is often high (National Park Service,
2016). The lack of biome protection affects biodiversity within the region.
Loss of biodiversity within a biome and loss of a biome in its entirety
can negatively affect human growth and development through increased
disease transmission (Dantas-Torres, 2015) and negatively affects an
individual’s mental health (Sandifer, Sutton-Grier, & Ward, 2015). Such loss
may also negatively affect an individual’s immune system (von Hertzen et
al., 2015). Ecological citizenship studies often focus on a specific city (e.g.,
Cockett, 2009), specific educational facility (e.g., Wolf & Statham,
2008), and environmental behavior (e.g., Sengupta, Maji, & Sengupta,
2014); however, I found no studies that focused on a specific biome to better
understand how agents within that region can promote the development of
ecological citizenship.
Understanding the development of ecological citizenship will improve
biodiversity within the grasslands through improved NGO opportunities and
political programs. To gain this understanding and fill the gap in
knowledge, I surveyed state legislators and agents, state organization
partnership directors and staff, and NGO leadership and staff to gain an
understanding of the current level of proenvironmental behavior, support for
ecological citizenship, and how the participants perceive their agencies’
roles in developing ecological citizenship within their states.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for the current study was Bronfenbrenner and Ceci’s
(1994) bioecological model, which is an extension of Bronfenbrenner’s
(1977) socialecological model. The social-ecological model consists of four
nested systems that influence human behavior and development (Figure 1).
The microsystem, family and peer groups, is the most influential system and
closest to the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The next nested system,
the mesosystem, is where different microsystems interact and influence the
development of the individual’s microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1977).
Factors that influence the microsystem without directly influencing the
individual, such as industry and media, are found in the exosystem and form
the third nested system (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The last nested system, the
macrosystem, consists of cultural and political constructs (Bronfenbrenner,
1977).
Researchers have debated which system presents the greatest
influence over human behavior and development. Bronfenbrenner (1977)
argued that the microsystem is the most influential subsystem, but Kollmuss
and Agyeman (2002) and Martín-López and Montes (2015) found that the
outer systems, exosystem and macrosystem, also have the ability to greatly
influence individual behavior by modifying the microsystem through policy
(Table 1). The initial model lacks the inclusion of genetic factors and the
direct effect of time on individual development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,
1994).
Table 1
Influential Factors Within the Bioecological Model
Individual
Height
Weight
Physical
attributes
Microsystem
Parents/
family
Teachers
Peer group
Mesosytem Exosystem Macrosyste
m
Microsystem/
micro system
interaction zone
Social services
School district
Health services
Cultural
norms and
values
Personalit
y
Close
neighbors
Extended
family
Gender
Church
Mass media
Organizations/
wo rkplaces
Government
The bioecological model retains the four nested systems but adds a
fifth system, called the chronosystem, which accounts for the effect of time
on human behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). This new theory also includes a
new framework called the process-person-context-time (PPCT) model
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).
Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) introduced three new propositions in the
new model: “Human development takes place through processes of
progressively more complex reciprocal interaction . . . in its immediate
environment” (p. 572), the power of these processes varies depending on
environment, and the “processes serve as a mechanism for actualizing
genetic potential for effective psychological development” (p. 572). The
PPCT model also presents two new hypotheses that expand applicability of
the new bioecological model to a variety of studies. First, Bronfenbrenner
and Ceci (1994) hypothesized the strength of the process, or experience,
would be directly related to the outcome. Dresner et al. (2015) found that
the more volunteers have in common, the more they enjoy the volunteer
experience and are more likely to return for another volunteer experience.
Second, Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) hypothesized that the strength of
the process, or experience, would be directly related to the competency of
the individual. These hypotheses support the addition of the chronosystem
to the new model. Effective behavioral change requires a series of strong,
positive experiences in time. Bronfenbrenner’s original and revised
bioecological model did not envision the technological advances of the past
20 years, but many studies (e.g., Edwards et al., 2017; Lester et al., 2016)
have viewed technology, such as social media and online learning, as
contained in the microsystem and maintaining direct influence over
individual development; however, modern technology is also subject to
external pressure through public policy.
In this study, I explored the roles of state legislators and agents, state
organization partners, and NGOs in the development of ecological
citizenship. I assumed that proenvironmental behavior is required for
ecological citizenship, which creates a multilayered individual who is
concerned about their local community as well as the global community and
future generations (Dobson, 2003). The bioecological model fits the
multilayered nature of the problem by assigning individual components
addressed in the study in different nested systems.
Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) noted that each influential system
should exert the same strength over the individual. In my study, I build on
previous studies on individual proenvironmental behavior that focused on
the inner two systems, individual and microsystem, and my findings help fill
a gap in understanding how ecological citizenship is developed by focusing
on the outer two systems, exosystem and macrosystem, and how agents in
these systems perceive their roles in influencing the inner two systems.
The first proposition in the bioecological model proposes that
development “takes place through processes of progressively more complex
reciprocal interaction . . . on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of
time” (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, p. 620). These processes include “parent-
child and child-child activities, group or solitary play, reading, learning new
skills, studying, athletic activities, and performing complex tasks”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1995, p. 620) and vary in “form, power, content, and
direction” (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, p. 621). Environmental NGOs create and
operate youth programs that introduce young children to nature through
parent-child play groups, youth day camps, and overnight experiences in
local nature centers. As the participants age, the social opportunities expand
to species-specific interaction, inclusion of other hobbies into the outdoors,
and increased physical interaction with nature through hiking and other
outdoor recreation (Riemer, Lynes, & Hickman, 2014). Adults may
participate in citizen scientist programs that assist universities and other
NGOs and agencies collect much needed scientific data on a specific species
or on the general health of an ecosystem (Chandler et al., 2016).
Nongovernmental organizations exist in the exosystem and can significantly
influence the microsystem and individual through program offerings, but
they also influence state agencies and lawmakers through lobbying and other
policyinfluencing efforts. Understanding how NGOs perceive their roles in
ecological citizenship is the first step to understanding how NGOs can use
their influence to aid in the development of ecological citizenship.
As Bronfenbrenner (1995) noted, proximal processes take place
through a variety of forms. One proximal process that can influence the
development of ecological citizenship is environmental education. Because
the United States has compulsory education, the state has a 16-year
relationship with almost all its residents. This relationship provides the
opportunity for reading, studying, and learning new skills (De Leeuw,
Valois, Ajzen, & Schmidt, 2015). Although studies have shown that
education alone cannot sustain proenvironmental behavior or lead to the
development of ecological citizenship (Fujitani, McFall, Randler, &
Arlinghaus, 2016; Prévot, Clayton, & Mathevet,
2016), the macrosystem’s influence can be multiplied through the exosystem
and their hands-on relationships. State legislators also have direct influence
on employers and family groups in the microsystem through rules and
regulations that elicit or influence environmental behavior. Therefore,
understanding how state legislators and agencies perceive their roles in
developing ecological citizenship aids in understanding how the
microsystem and exosystems are affected, and whether the power of
influence is amplified through joint efforts or is reduced through conflicting
perceptions. The bioecological model and its division of influence guided
the development of research questions for this study.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The overarching question in this study was: How can ecological
citizenship be increased within a five-state region in the North American
grasslands? To answer this question, a better understanding of ecological
citizenship and how it is developed is required. Application of the
bioecological model allows the complex relationship between individual
proenvironmental behavior and the development of ecological citizenship to
be viewed as a series of proximal processes between internal and external
systems of influence. Studies have focused on internal influences that lead
to proenvironmental behavior, but few have focused on the external
influence created by political systems. This gap in understanding ecological
citizenship development led me to create the following research questions
and hypotheses that formed the framework of this study:
RQ1: What roles do state legislators and agents perceive that state
governments can play in fostering ecological citizenship among
residents in their states? Ho1: There is no significant relationship
between state legislator and agents’ worldview and willingness to
take action.
Ha1: There is a significant relationship between state legislator
and agents’ worldview and willingness to take action.
RQ2: What roles do state organization partner directors and staff
perceive that their partnerships can play in fostering ecological
citizenship among residents in their states?
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between state
organization partner director and staff’s worldview and
willingness to take action. Ha2: There is a significant
relationship between state organization partner director and
staff’s worldview and willingness to take action.
RQ3: What roles do NGO administrators and staff believe their
organizations can play in fostering ecological citizenship among
residents in their states?
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between NGO director
and staff’s worldview and willingness to take action.
Ha3: There is a significant relationship between NGO director
and staff’s worldview and willingness to take action.
I developed these research questions to directly explore the influence
of indirect agents within the exosystem. These agents act as influencers but
are also influenced through personal experiences as explained by
bioecological model. An individual’s worldview is created through personal
experience, and the NEP scale helps “explain the root causes of
environmental behavior” (Anderson, 2012, p. 261). Each group selected for
this study have varying degrees of proximity to the community. State
legislators and agents are the furthest removed from directly influencing
individual behavior. State organization partners can be close to their
communities, but in the context of this study, serve to assist state legislators
and agents in developing and implementing environmental policy.
Environmental NGOs are the closest to the community and can directly
influence individual behavior through community-based programs. The
perceived roles of the private sector in the development and fostering of
ecological citizenship is outside the scope of the current study but has been
the focus of other studies (e.g., Lasrado & Arora, 2017; Sherval et al., 2018).
I used my hypotheses and study design to predict ecological
citizenship within external agents of influence by first measuring the
individual’s worldview. The NEP can determine whether an individual has a
low, medium, or high endorsement of environmental behavior. The
willingness to take action scale then determines how much the individual is
willing to convince other community members to behave environmentally.
Like the NEP, the willingness to take action scale can be measured in low,
medium, or high levels. Therefore, nine possible combinations exist for an
individual’s worldview and their willingness to take action. In this study, in
which I tested by the hypotheses, I expected that the participant’s
willingness to take action was dependent on the individual’s worldview.
Nature of the Study
The nature of this quantitative study was to explore the roles of state
legislators and agents, state organization partnership directors and staff, and
NGO administrators and staff in the development of ecological citizenship
within the U.S. grasslands. This study was framed by Bronfenbrenner and
Ceci’s bioecological model, and I used (2000) new ecological paradigm
(NEP) scale and Sinatra et al.’s (2012) willingness to take action
questionnaire to determine whether each influencing agent exerts the same
strength over individual behavior. The development of ecological
citizenship requires not only individual motivation and social acceptance,
but also a certain level of receptiveness among policy makers and program
developers to create a sense of financial need and social demand
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Rohweder, 2015).
I focused on legislators, agencies, NGOs, and state partners in Kansas,
Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota. This region has 608 state
legislators. Each state’s wildlife action plan identifies formal partnerships
between state agencies and organizational partners responsible for creating
the SWAP. There are 67 partnerships in Kansas (Rohweder, 2015), 25
partnerships in Nebraska (Schneider, Stoner, Steinauer, Panella, & Humpert,
2011), 31 partnerships in Iowa (Zohrer, 2006), 50 partnerships in North
Dakota (Dyke, Johnson, & Isakson, 2015), and 55 partnerships in South
Dakota (South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, 2014). More
than 50 additional environmental NGOs exist, such as Prairie Rivers of Iowa
and Northern Prairie Land Trusts, which operate in this region. I selected
these groups because they represent the political system within the
grasslands that provide social opportunities for environmental action. In
Chapter 3, I provide an in-depth description of the study’s population and
sampling strategy.
The development of ecological citizenship can be studied using a
qualitative or quantitative approach. Qualitative approaches are best applied
when “we want to empower individuals to share their stories, hear their
voices, and minimize the power relationships that often exist between a
researcher and the participants in a study”
(Creswell, 2013, p. 48), and quantitative approached are best applied when
using
“instrument based questions, attitude data, and statistical analysis”
(Creswell, 2009, p. 15). Many researchers studying ecological citizenship
and environmental behavior have used a qualitative approach to better
understand individual reasoning for engaging in environmental behavior
(e.g., Lester & Cottle, 2009); however, my focus was not to understand
individual reasoning, but to understand the group perception of role that the
political system within the five-state region plays development and fostering
of ecological citizenship, and to determine whether ecological citizens exist
within the political system of the region. In this light, I followed the
quantitative approach used by Martinsson and Lundqvist (2010) and Jagers
et al. (2011).
Using a quantitative Likert-scaled survey allowed for correlation
testing between the respondent’s environmental worldview and their
willingness to take action to determine whether a relationship exists between
the two variables, and if a relationship exists, the type of relationship. The
quantitative approach also allowed for regression testing which determined
if the respondent’s environmental worldview predicted their willingness to
take action. The relationship between a respondent’s environmental
worldview and their willingness to take action can provide a greater
understanding of how they perceive their roles in the development and
fostering of ecological citizenship within their states. The results of the
current study will determine if the respondent’s political party affiliation,
political values, and group affiliation also influences their willingness to take
action, that can later be used in qualitative studies to better understand how
these characteristics promote or foster ecological citizenship development in
individuals within these groups regardless of the group’s location.
In the current quantitative study, I utilized a Likert-scaled survey to
measure respondent’s perception of the role their group plays in the support
of proenvironmental behaviors and the development of ecological
citizenship. The endorsement of ecological citizenship was tested using
Dunlap’s (2000) NEP scale that measures attitudes toward the environment,
and Sinatra et al.’s (2012) willingness to take action questionnaire directly
tested the perceived role of the respondent in the development of ecological
citizenship within their community. Additional survey questions measured
individual factors of ecological citizenship, and three yes/no questions
allowed for open-responses to provide clarification or expansion of the
respondent’s answer. By using the same survey with each of the three
groups, I focused on the political system that has the power to change
individual behavior. High perceptions within the legislative group have the
power to influence lawmaking within the region that greatly impacts state
agencies, partnerships, and other environmental organizations. High
perceptions within the NGO and partnership groups have the power to
greatly influence individual behavior through more focused environmental
opportunities. In Chapter 3, I will discuss the methodology more in depth.
Definitions
Bioecological model: A model for human development where
individual behavior can be influenced by family and friends, education and
political systems, genetics, and time (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).
Biophilia: The innate desire to connect with nature (Wilson, 1984).
Ecological citizenship: The expansion of proenvironmental behavior
into the public sphere where individuals have a moral obligation to reduce
their individual ecological footprint through non-reciprocal, non-contractual
behavior (Dobson, 2003).
Proenvironmental behavior: “Behavior that consciously seeks to
minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural and built
world” (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002, p. 240). Examples of
proenvironmental behavior include using public transportation to reduce air
pollution and using reusable bags to reduce landfill waste (Bissing-Olsen,
Fielding, & Iyer, 2016).
Proximal process: Interactions between individuals and their
environment, and interactions between individuals and other people
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). These
interactions form the foundation of the PPCT framework of the
bioecological model.
State organization partnerships: Formal partnership organizations as
identified in the state’s wildlife action plan (SWAP).
Assumptions
I have seven assumptions because of the complex stratification of
human development as described in the bioecological model. The first set of
assumptions arise from the theoretical framework for the study. The first
assumption is that biophilia, as described by Wilson, is an innate starting
point for the development of environmental care and concern. The second
guiding assumption is that development of an ecological citizen can be
achieved through a series of increasingly complex interactions as described
in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model which provides points of
opportunity to develop and hone individual biophilia. A third assumption of
this study created by the theoretical framework is that influence flows both
from the individual to public policy, and from public policy to the
individual. This assumption allowed for the focus to be on the point of
influence that is common to both directions of influence, the political agent.
The next series of assumptions are related to the study’s research questions,
instruments, and research design.
To be effective, research questions must establish a clear “direction
and path” for the research, aid in determining the “research design and
methodology”, and “define the theoretical and practical contribution” of the
study (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013, p. 11).
The fourth assumption of this study is that the research questions developed
meet the criteria for effective research questions and will aid in meeting my
purpose in this study.
The fifth assumption is that the selected instruments are reliable and
support the research questions. For this study, there are two instruments that
will be combined with basic demographic questions to form one cohesive
survey that will measure the level of ecological citizenship endorsement and
perceived role of the respondent in developing ecological citizenship within
their states. The first instrument, Dunlap’s (2000) New Ecological Paradigm
survey is widely used in environmental behavior studies and has an initial
reliability of α = .83, which is quite high and supports the assumption that
this instrument is a reliable measure of the respondent’s worldview. The
second instrument, Sinatra et al.’s (2012) willingness to take action scale
often augments other instruments, such as Stern’s value-belief-norm scale or
the Dunlap’s NEP, and has an initial reliability of α = .87, which is also quite
high and supports the assumption that this questionnaire provides a reliable
measurement of the respondent’s willingness to take action to minimize
environmental impacts.
The last set of assumptions are related to the study’s design and use of
a quantitative survey. The sixth assumption is that the sample is
representative of the population. According to the National Convention on
State Legislatures (2017), the collective state senate is 40.2% Democrat,
57% Republican, and 2.8% Other, and the collective state house of
representatives is 43% Democrat, 56.4% Republican, and 0.6% Other. It is
important to note that Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral
legislative branch and is included in the Other category under the collective
senate. The five states included in this study have a combined senate of 20%
Democrat, 57.4% Republican, and 22.6% Other, and a combined house of
26.7% Democrat and 73.3% Republican. While it appears that this
assumption is violated, the regional nature of partisan distribution supports
the assumption that the respondents are representative of the population.
The seventh, and last, assumption of this study is that respondents will be
honest in their responses.
Scope and Delimitations
In this quantitative study, I focused on the role of selected political
agents in the development of ecological citizenship within North Dakota,
South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa. These five states were selected
because their boundaries are entirely within the U.S. grasslands. This biome
is under constant threat due to increases in agriculture, changes in individual
behavior, and community growth (Peart, 2008). This scope allows for the
three types of grasslands to be included in one study. This study was also
subject to a variety of delimitations, or researcher defined limitations.
The first set of delimitations of this study relate to the theoretical
framework, overarching research question, and scope. Studies on
environmental behavior, of which ecological citizenship is a unique form,
have used a multitude of theoretical frameworks that focus on individual
behavior and note involvement in social opportunities as a leading driver of
proenvironmental behavior; however, few studies have expanded their
inquiry into the external organizations that provide those social
opportunities. The bioecological model allows for the focus to be on a
single sphere of influence and forms the first delimitation of this study. For
this study, I was only concerned with agents and organizations that exist
within the outer systems of influence, the exosystem and macrosystem;
however, not all agents and organizations in these systems were selected for
inclusion in the study. Only individuals and organizations who have the
power to influence individual ecological development through indirect
methods were selected as the target population for this study. By focusing
on this group, I explored the power of influence within the mesosystem
where policy and programs combine to influence those around the
individual, rather than the individual directly. This group of influential
agents on individual behavior has not been studied before in relation to
ecological citizenship development.
In an ideal study environment, all state legislators and agents, NGO
directors and staff, and state organization partners would be included in a
cross-sectional study; however, time and financial limitations required the
delimitation to one environmental biome, the U.S. grasslands. The
temperate grasslands of North America are one of the least protected biomes
yet is under constant threat by human activity (Peart, 2008). Less than 5%
of global grasslands are protected, which makes understanding how to
influence human activity within the region vital to its future survival (Peart,
2008). The five states selected for this study rest within the borders of the
grasslands, has at least one grasslands protection area, and has a state
wildlife action plan that promotes state organization and public cooperation
to address environmental needs.
The second set of delimitations relate to methodology and research
design. Studies on environmental behavior have often utilized qualitative
designs that allow for understanding individual decisions and behavior;
however, this focus on individual motives largely ignores external influences
that may assist in predicting individual behavior. Using the PPCT
framework of the bioecological model, I explored only the external
influences and the perceived role of those influences on individual behavior.
Quantitative methods allow for predictive results to be developed that will
aid in understanding how external agents influence individual ecological
citizenship development within their states, rather than exploring how the
presence of ecological citizenship, or lack thereof, influences political agents
themselves. The research design and instruments helped focus the study on
the external, non-direct influence of political agents on individual
environmental behavior.
The research design, including instruments and variables, are also
highly focused on only the perceived role of political agents in the
development of ecological citizenship within their states. The dependent
variable, willingness to take action, clearly identifies the respondent’s level
of ecological citizenship, while the three independent variables, political
affiliation, exosystem group, and worldview, are limited to those variables
that are directly related to the fundamental principles of ecological
citizenship. Variables that are not included in this study include
environmental education, participation in environmental activities, personal
preferences, and personal values. These variables have been well studied in
other studies, and can influence individual growth and development, but this
study focuses on external influences rather than individual behavior. The
instrument selected for this study utilizes a Likert-scale which does not
allow for explanatory information to be provided by the respondent, which
limits the type of information obtained; however, it allows for statistical
identification of relationships that may not have been identified using an
open-ended qualitative questionnaire. Using a quantitative design will also
allow the study to be replicated using a different population or location and
form a comparative study to determine if results are applicable in a variety
of environments that will further assist in policy and program development.
Limitations
This study has several limitations that are created by the study’s
methodology. One goal of quantitative research is to be generalizable to the
whole population achieved through an adequate sample size. This study
utilizes an electronic survey that may not have a high rate of participation,
but this limitation is addressed through the inclusion of snowball sampling
where the initial respondent is asked to share the survey with staff members,
thereby increasing the potential participation rate. Another limitation
created by the study’s instrument is missing data. A respondent may choose
not to answer a question, which could statistically impact the data analysis
and interpretation of the results. This limitation is minimized using a
combined survey that measures each variable with a different set of
questions. No response on any question can be interpreted as a data value
for that variable.
One of the greatest limitations in this study is the ability to determine
the truthfulness of the responses. The survey investigates the respondent’s
willingness to take action and individual worldview, which may create a
desire to appear more willing to encourage others or more accepting of an
environmental worldview than they actually are. This is a limitation and risk
of any survey involving individual behavior and beliefs. This limitation is
addressed through the assumption that the respondent is being truthful when
they respond and will also be addressed in the survey introduction and
consent form.
Access to the target population also forms a limitation for this study.
While many organizational directors and staff are willing to participate in
research, some may not be as accessible which may limit the sample size
even further in one or more groups. Each potential organizational
participant will be contacted to introduce the research topic and inquire
about possible participation in the study.
Significance of the Study
Dobson presented ecological citizenship as a “normative idea” (MacGregor, 2014,
p. 119), which created an opportunity for researchers to apply different
theoretical frameworks, different research questions, and apply different
methodologies while searching for a greater understanding of ecological
citizenship and how it may provide a solution to global environmental
problems. The development of an ecological citizen benefits not only the
individual through improved social connections (Dresner et al., 2015) and
other effects of biophilia (Wilson, 2009), but it benefits the community and
the world through increased awareness of the connection between individual
action and its impact on the future. Dobson (2003) also argued that
consumer nations, such as the United States, have an ethical duty to promote
conservation that will benefit all other nations.
One common theme in all ecological citizenship research is the need
for further study. Two common factors in ecological citizenship research,
either directly or indirectly, is public policy and program development.
Seyfang (2007) noted that ecological citizenship, if left to the public, will
not be actively developed, but rather ecological citizenship development,
and sustainable community development, requires an active government
pursuing the requisite changes in social constructs that promote ecological
individual behavior and the acceptance of grassroots environmental
movements in policy development. Governmental supported changes in
social norms and values have also been noted as drivers of ecological
citizenship development by Chan et al. (2016), Dobson (2009), and Dresner
et al. (2015). Quantitative studies directly on ecological citizenship are rare
but have served to solidify the belief that ecological citizens, as envisioned
by Dobson, do exist and are subject to multiple streams of influence
including public policy and programs (Asilsoy & Oktay, 2016; Jagers, 2009;
Jagers & Matti, 2009; Martinsson & Lundquist, 2010). The lack of focus on
the role of public policy and program development creates a large gap in
ecological citizenship development knowledge.
This study will begin to fill that large gap by focusing solely on state
legislators and agents, state organization partnership directors and staff, and
NGO directors and staff. These three groups create a network of decision
makers that have the power to influence individual behavior and promote
social change. Focusing on their perceived role in the development of
ecological citizenship, this study opens the door for new studies into
leadership style and ecological citizenship, comparative studies between
types of agencies and level of ecological citizenship, case studies on specific
programs designed to promote the decrease of individual ecological
footprints, and policy evaluations in terms of social change toward green
theory principles.
Implications for Social Change
This study contributes to the body of knowledge on ecological
citizenship, NEP application, and the bioecological model. It also
contributes to social change within the U.S. grasslands. There are three
separate groups included in this study, which creates three unique possible
contributions to social change.
State legislators and agents create social change through public policy.
This study explores the relationship between this group’s worldview and
their willingness to take action, which promotes the development of
ecological citizenship. Understanding the current level of ecological
citizenship within the grasslands legislative branch will aid in the
development of the state wildlife action plan. Ecological citizens want to
protect the environment for future generations and state legislators and their
agents are key contributors to ensuring the clean environment for their
community. Improving the state wildlife action plans can contribute to
positive social change through improving biodiversity within the region.
Increased biodiversity can improve public health through decreased allergies
(Ruokolainen, Fyhrquist, & Haahtela, 2016), increase social connections
(Dresner et al., 2015), and even influence career choices (di Fabio & Bucci,
2016).
State organization partners, such as the Iowa Wildlife Center and
Pheasants Forever, create social change through lobbying efforts and direct
intervention within the community through animal rehabilitation,
conservation projects, and assisting in the development of the state wildlife
action plan. The results of this study will aid in this group’s mission by
providing more information on the current level of ecological citizenship
within the community and the legislative branch of their respective states.
With this knowledge, organization directors can create informational
opportunities that may increase ecological citizenship within the legislative
branch by changing either the legislator’s worldview or increasing their
willingness to take action to save the local environment.
The greatest amount of social change because of this study can occur
within the NGO group. Environmental NGOs, such as the Audubon Society
and Ducks Unlimited, currently provide citizen scientist programs and other
social opportunities for residents to engage in environmental behavior;
however, participation in many programs is low. Understanding how an
individual’s worldview can predict ecological citizenship will allow NGOs
to create programs aimed directly at changing the communal worldview
through increased environmental education and social opportunities to foster
biophilia within the community. While the current study separated NGOs
that form formal partnerships with a state in the development of that state’s
wildlife action plan, the entire NGO sector presents a fantastic opportunity
for social change through informal partnerships between residents and the
state government that bridge the SWAP’s goals and communal demands.
Positive social change is not limited to the U.S. grasslands. The
results of this study contribute to the body of knowledge on ecological
citizenship, proenvironmental behavior, NEP application, and bioecological
model application. This increase in knowledge and understanding can be
extended to different biomes within the United States and other countries.
Developing a greater understanding of ecological citizenship within the
United States aids national policy makers develop policy that maximizes
individual environmental contributions rather than placing the weight of
future generation environmental health and well-being on the states.
Summary
The temperate grasslands are one of the most threatened biomes in the
world due to human activity and is the least protected biome (International
Union for Conservation of Nature, 2016). The temperate grasslands in the
United States, also referred to as the prairie, is under constant threat as
human activity outweighs state and national protection. Lack of federal
protection affects biodiversity in the region and states have turned to state
wildlife action plans and partnerships with environmental NGOs to protect
the grasslands. These plans and partnerships highlight the need for public
participation in all stages of biome protection. This call for participation
demonstrates the need for ecological citizens within the region. Ecological
citizens act in the best interest of the local environment, while focusing on
global environmental well-being (Dobson, 2003). Ecological citizenship
development relies on proenvironmental behavior, environmental care and
concern, and is both non-territorial and non-reciprocal (Dobson, 2003). The
literature on proenvironmental behavior is vast and employs a variety of
theoretical and conceptual frameworks. However, much of the literature on
ecological citizenship is normative and few studies have explored it
empirically with even less studies exploring its development through the
bioecological lens. The bioecological model developed by Bronfenbrenner
and Ceci (1994) is ideal for exploring the relationship between individual
belief and promoting ecological citizenship in others. The model’s multi-
tiered system of influence flows both outward from the individual to public
policy and culture, and inward from culture and public policy to the
individual. This study fills the gap in empirical literature on ecological
citizenship development by exploring the inward flow of influence with a
focus on political agents and groups within the exosystem. This group has
the power to influence individual behavior through their willingness to take
action and is influenced by their own personal worldview.
Chapter 2 reiterates the gap found in the literature as well as presents
the search strategy employed to explore the literature. The focus of the
chapter, however, is a review of the literature beginning with an introduction
and thorough investigation of the bioecological model that frames this study.
The next section in the literature review presents the rise of
environmentalism and its cyclic nature as it flows from individual concerns
to a national agenda. In the 1970s, international and national
environmentalists began looking for innovative solutions rather than relying
on public policy. One solution arose from deep ecology and shifts focus
from individual rights to individual responsibilities. This solution,
ecological citizenship, is then explored in the remainder of the literature
review and how its development may be guided and predicted by the
bioecological model. Chapter 2 concludes with a summary of variables and
methodologies found in the literature and how the literature shaped this
study.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology for this study. A study’s
methodology provides a roadmap for the study and includes
operationalization of the variables, defines the population, explains the
sampling methods used in the study, and discusses the instruments used to
measure the variables. Chapter 3 concludes with a discussion of threats to
the study, ethical considerations of the study, and the plan for data storage.
Chapter 4 presents the study’s results and findings, and Chapter 5
discusses the findings as well as presents suggestions for further study that
will close the gap in understanding how ecological citizenship can be
developed through the public sector.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
My purpose in this quantitative study was to explore the perceived
role of state legislators and agents, state organization partners, and NGOs in
the development of ecological citizenship within five states: Iowa, Kansas,
Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. Less than 1% of the U.S.
grasslands are protected despite the biome shrinking to only 5% of its natural
state because of increased agriculture and human activity (National Park
Service, 2016; Pieper, 2005; WWF, 2016). The connection between
environmental health and individual health is well documented (Dantas-
Torres, 2015; Sandifer et al., 2015; von Hertzen et al., 2015), which makes
protecting the region’s environmental health vital to the health and wellbeing
of more than 9 million regional residents.
Regional environmental protection is currently achieved through
national environmental policies (e.g., Clean Air Act of 1963, 2016;
Endangered Species Act of 1973, 2016; National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, 2016), national parks and reserves (Ashton, Symstad, Davis, &
Swanson, 2016; Freese, 2015), state-created environmental programs
(Rohweder, 2015; Zohrer, 2006), and citizen scientist opportunities provided
by state organization partners and other NGOs (Kobori et al., 2016;
Schwartz, Beaubien, Crimmins, & Weltzin, 2013; Soranno, Cheruvelil,
Elliot, & Montgomery, 2015). Individual behaviors, such as decreasing
ecological footprint (Galli, Wackernagel, Iha, & Lazarus, 2014; United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1993), participating
in environmental political processes (Carter, 1993; Glucker, Driessen,
Kolhoff, & Runhaar, 2013), and volunteering for environmental
organizations (Johnson et al., 2014; Silvertown, Buesching, Jacobsen, &
Rebelo, 2013), also aid in regional environmental protection and
rehabilitation.
Despite a high rate of concern for the environment, less than 25% of
Americans reported demonstrating proenvironmental behavior daily (Funk
& Kennedy, 2016). Cultivating proenvironmental behavior and increasing
public participation in environmental processes has been extensively studied
during the past 30 years in a variety of fields (e.g., Bissing-Olson et al.,
2016; Cooper, Larson, Dayer, Stedman, & Decker, 2015; Miao & Wei,
2013), yet few have applied the bioecological framework to
proenvironmental behavior (e.g., Blanchet-Cohen & Reilly, 2016). Using
the bioecological framework supports the creation of a new type of citizen,
the ecological citizen.
Ecological citizens think and act locally and globally, demonstrate
proenvironmental behavior, participate in environmental political processes,
and believe that today’s actions influence future generations (Bell, 2005;
Dobson, 2003; MeloEscrihuela, 2008; Schild, 2016). Proenvironmental
behavior, and how it is developed, has been well studied during the last 30
years, but ecological citizenship remains an elusive ideal of sustainable
living and few have empirically studied its development. To add to the
current knowledge base on ecological citizenship, and expand what is known
about its development, I explored the perceived roles of state government,
agencies, and NGOs operating in five states located within the U.S.
grasslands in the development of ecological citizenship by focusing on
individual worldview and willingness to take action. These two variables
are developed through proximal processes described in the bioecological
model (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994) from both an inward, culture-
toindividual, and outward, individual-to-culture, influence. In the following
section, I present the search strategy that I used to shape this literature
review, identify gaps in understanding, identify possible theoretical and
conceptual frameworks, and assist in the operationalization of ecological
citizenship for this study.
Literature Search Strategy
Booth, Sutton, and Papaioannou (2016) suggested that a systematic
literature review consists of five phases that allow the researcher to uncover
all applicable literature. These five stages are the scoping search, conduct
search, bibliography search, verification, and documentation (Booth et al.,
2016). During the scoping search using Google Scholar and the local
library, I discovered the following key search terms: proenvironmental
behavior, environmental citizenship, ecological citizenship, and biophilia. I
searched databases available through the Walden Library using the key
search term proenvironmental behavior to determine which databases were
best suited to the study. The Political Science Complete database yielded
the fewest results, SAGE Premier yielded 223 results, Academic Search
Complete yielded 128 results, PsycINFO yielded 183 results, and the
Thoreau Multi-Database search yielded 1,436 results. The other key search
terms produced even fewer results using these databases; however, when I
used Google Scholar, the search results increased to more than 9,000 results.
Because of the scoping and conduct search phases, Google Scholar and the
Thoreau Multi-Database served as the primary search tools for online
literature. A local public library served as the primary source for
government documents and books relating to the study.After locating key
articles, I conducted bibliography searches to identify relevant articles and
key authors. The results of this phase expanded the study’s search strategy
to include the following key authors: Cox, Dobson, Gaston, and Soga. After
a brief search using the new key authors, key search terms expanded to
include socio-ecological model, bioecological model, PPCT model, green
theory, sustainable consumption, ecologism, post-cosmopolitan citizenship,
and green politics. Search results were not limited to a specific time frame
because of the cyclic nature of the environment as a political agenda, which
allowed for a comprehensive literature search. I verified all journal results
through Ulrich’s for peer-review or refereed status. I also used British
English spellings to ensure I found all available literature. In the following
section, I present a thorough exploration of Bronfenbrenner and Ceci’s
bioecological theory, the primary framework for this study, and how it
creates a formal framework for exploring the development of ecological
citizenship.
Theoretical Foundation
Studies on environmental behavior often use Aijzen’s (1991) theory
of planned behavior (e.g., de Leeuw et al., 2015; Greaves, Zibarras, &
Stride, 2013), Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory (e.g., Purvis, Zagenczyk,
& McCray, 2015), or Stern’s (1999) valuebelief-norm theory as a framework
(e.g., Kiatkawsin & Han, 2017; Nguyen, Lobo, & Greenland, 2016; Yeboah
& Kaplowitz, 2016). Each of these theories focus on individual motivators
for a desired behavior and provide an excellent framework for exploring
individual proenvironmental behavior; however, these theories do not
directly account for external forces that contribute to individual behavior.
As Nguyen et al. (2016) noted, their results could be used “to target
consumers who have strong biospheric values to accelerate the uptake of
energy efficient appliances” and “that potential purchasers could be
motivated by a compelling message . . .” (p. 106), which implies that
external forces also contribute to the cultivation of environmental behavior.
In 1979, Bronfenbrenner developed a unique framework, ecological
systems theory, which not only accounted for external motivators, but
suggested that human development is the result of internal and external
factors interaction. Ecological systems theory is founded on a nested doll
concept in which the child’s development is influenced by a series of direct
and indirect interactions that take place in a variety of settings
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The level of influence held by each nested doll is
determined by its proximity to the child and how the child transitions
between each doll (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In the course of nearly 20 years,
Bronfenbrenner fine-tuned the ecological systems theory as hundreds of
researchers validated the theory and highlighted new possibilities (e.g.,
Andrews, Bubolz, & Paolucci, 1981; Howe & Briggs, 1982; Young, 1983).
Although this theory has been well used in psychology and child
development research, its application to ecological citizenship research has
been limited; however, both the original model and the new bioecological
model have been used often in environmental behavior studies (e.g., Litt et
al., 2015; Riemer et al., 2014).
Bioecological Model
In 1994, Bronfenbrenner and Ceci presented their revised theory of
human development, the bioecological model, which expanded on ecological
systems theory and the socioecological model to formally integrate the
chronosystem, or time system, and formalize the multidirectional nature of
influence on human behavior. The new bioecological model has been used
to explore a variety of developmental transitions including transition from
pediatric to adult care from the sibling’s perspective (Porter, Graff, Lopez, &
Hankins, 2014), exploration of the father-child relationship when the father
is incarcerated (Dennison, Smallbone, & Occhipinti, 2017), and a
longitudinal study of the transition from childhood to adolescence
(Garbarino, Burston, Raber, Russell, & Crouter, 1978). It also redefined
human development as “the phenomenon of continuity and change in the
biopsychological characteristics of human beings, both as individuals and as
groups” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 793).
Changes in biopsychological characteristics require increasingly
complex reciprocal interactions for long periods called proximal processes
that vary in “form, power, content, and direction” and “serve as a
mechanism for actualizing genetical potential for effective psychological
development” (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994. p. 572). The PPCT
framework guides understanding how different agents interact on a variety
of levels that influence human development. The following is an exploration
of the PPCT framework components; then, with this framing in place, I
focus on how this framework can aid in understanding the development of
an ecological citizen.
PPCT Framework
Process. Proximal processes are interactions between individuals and
their environments, and interactions between individuals and other people
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). These
interactions serve as “the primary engines of effective development”
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 572); however, they are subject to the
limitations imposed by the context of the interaction.
Person. Proximal processes begin with the individual. The
individual, or person, possesses “genetic potentials” that are “actualized”
through proximal processes
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 570). An individual’s disposition,
resources, and demand determine the strength and power of the proximal
process (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Kellert and Wilson (1995) proposed that humans are born with an innate
desire to connect with nature. This connection is based in genetics and
actualized through individual behavior (Kellert & Wilson, 1995; Wilson,
1984). Individuals who actively encourage and develop this connection
have stronger relationships with their environments and will seek out
continued interaction (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). An individual’s
disposition begins with simple exploration and, as they age, becomes more
complex given their genetic constraints and access to resources
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).
Resources available to individuals can significantly influence their
development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
2006). Resources are genetic and physical attributes, such as intelligence
and physical handicaps, and “developmental assets”, such as “knowledge,
skills, and experience” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 812). Resources
are used by individuals during proximal processes within a context and are
shaped by, and help shape, the proximal process (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,
1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Kellert & Wilson, 1995). Studies
have found that high quality contexts are still limited by individual resources
and demand (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Nobre, Coutinho, & Valentini,
2014; Prendergast, 2016; Strachan, FraserThomas, & Nelson-Ferguson,
2016). An individual’s demand is the third characteristic of the person and
refers to “their capacity to invite or discourage reactions from the social
environment” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 812). Bronfenbrenner
and Morris (2006) described possible demand characteristics as “fussy
versus happy” or “attractive versus unattractive” (p. 812); while Strachan,
Fraser-Thomas, and Nelson-Ferguson (2016) described demands in terms of
dedication and financial support. Demands, like resources, are both internal
and external manifestations of proximal processes and inherent attributes
that can be altered through different contexts.
Context. In the bioecological model, proximal processes take place
in four contexts, or systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and
macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
2006). Each system influences proximal processes within that system and
has the power to influence proximal processes in the other systems.
Microsystem. The microsystem is the most directly influential system
and consists of direct interactions with others (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,
1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Researchers have found that
positive environmental social interaction greatly increases the frequency and
intensity of environmental behavior, improves environmental identity, and
promotes further environmental interaction (Dresner et al., 2014; Prati,
Albanesi, & Pietrantoni, 2015; Sorenson & Jordan, 2016; Stapleton, 2015).
Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) suggested that an individual’s
characteristics are shaped by the microsystem’s “parents, relatives, close
friends, teachers, mentors, coworkers, spouses, or others who participate in
the life of the developing person on a fairly regular basis over extended
periods of time” (p. 796). Generational beliefs are passed through the
microsystem but can also be shaped by proximal processes found in the
mesosystem.
Mesosystem. In the original ecological systems theory,
Bronfenbrenner (1979) described contexts as being nested dolls that
influence individual development through each other. The mesosystem, the
second nested doll from the individual, is where different microsystems
interact (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For example, a child’s teacher and parents
exist within the child’s microsystem, but when the teacher and parents have
a meeting to discuss the child, that proximal process occurs in the child’s
mesosystem (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci,1994). Proximal processes that take
place in the mesosystem affect the individual indirectly without having
control over the process. Proximal processes become further removed from
direct interaction with the individual in the exosystem and macrosystem.
Exosystem. The third nested doll from the individual creates
proximal processes that affect the individual indirectly and can occur with or
without individual participation. Proximal processes within the exosystem
include public policy, social programs, media, and institutions
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The role of the exosystem in individual
development has been studied in various settings including emergency
preparedness and trauma management (Boon et al., 2012; Hoffman &
Kruczek, 2011; Noffsinger et al., 2012), educational attainment and success
(Erdener, 2016; Lange & Garrett, 2014; Renn & Arnold, 2003), and civic
participation (Duke, Skay, Pettingell, & Borowsky, 2009; Geldhof, Bowers,
& Lerner, 2013; Hasford, Loomis, Nelson, & Prancer, 2016). The
exosystem is the last formalized context that has clear agents within its
influential reach (Bronfenbrenner, 1977).
Macrosystem. The outermost nested doll that helps frame all other
contexts is the least formalized system of influence and consists of cultural
norms and values, “institutional patterns” and “carriers of information”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 515). The exosystem, mesosystem, and
microsystem are the “concrete manifestations” of the macrosystem
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 515). Researchers have found that cultural
constructs heavily influence individual belief systems and behavior by
shaping and reshaping cultural norms and values over time (de Pinho et al.,
2014; Soga et al., 2016).
Time. The original ecological systems theory placed time as the fifth nested
doll, but as Bronfenbrenner adapted the theory, time became the fourth
component of the PPCT framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Bronfenbrenner
& Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). As noted earlier, human
development occurs over time through increasingly complex reciprocal
proximal processes. In the refined bioecological model, Bronfenbrenner and
Morris (2006) describe time in terms of its relation to its associated system.
Proximal processes begin in the microsystem and occur in continuous
“microtime” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 796). Recurring microtime
proximal processes over weeks and months take place in “mesotime”
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 796). Changes to the community’s
culture takes extended periods of “macrotime” and account for the
generational continuance of behavior (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p.
796).
Bioecological Model and Ecological Citizens
The ecological citizen accepts personal responsibility for the health of
the ecosystem and its role within the global environment through
demonstrating proenvironmental behavior and participating in the political
system to ensure a healthy environment for future generations (Dobson,
2003). At its core, ecological citizenship and individual ecological citizens
are concerned about future generations and will take collective action when
opportunities are available (Dobson, 2003). Under this basic premise of
ecological citizenship, its multi-layered characteristic can be identified and
examined using the PPCT framework as a guide.
Ecological citizens, like all individuals, possess an innate desire to
connect to nature (Wilson, 1984). This person component is shaped and
fostered by the individual’s immediate environment (Bronfenbrenner &
Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), but studies have shown that
contextual interactions over time determine if biophilia is actualized (e.g.,
Hand et al., 2017; Van den Born, Lenders, De Groot, & Huijsman, 2001).
Environmentally focused proximal processes occurring in the mesosystem,
primarily person-person-nature (e.g., Dresner et al., 2015; Stapleton, 2015),
and personnature interaction in the microsystem (e.g., Cox & Gaston, 2016),
have the strongest influences over the actualization of biophilia; however,
many of these interactions are only available because of opportunities
developed in the exosystem. Studies have focused on the role of familial
influence (Grønhøj & Thøgersen, 2012), educational influence (Prévot,
Clayton, & Mathevet, 2016), peer influence (de Pinho et al., 2014), and
individual emotional influence (Bissing-Olson et al., 2016) in the
development of proenvironmental behavior, which is an essential component
of ecological citizenship; however, no study was found that focused on how
agents in the exosystem perceived their role in the development of
ecological citizenship. Agents in the exosystem include NGO staff,
institutions, environmental agencies, environmental program developers,
state environmental agencies, and legislators (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
2006). This gap in understanding how ecological citizenship can be
developed by external political actors through in-direct methods can inhibit
public policy success.
Bioecological Model and State Political Actors, State Organization Partners,
and
NGOs
The bioecological model has undergone several changes since it
original development and has been named the ecological systems theory,
socio-ecological model, and finally the bioecological model. The databases
identified in the literature search strategy were searched using bioecological
model + ecological citizenship, which yielded zero results; however,
bioecological model + proenvironmental behavior, bioecological model +
conservation, bioecological model + ecological footprint, and bioecological
model + carbon cycle all produced results ranging from 1 to 164. These
search keywords were selected because they are key components and goals
of ecological citizenship; however, none were applicable to this study. The
original search strategy for the study began with the ecological citizen and
worked backward toward childhood and biophilia. When this same process
was applied to the bioecological model and the research questions, a clear
path was found in the literature between the PPCT model, research
questions, and the individual .
This study’s research questions focus only on actors within the
exosystem and macrosystem. The first research question—What roles do
state legislators and agents perceive that state governments can play in
fostering ecological citizenship among residents in their states? —focuses on
the relationship between the exosystem and individual systems through a
macrosystem lens and is well supported in the literature. While developing
the bioecological model, Bronfenbrenner often argued that many challenges
within families that affected child development was the result of public
policy (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Many studies on public policy that utilize the bioecological model
focus on education (e.g., Connors, 2016; Rabiner, Goodwin, & Dodge,
2016), criminal activity (e.g., Fleming, Guttmannova, Cambron, Rhew, &
Oesterle, 2016; Pittenger, Huit, & Hansen, 2016), athlete development (e.g.,
Domingues & Goncalves, 2014; Mahoney, Gucciardi, Mallett, &
Ntoumanis, 2014; Uehara, Button, Falcous, & Davids, 2016), and
community resilience (e.g., Didkowsky & Ungar, 2016; Shuey & Leventhal,
2017). Hill et al. (2015) noted that vulnerable ecosystems can be protected,
and carbon footprints reduced when governments promote environmentally
friendly behavior by supporting environmental social movements rather than
eliciting behavior through laws and regulations.
Within the U.S. grasslands, state wildlife action plans outline the
state’s current environmental health and what the state will implement to
address environmental health issues. These plans include a public policy
approach as well as a reliance on agencies and NGO partners to promote
proenvironmental behavior that will aid, rather than hinder, the action plan
(Rohweder, 2015). Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) noted that potential
barriers to proenvironmental behavior include institutional barriers created
through institutional decisions. Reese and Jacob (2015) found that
environmental justice, policies developed to elicit environmental behavior
that distribute environmental care, and intergenerational norms and values
greatly influence proenvironmental behavior. This multidirectional
influence is central to the bioecological model and further investigation into
the relationships between agents that create public policy and community
programs is needed.
Whereas the first research question focused on state legislators and
agents, the second and third research questions bring ecological citizenship
development a little closer to the individual while maintaining enough
distance to be considered a primarily non-direct agent of influence. State
organization partners and NGOs are a buffer between public policy and
individual environmental action that can greatly influence the development
and display of ecological citizenship without the need for more laws and
regulations. Public programs and environmental opportunities directly
influence the individuals involved, but also indirectly influence the entire
community through improved environmental health.
Many researchers have focused on the role of environmental
education (e.g., Chankrajang & Muttarak, 2017; de Leeuw et al., 2015;
Liefländer & Bogner, 2014) and managed biodiversity (e.g., Muratet et al.,
2015; Palliwoda, Kowarik, & von der Lippe, 2017; Shwartz et al., 2014) in
the development of proenvironmental behavior and ecological citizenship.
Both environmental education and managed biodiversity are made possible
by state organization partners and NGOs within the region. King (2016)
noted that entities in the exosystem are often perceived as “waiting to be
called upon by the individual or the community” (p. 139). Many state
organization partners, such as the Iowa Conservation Union and Nebraska
Wildlife Society, often work with state and local lawmakers to create
effective environmental policy; while many NGOs, such as the Great Plains
Native Plant Society and Iowa Association of Naturalists, interact with
individuals and communities that have sought out environmental knowledge
and volunteer opportunities. The exosystem holds communal resources that
are available to all members of the community (King, 2016).
Understanding how the individuals holding those resources perceive
their roles in the development of ecological citizenship is needed to better
understand how the community utilizes those resources. Kollmuss and
Agyeman’s (2002) study identified barriers to proenvironmental behavior,
which contributes to the development of ecological citizenship, including:
lack of environmental knowledge, lack of participation opportunities, and
cultural norms. Applying the bioecological model to ecological citizenship
development allows this study to address these barriers and determine if they
affect residents in the grasslands.
Linking the bioecological model to the development of ecological
citizenship required many substitutions in keywords and required the use of
non-equivalent contexts. These substitutions highlight a gap in literature on
the bioecological model which will be reduced by this study. As shown in
Figure 3, the bioecological model and the PPCT framework can be applied
to the development of any environmentally aware individual. A child is
born with an innate desire to connect to nature, but this desire can be
changed through experiences with family, friends, and institutions. Many of
these institutions, such as schools, wildlife centers, and community centers,
are shaped by public policy. Few experiences are made possible without
some form of influence by external forces. The bioecological model allows
for the identification of select groups within the exosystem. In this study, I
focus on selected political actors and explore their perceived roles in the
development of ecological citizenship within their community and is well
grounded by the theoretical framework.
This section outlined the bioecological model and PPCT framework
that guided this study. Both the bioecological model and ecological
citizenship note the multigenerational nature of human development and
blend well to create a strong foundation for this study. The following
sections of this literature review explores ecological citizenship potential
within each system of the bioecological model.
Ecological Citizenship and the Bioecological Model
Ecological citizenship “deals in the currency of non-contractual
responsibility … inhabits the private as well as the public sphere … refers to
the source rather than the nature of responsibility … works with the
language of virtue, and it is explicitly nonterritorial” (Dobson, 2003, p. 89).
This definition and position that ecological citizenship is a distinct form of
citizenship; however, is not universally accepted. Hayward (2006) argued
that “ecological citizenship should be understood as giving distinctive
substance to a more conventional understanding of citizenship” (p. 435).
There is a deep connection between ecological citizenship, ecologism,
and deep ecology as Dobson (2003; 2012) implies that ecological citizens
are the manifestation of ecologism. While agreeing with the substance of
Dobson’s position, Hayward (2006) disagrees with the “theoretical framing
of the normative substance” (p. 445). Dobson (2003), Hayward (2006), and
other researchers (e.g., Blüdorn, 2011; Nasango & Gabsa, 2000) agree on
one main concept that drives deep ecology, ecologism, and ecological
citizenship: eliciting individual behavioral change requires institutional
changes and is dependent on the quality of environmental interactions.
These requirements can be clearly identified using the bioecological model.
The following is a brief exploration of ecological citizenship development
when focusing on the contextual framework of PPCT and what is known and
unknown about these proximal processes.
Ecological Citizenship and the Individual: Biophilia
In 1984, Wilson “suggested that the urge to affiliate with other forms
of life is to some degree innate” (p. 85). Wilson (1984) also believed that, at
that time, this hypothesis of biophilia had “not been studied enough in the
scientific manner of hypothesis, deduction, and experimentation to let us be
certain about it one way or the other” (p. 85). In the past 33 years, however,
biophilia has been well studied in a variety of environmental, ecological, and
educational situations (e.g., Hand et al., 2017; Profice, Santos, & dos Anjos
(2016); Zhang, Goodale, & Chen, 2014). Two study areas on biophilia
provide substantial support for the development of ecological citizenship:
public greenspace and urban lifestyles.
Studies on public greenspace often focus on managed biodiversity in
public parks (e.g., Lin, Fuller, Bush, Gaston, & Shanahan, 2014; Twedt,
Rainey, & Proffitt, 2016); however, studies have shown that access to public
greenspace is not equitable which can, as explained by Bronfenbrenner and
Ceci (1994), create unequitable individual growth and development caused
by the variation in proximal processes. For example, Schüle, Gabriel, and
Bolte (2017) found that low socioeconomic neighborhoods faced decreasing
public greenspace which negatively impacts the neighborhood’s health and
well-being, while Chen and Chang (2015) argued that inequity was caused
not by socioeconomic status of the neighborhood but was caused by
inequitable access to public greenspace caused by lack of transportation.
These two examples highlight the influence public policy and political
agents have on the development of biophilia due to policies such as
transportation and social programs for low-income individuals. Public
greenspace is only one possible source of interaction with nature within an
urban setting. Urban lifestyles also play a key role in the development and
nurturing of biophilia.
Urban lifestyles undergo many changes when cities embrace biophilia
and become biophilic cities. Biophilic cities put “nature first” in their
“design, planning, and management” (Beatley, 2011, p. 45), which reduces
the need for separate public greenspace. Newman (2013) found regardless
of a city’s density, public greenspace could be increased through rooftop
gardens, natural building façades, roadway treatments, and pedestrian park
connectors. Public greenspace and biophilic city design takes place
primarily in the exosystem but is driven by changes in the macrosystem and
microsystem as changes in the environment drive changes in individual
behavior which further drives change in cultural norms and values.
Experiences with urban nature within a biophilic city increases a city’s
resilience (Beatley & Newman, 2013; Pearson, Newton, & Roberts, 2014;
Spirn, 2014) and increases an individual’s sense of place (Beatley &
Newman, 2013; Russ, Peters, Krasny, & Stedman, 2015). Increasing an
individual’s sense of place increases stewardship behavior and
proenvironmental behavior that can expand beyond the urban setting
(Chapin & Knapp, 2015; Chapin, Sommerkorn, Robards, & Hillmer-
Pegram, 2015).
Ecological Citizenship in the Microsystem and Mesosystem: Proenvironmental
Behavior
Kollmus and Agyeman (2002) described any behavior that “seeks to
minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural and built
world” (p. 240) as proenvironmental behavior. Building off Wilson’s
hypothesis on biophilia, proenvironmental behavior is a natural outcome of
individual environmental growth and development (Gifford & Nilsson,
2014; Soga & Gaston, 2016). Researchers have found that an individual’s
disposition toward nature is guided by personal preferences (e.g.,
Soga et al., 2016), intrinsic motivation (e.g., Steg, 2016; Van der Werff,
Steg, & Keizer, 2013), communal values (e.g., de Pinho et al., 2014; Seifert
& Shaw, 2013), and can be altered through managed biodiversity (e.g.,
Muratet et al., 2015; Schwartz et al., 2014).
As children age, their individual biophilia gives way to social and peer
pressure (e.g., Krettenauer, 2017; Soga et al., 2016). As adults,
proenvironmental behavior is often determined through social connections
(Dresner et al., 2015; Hausmann et al., 2015), emotional manipulation
(Bissing-Olson et al., 2016; McKinley et al., 2016), financial reward or
punishment (Rohweder, 2015), and environmental knowledge
(Lewandowski & Oberhauser, 2015). Researchers have also found that
environmental engagement is subject to outside influences such as
television, video games, and nonenvironmental activities (Schaal & Lude,
2015). These outside influences affect individuals directly through
organizational program participation (e.g., Rohweder, 2015; Silvertown et
al., 2013), and indirectly through social programs and public policy (e.g.,
Glucker et al., 2013; Harris, Becker, Nielsen, & Mclaughlin, 2015).
Dickinson and Crain (2014) studied external influence over individual
behavior through a uniquely 21st century medium: The Internet. Their study
found that the social aspects that Dresner explored in Portland volunteers
can also be found online through social networks and crowd-sourcing.
Agencies and organizations are now promoting the ability to participate in
citizen science programs through smart phones and submit data online via
specialized sites (Ferster & Coops, 2016; Sullivan et al., 2014). The data
collected by citizen scientists and other environmental volunteers allow
policy makers, environmental partners, NGOs, and other organizations,
located in the exosystem, to develop more comprehensive and direct policies
and programs that will affect nonparticipants in the program through the
mesosystem (Sullivan et al., 2014).
Ecological citizenship is the combination of proenvironmental
behavior and public participation in the political process (Dobson, 2003).
This relationship is circular, and studies have approached it from a variety of
directions. Jagers et al. (2011) concluded that “Ecological Citizenship
ideals, among people in Sweden, are clearly linked to voluntary pro‐
environmental behaviour” (p. 22) with ecological citizenship being the
precursor to proenvironmental behavior. Kelly and Abel (2012), however,
found that environmental service-learning experiences increased
proenvironmental behavior and aided in the development of ecological
citizenship principles in college students. Dobson (2003) suggested that
ecological citizenship is built from individual actions that were developed
through individual experiences. This belief is clearly supported by the
bioecological model as the proximal processes found in the PPCT
framework aid in individual development over time and serve as an essential
component to maximizing individual potential. Barriers to
proenvironmental behavior and how these barriers can be overcome from an
individual perspective has been well-studied (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002),
yet little is known on how external agents perceive their principal role in
providing access to nature, environmental education opportunities, and other
factors that aid in the solidification of biophilia and the development of
proenvironmental behavior upon which ecological citizenship is built.
Ecological Citizenship in the Exosystem and Macrosystem: Creating
Social Change
Ecological citizenship is viewed as a necessity if future generations
are to be ensured a sustainable environment (Francis, 2015); however, the
question of whether ecological citizens exist has been debated since
Dobson’s first description of ecological citizenship in 2003 (e.g., Hayward,
2006). This debate, at least in Europe, has largely been solved since Jagers
(2009) studied 3000 Swedes between 15 and 85, and concluded that nearly
25% were ecological citizens based on their willingness to act. In Jagers’
(2009) study, the average ecological citizen was a “young (15-29 years old)
welleducated woman living in one of the largest cities and sympathizing
with either the Green or Left Party” (p. 32).
Dobson’s (2003) ecological citizenship, as a political theory, rests in
the realm of adults and their interaction with the world around them;
however, Jagers’ study showed that ecological citizenship was not just a
political theory. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model can be applied to
determine how each system assists in the development of ecological citizens
from birth to active political members in their community and the world.
Proenvironmental behavior resides in the personal systems of the
microsystem and mesosystem but is heavily influenced by the exosystem
and macrosystem. Lummis et al. (2016), Wright (2015), Islar (2016),
Scoville (2016), and Melo-Escrihuela (2015), all examined ecological
citizenship development within the personal systems, but each noted that
further study was necessary to fully understand how ecological citizenship
was developed.
This section described the flow of environmental social change from
the individual to the social level as promoted by the bioecological model, but
as Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) noted, the flow of influence also flows
from the social level to the individual. The next section of this literature
review explores how previous generations have inspired the next generation
through social changes that led to the rise of the environmentalist and a call
for a new type of citizen.
Rise of Environmentalism and the Call for a New Theory of Citizenship
John Muir (1911) wrote, “When we try to pick out anything by itself,
we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe” (p. 35). Environmental
concern began as an individually driven belief that grew through centuries of
cultural interaction. Early pioneers in environmental concern were
philosophers, religious leaders, and royalty
(Holdgate, 2014; Jones-Walters & Čivić, 2012; Navarro & Pereira, 2015).
As time passed individual environmental concern became communal
concerns as communities grew and the local environment was affected by
human activity. This shift from individual to communal concern emerged
globally in the 17th and 18th centuries as the Massachusetts Bay Colony
prohibited animal abuse (Eliot, 1963, p. 79), London residents addressed air
pollution through the creation of city parks (Evelyn, 1976) and Tokugawa
fought against deforestation by replanting trees in Japan (Marcon, 2015).
New communal concerns created changes in the cultural norms and paved
the way for a new generation of environmentalists that would continue
shaping cultural norms for another century.
The early 19th century was filled with technological advancements
(e.g., Bickel, 2015; Lienhard, 2015; Witkowski, 2016), increased protection
of human health and wellbeing (Rosen & Imperato, 2015), and increased
animal protections (Ingram, 2013). Where the environmental approach of
the 18th century was through public policy, the 19th century approach was
through scientific and naturalist writers who brought nature to the public
(Philippon, 2004). Emerging environmental themes during this time
included species identification and understanding how they are affected by
the environment (Audubon, 1843; Darwin, 2008; Marsh, 1907), and
introducing the beauty of nature to those living in growing urban centers
(Muir, 1916; Thoreau, 2011), and the importance of green space (Gould,
1888; Olmsted, 1852; Olmsted, 1881). This renewed interest in the human-
nature relationship inspired a new generation of environmental authors,
activists, and political agents in the 20th century that would catapult
environmental care and concern into global agenda status.
Beginning in the late 1890s and early 20th century, organizations
began forming whose sole purpose was to protect the environment through
public education, policy, and citizen science (Cohen, 1988). Between 1872
and 1915, United States law makers were also working to protect the
environment through the various acts of legislation and executive action,
such as the establishment of Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Sequoia National
Parks (Yellowstone National Park Protection Act of 1872, 2016; Sequoia
and Yosemite National Parks, 2016), and establishment of the first national
bird reserve in Florida (Pelican Island Reservation for protection of native
birds, 1909). By the mid-20th century there were dozens national parks,
refuges, and reserves that were managed by new state and federal agencies
created to address environmental needs in the United States. A new
environmental cultural revolution began in 1962 with the publication of
Carson’s Silent Spring (Lear, 1993).
In Silent Spring, Carson (2002) depicted a fictional town where the
environment had been destroyed by nuclear fallout and pesticides, then
presented an argument against pesticide and chemical use in the United
States. Carson’s work, and other environmental voices of the early 1960’s
were so strong that President Kennedy ordered scientific investigations into
the use of pesticides, and in 1972 DDT was banned in the United States
(Lear, 1993). Like Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and
Lyndon Johnson, President Nixon’s administration was an environmental
administration that created national policies protecting air, water, and flora
and fauna that continue to frame United States environmental policy
(Lazarus, 2014). The rise of environmental care and concern from
individual belief to communal action and changed public policy was not
limited to pesticides and national policy. The United Nations, during the
1960s and 1970s, also created environmental policy because of global
environmental cultural change.
International response to environmental care and concern in the 1970s
included the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme
(Johnson, 2012) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (1973). International approaches valued
scientific exchange, assessment, and promotion of environmental needs
within cultural contexts (United Nations Environment Programme, 2012.
These policy themes continued throughout the 20th century to build off
communal demands for a cleaner environment through transnational
meetings and conferences that created a vast network of international
policies that recognized global needs (United Nations Environment
Programme, 2012). For the last 30 years, United Nations environmental
programs and policies have evolved to encompass all aspects of
environmental need (United Nations Environment Programme, 2012).
International policy, however, still relies on national policies that support the
global demand for a sustainable, healthy environment. The Paris Agreement
(United Nations, 2016), for example, stipulates that “each Party shall
prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined
contributions (NDCs) that it intends to achieve” (Art. 4, para. 2) and that
member nations report national contributions to the United Nations.
Late-20th century and early-21st century environmental policy in the United
States has expanded beyond fundamental air, water, and species protection
(e.g., National Organic Program, 2015). Federal and state environmental
agencies create partnerships with NGOs and institutions through State
Wildlife Action Plans to create pathways for individuals to become involved
in environmental policy and protection in their states (e.g., Rohweder, 2015;
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, 2014; Zohrer, 2012).
As political agents are working from a top down position, environmental
organizations and citizen action groups are working from a grassroots level
to progress environmental protection (Dryzek, 2013; Mihaylov & Perkins,
2015). One common theme that both the top down and bottom up approach
share is the need for public participation (United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, 1993; Rohweder, 2015; Zohrer, 2012).
Public participation in environmental policy manifests in a variety of
forms including participation in citizen scientist programs, direct
participation in the rulemaking process, and participation in state-based
programs (Eden, 1996; Ellwood, Crimmins, & Miller-Rushing, 2016;
McKinley, 2016; Rohweder, 2015). The introduction of direct public
participation in the environmental political process also introduced new
theories on sustainability, governance, and citizenship (Dobson, 2003). One
such theory, deep ecology, was first presented by Arne Naess at the Third
World Future Research Conference in 1972. The following section explores
the relationship between deep ecology which formed the foundation for
ecological citizenship.
Deep Ecology
Deep ecology, like Silent Spring and My First Summer in the Sierra,
is the product of an individual involved in grassroots environmentalism that
inspired others to think differently about the environment and their role in its
existence. Naess (1973) described the 1960s and 1970s environmental
movement as having two levels: “A shallow, but currently rather powerful
movement and a deep, but less influential movement” (p. 95). For Naess,
the shallow environmental movement’s primary concern was wealthy
nations, which largely ignored the “deeper concerns, which touch upon
principles of diversity, complexity, autonomy, decentralization, symbiosis,
egalitarianism, and classlessness” (p. 95).
In 1984, Naess and Sessions presented a revised and more formalized
set of eight principles of deep ecology that would help solidify the deep
ecology movement and create a formal platform for green politics. These
eight principles are (a) everything on Earth has an inherent value, (b) these
values are actualized through species richness and diversity, (c) humans are
obligated to protect species richness and diversity, (d) humans are
overpopulating the Earth, (e) humans are increasingly interfering with
nature, (f) changes in public policy are necessary, (g) quality of life is more
important than status in life, and (h) proenvironmental individuals are
obligated to participate in environmental policy change (Naess & Sessions,
1984).
Deep ecology has been studied in a variety of environmental and
philosophical studies over the last 30 years to varying degrees (e.g., Burns &
Briley, 2015; Kopnina, 2015; Kopnina & Cherniak, 2015; Smith & Gough,
2015). Hedlund-de Witt, de Boer, and Boersema (2014) found that
proenvironmental behavior, and other key aspects of deep ecology, was
closely associated with the individual’s worldview, which supports the
connection between the macrosystem and the individual through
environmental proximal processes. While deep ecology was being
developed as a philosophical ideology during the 1970s, other environmental
theorists were questioning the relationship between humans, political
systems, and the environment, and were heavily influenced by deep ecology.
One result of this inquiry was the development of ecologism, green political
theory, and its associated ecological citizen. The following section presents
a comprehensive literature review of what ecological citizenship is and what
it is not, actors involved in its development, and why ecological citizenship
development must to be studied further.
Ecological Citizenship
The relationship between humans and nature has fascinated people for
centuries and has produced a variety of perspectives ranging from
anthropocentrism to biocentrism.Anthropocentrism stipulates that “human
interests” are given preferential treatment regardless of the “expense of the
interests or well-being of other species or the environment” (Barry &
Frankland, 2014, p. 19). While anthropocentrism is found in major religious
texts and framed cultural thought for centuries (e.g., Chandler & Dreger,
1993; Snodgrass & Gates, 1998; White, 1967), the transition from humans
being separate from nature to humans being a part of nature, biocentrism,
and the need to act as caretakers took hold as a change in social norms in the
19th century (Emmenegger & Tschentscher, 1993). Emmenegger and
Tschentscher (1993) argued that one key transition point was the
development of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism and the rise of the environmental philosophy can be
seen through the multi-generational nature of ecological thought.
Utilitarians, such as Jeremy Bentham (1996) and John Stewart Mill (1901),
argued that the individual would maximize their own pleasure without
thinking of others’ pleasure, but when individuals are part of a group, they
will maximize the pleasure of the group. When utilitarianism is applied to
environmental behavior, participants in environmental volunteer
opportunities are maximizing individual pleasure and contributing to the
happiness and well-being of others in their community (e.g., Dresner et al.,
2015). Shifting from anthropocentrism to biocentrism, or ecocentrism,
requires a change in personal values and ethics (Francis & Si, 2015;
McShane, 2014). These changes can be accomplished through laws and
regulations, but the result would be temporary (Francis & Si, 2015). Pope
Francis (2015) wrote that “Only by cultivating sound virtues will people be
able to make a selfless ecological commitment” (Chapter 6, section 211).
Sound virtue is a key tenet in ecological citizenship (Dobson, 2003) and is
found throughout the literature on environmental behavior. Environmental
behavior literature often blends ecological citizenship and environmental
citizenship, as being interchangeable; however, they are very different, yet
“complementary” views with the same result in mind (Dobson, 2003, p. 89).
Environmental citizenship and ecological citizenship promote environmental
behavior and the development of sustainable communities, but the
underlying virtues are quite different. Environmental citizenship often relies
on liberal methods of laws, rules, and regulations to elicit the desired
environmental behavior (Agyeman & Evans, 2006; Barry, 2006; Dobson,
2003).
This view of environmental citizenship focuses on the rights of
individuals within a specified territory (Barry, 2006; Dobson, 2003). For
example, Bell (2005) argued that environmental citizens have a right to
environmental goods, a right to participate in environmental policy making,
and a right to take legal action when those rights are denied. Legal action on
behalf of individual rights to environmental goods often takes the form of
citizen suits by environmental organizations (e.g., Center for Biological
Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017; Defenders of Wildlife
v. Zinke, 2017). Environmental citizenship can also view individual rights
through a contractual duty lens (Barry, 2006; Dobson, 2003).
Bell (2005) argued that the state, and its designated actors, has a duty
to make environmental law, and individuals and organizations have a duty to
follow that law. The argument for environmental duty calls into question
whether it is a moral duty and obligation or a legal duty and obligation
(MacGregor, 2006). Environmental citizenship scholars argue that it is a
legal duty and obligation in which government is held to provide common
environmental goods for the residents within their territory, and it is the legal
duty and obligation of residents to promote the common environmental good
provided by the government (e.g., Bell, 2013; Dobson, 2003). Many liberal
and civic republican responses to environmental need is to create laws for
the public to follow, and to create programs that provide financial incentive
for participation; however, compliance is often challenged or minimized
through other public policy, and public participation in incentivized
programs is often low. The lack of active, willing participation supports
Pope Francis’ (2015) belief that forced behavioral change is temporary.
Dobson (2003), argued that neither liberal nor civic republican approaches,
and in turn environmental citizenship, would produce the best results to meet
the growing environmental need, but rather a third form of citizenship,
postcosmopolitan citizenship, was needed to address environmental need.
Postcosmopolitan citizenship focuses on non-contractual duties and
obligations, is non-territorial, and values feminism (Dobson, 2003; Valencia
Sáiz, 2005). It is under this theory of citizenship that ecological citizenship
is developed. Promoting non-contractual duties and obligations endorses a
moral obligation to the local community and the world (Dobson, 2003;
Francis, 2015). It embraces utilitarianism with a global emphasis where
developed nations have a moral obligation to reduce individual and
communal footprints more than is necessary so that other, less developed
nations, can maximize use and utility of their natural resources until they are
able to maintain a healthy ecological footprint (Mason, 2014; Vaz & Bina,
2004). Ecological citizens recognize that the environment is not bound by
national boundaries, and that its resources are limited and must be protected
for future generations (Dobson, 2003). Since local and national boundaries
do not constrain ecological citizenship, its influence can be felt globally as
individuals act in the best interest of the global citizen.
One global response to the environmental and communal needs of
future generations is the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda
and its 17 goals for sustainable development. These goals include ending
poverty and global hunger, global gender equality, and ensuring quality
education throughout the world (United Nations, n.d.). Achieving these
goals requires everyone “to do their part: governments, the private sector,
civil society and people like you” (United Nations, n.d., para. 1). Eight of
the UN’s 17 goals to achieve by 2030 directly address environmental needs:
clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, sustainable cities
and communities, responsible consumption and production, climate action,
life below water, life on land, and partnerships (United Nations, n.d.). The
ecological citizen addresses each of these eight goals individually through
reducing their personal ecological footprint. Each of these eight goals are
also addressed as a common goal through sustainable consumption and
sustainable development.
Sustainable Consumption
Sustainable consumption is the 12th goal of the United Nations Sustainable
Development Agenda and “requires a systemic approach and cooperation
among actors operating in the supply chain, from producer to final
consumer” (United Nations, n.d., para. 2) to ensure a healthy Earth for future
generations. This goal has 11 benchmarks for nations to achieve by 2020
and 2030 including cutting global food waste by 50%, increase
environmental education that promotes sustainable lifestyles, and promote
sustainable consumerism (United Nations, n.d.). These goals are well-
supported by the ecological citizen paradigm as the ecological citizen
expands care and concern for the global environment into their daily lives.
Global food waste is estimated at 33% (United Nations, n.d.), but in the United
States, food waste is estimated as 30-40% according to the United States
Department of Agriculture in 2014 (Buzby, Wells, & Hyman, 2014) and
nearly 50% according to Feeding America (n.d.). Seyfang (2006) argued
that “ecological citizenship rises above traditional understandings of
citizenship to embrace new possibilities, in particular the development of
consumption as a site of political activity and sustainable consumers as a key
element of government strategy” (p. 387) and found that ecological
citizenship influenced participation in local organic food networks which
promoted sustainable consumption, but also found that “education, outreach,
and community” (p. 393) stemming from the local organic food network
also influenced the development of ecological citizenship. This multi-
directional influence is key to both ecological citizenship and the
bioecological model.
Seyfang’s findings were supported by Annunziata and Vecchio (2016)
who found that 40% of their study’s respondents perceive organic food as
being better for the environment and 30% believe organic food preserves
biodiversity; however, 23% of respondents stated they would not buy
organic food because of too many labels, and 18% reported a lack of
sufficient information. These findings aid in the reduction of ecological
footprints through local consumerism, but also highlight the influence of
public policy on food purchasing habits. O’Kane’s (2016) findings also
create a connection between ecological citizenship’s tenets and sustainable
consumption but found that shopper’s perception of food degraded the
further removed they are from the source. Using a version of the socio-
ecological model like Bronfenbrenner’s, O’Kane (2016) found that macro-
level changes, including food marketing and media, food policies, food
distribution systems, and cultural norms, were required if sustainable
consumption was to improve in Australia. Changes in policy can elicit
changes in sustainable consumption, and these changes can elicit changes in
sustainable development.
Sustainable Development
Dobson (2007) noted that changes in environmental behavior through
financial incentive, either as a charge or as a rebate, produced remarkable
results in the short-term, but failed to elicit individual behavioral changes for
the long-term; however, these shortterm changes effectively reduced
ecological footprints and could be used to change public perception to create
long-term results. Sustainable development is, in short, economic growth
without negative environmental impact (United Nations, n.d.). The
United Nations’ 17 goals for sustainable development has been called
idealistic in that it fails to recognize the influence that political ideologies
have on individual behavior (Huckle & Wals, 2014). Huckle and Wals
(2014) posited increases in global environmental education with a focus on
ecological footprints is needed if sustainable development is to be achieved.
Education is a key theme found throughout sustainable development,
sustainable consumption, and ecological citizenship. Francis and Si (2015)
wrote that “Environmental education should facilitate making the leap
towards the transcendent which gives ecological ethics its deepest meaning”
(Chapter 6, section 210). Hands-on environmental education and its
connection to ecological citizenship has been well studied (e.g., Lummis et
al., 2016; Mannion, Biesta, Priestley, & Ross, 2011; Travaline & Hunold,
2010), and findings suggest that education, itself, has a positive influence on
individual behavior (e.g., Schindel Dimick, 2015; Schinkel, 2009; Tidball &
Krasny, 2010), but this influence is moderated by internal preferences and
communal norms and values (e.g., Bergman, 2016; Curtis, 2009; Soga et al.,
2016).
This review of ecological citizenship and its key components has
shown exactly how it differs from environmental citizenship. Ecological
citizens concern themselves with not only their friends and neighbors, but
others within their community and the world. They act out of moral
obligation and altruism. Development of ecological citizenship requires
changes in social norms and values, but social norms and values change over
time as individual norms, values, and social demands change. This circular
nature of development can be explored using the bioecological model. The
following section explores actors involved in the development of ecological
citizenship as found in the literature.
Actors Involved in the Development of Ecological Citizenship
Ecological citizenship development begins with the individual’s first
experience with nature (Zhang, Goodale, & Chen, 2014). Herrmann,
Waxman, and Medin (2010) found that urban youth develop
anthropocentrism between ages 3 and 5 and is a learned behavior. The early
adoption of anthropocentrism also implies that biocentrism can also be
adopted early in the right environment. Environmental care, concern, and
knowledge begins within the home and family dynamic (Francis & Si,
2015). De Leeuw et al. (2016) found that even in teenagers, family
environmental actions are strong influencers of environmental behavior.
Extended families, peer groups, and community influence also aid in
the development of environmental behavior, including ecological citizenship
(Cheng & Monroe, 2012). Studies have shown that perceived value of the
species (e.g., Bencin, Kioko, & Kiffner, 2016; Shapiro et al., 2015),
perceived species beauty (e.g., de Pinho et al., 2014; Manesi, Van Lange, &
Pollett, 2015), and social opportunities created through conservation activity
(e.g., Dresner et al., 2015; Prati, Albanesi, & Pietrantoni, 2017; Stapleton,
2015) all influence the development of environmental behavior; however,
these influences also vary from community to community which makes
predicting environmental behavior for large geographic areas complicated.
The factors that influence the development of ecological citizenship
presented so far are direct factors that engage the individual on a regular
basis. Teachers, friends, neighbors, and family all reside in the microsystem
and help shape individual growth and development through introduction and
support of family and communal norms and values. Shapiro et al. (2015),
found that children on Andros Island in The Bahamas valued species based
on “ecological significance and endemism” (“Discussion”, para. 1), but this
valuation changed to highlight species population size after participation in a
youth education program. While development of ecological citizenship in
young children begins in the home from direct influence from parents and
family (Francis & Si, 2015), indirect agents of influence quickly become
involved as the child’s environment expands to local parks, children’s
museums, schools, youth activity groups, and the organizations and policies
that provide these social opportunities.
As noted earlier, environmental behavior can be elicited through rules,
regulations, and financial incentives through state political entities which
indirectly influences ecological citizenship development in children;
however, this influence may be temporary as policies change over time.
This does not imply, however, that public policy has a diminished role in the
development of ecological citizenship. It could be argued that public policy
has a larger, but partially unexplored, influence on the development of
ecological citizenship. For example, United Nations Sustainable
Development Goal 15 (n.d.) aims to, “protect, restore and promote
sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity
loss”, but does not explicitly state how nations are to achieve this goal;
however, international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, hold
nations accountable for reporting how, or if, that nation has met its goal.
The goal, nonetheless, has the power to influence individual ecological
citizenship development through national and local policies, and local
program opportunities.
The United States Department of Fish and Wildlife, Environmental
Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration share primary responsibility for creating national policies
that directly affect environmental health and wellbeing in the United States.
In 2016, a total of 1,029 notices, proposed rules, and rules were recorded in
the Federal Register that involved the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
ranging from listing the oceanic whitetip shark as a threatened species
(Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 2016) to increasing
monetary penalties for violating the ESA (Civil Penalties, 2016). These
policies require state compliance, which impacts all residents and visitors
regardless of their direct involvement with the policy.
States develop local policies to address local environmental needs in
addition to meeting national needs. Since 2000, states have developed a
state wildlife action plan that outlines the environmental needs and goals of
the state, as well as outlines an implementation plan for meeting those goals
(Rohweder, 2015). Each of the state’s wildlife action plans highlight the
need for public participation and creates partnerships with local and national
environmental organizations (such as the Audubon Society and Ducks
Unlimited) to create programs that will increase public participation so that
the state may meet its 10-year goal. Participation in local programs
increases environmental awareness within the microsystem, which
influences environmental awareness within the home. Introducing
innovative ideas at any stage of influence could influence the development
of ecological citizenship within the region due to the highly fluid
multidirectional nature of direct and indirect influence.
Scholars have primarily focused on direct relationships that influence
ecological citizenship, and proenvironmental behavior, development: parent-
child, child-teacher, and child-child (e.g., Hayward, 2012; MacGregor, 2011;
Soga et al., 2016). Some scholars, like Melo-Escriheula (2008) argue that
ecological citizenship cannot be fully developed without a transition within
the state towards a green state; however, Rimer, Lynes, and Hickman (2013)
argue that youth are at the forefront of necessary cultural and social changes
necessary to develop ecological citizenship. These contrary findings support
the assumption that ecological citizenship development can begin at any
point within a lifespan because each generation influences and impacts each
other.
Chan et al. (2016) noted that cultural change, or communal change, is
required for ecological citizenship development because ecological
citizenship, unlike proenvironmental behavior, impacts more than individual
behavior. Dobson (2009) argued that ecological citizenship transcends all
borders to create a global personal and political motivation to value future
generations above immediate personal demands. The development of an
ecological citizen benefits not only the individual through improved social
connections (Dresner et al., 2015) and other effects of biophilia (Wilson,
2009), but it benefits the local community and the global community through
increased awareness of the connection between individual action and its
impact on the future.
Understanding how ecological citizenship is developed and the role of
in-direct sources of influence aid or hinder that development is imperative
yet has remained unexplored in the literature. This study aims to fill that gap
in understanding by focusing on selected exosystem agents and their
willingness to take action within their community.
An individual’s willingness to take action directly measures how ecological
citizenship can be passed from one generation to the next without the need
for additional policies that inhibit the individual’s acceptance of their role in
protecting the grasslands. The next section of this literature review presents
a brief overview of the methodologies and instruments used by other
scholars, and how this study will add to the body of knowledge and
understanding of how ecological citizenship is developed.
Methodology and Instrumentation in the Literature
A simple literature review relays what is known about a topic, what is
not known, and how that gap in knowledge can be filled (Machi & McEvoy,
2016). Ecological citizenship, as presented in this study, consists of three
distinct components: biophilia, proenvironmental behavior, and ecological
citizenship. Each component has been studied to varying degrees, but there
remain many unknowns within each component. This section of the
literature review examines the methodology and instrumentation most
common to biophilia and proenvironmental behavior components, and how
these studies shaped this quantitative study.
Methodology and Instrumentation: Biophilia Research
Biophilia was coined by Wilson (2009) in 1984 to describe the innate
desire to connect to nature and has served as a key theme in over 10,000
peer-reviewed studies. Literature on biophilia often relates to how an
individual’s relationship to nature influences environmental behavior, yet
there are few empirical studies that have explored that connection directly
(Zhang, Goodale, & Chen, 2014). Martin-Lopez, Montes, and Benayas
(2007) interviewed 672 individuals in Southwest Spain to better understand
individual attachment to nature and their associated willingness to pay for
biodiversity protection, and found that while individuals clearly had
biophilic tendencies, an individual’s willingness to pay was “human-
centered” and “based mostly on the individual’s non-economic motives” (p.
77). Martin-Lopez et al., focused on adults using a natural area in Spain, but
biophilia has more often been used to explore the relationship and
connection to nature from a child’s perspective.
Ballouard, Provost, Barre, and Bonnet (2012) explored this connection
by focusing on “the influence of a field experience based on snake
population monitoring on the feelings of schoolchildren” by surveying 520
schoolchildren before and after a field trip involving snakes, and found
biophilia toward snakes increased, biophobia decreased, and a willingness to
protect snakes increased from 77% to 94% in children who participated in
the field experience. Like Ballouard et al., Zhang, Goodale, and Chen
(2014) focused on children when they surveyed 1119 children, aged 9-10,
from 15 elementary schools in China regarding their contact with nature,
biophilia, biophobia, willingness to conserve animals, and general attitudes
toward animals, and found that “Biophilia and biophobia were significantly
affected by children’s contact with nature” (p. 112).
These three example studies on biophilia conclude that the connection
between individuals and nature can be innate but needs to be developed. A
strong connection to nature can be developed through environmental
programs and safe green spaces in urban areas (White, 2004). While the
literature on biophilia is primarily normative, there is a common thread
between the normative studies and the selected empirical studies in that
future development of environmentally aware individuals requires
partnerships between schools and nature organizations. Ballouard et al.
(2012) recommended a “balanced role” between “conservationists and
educators” (p. 427).
While the three studies briefly presented above, did not use the
bioecological model directly, they did explore biophilia from a stratified
viewpoint where the individual had to interact with others outside their
immediate circle of influence to gain experience with nature. The natural
park in Spain and public science center that hosted the field trip are all
operated by other agencies that provide in-direct influence on the study
participant. Only a handful of studies were found to have discussed the
bioecological model to study biophilia, but none have applied it explicitly.
This study, however, assumes that biophilia is a natural driver of
proenvironmental behavior, and therefore, is also a natural driver of
ecological citizenship that can be encouraged through public policy, public
environmental opportunities, and family norms and values. The three
studies discussed in this section influenced the development of this study
through their focus on the willingness of the study participant to engage in
some aspect of environmental behavior. Ballouard et al. (2012) inquired
into a willingness to protect a species, Zhang et al. (2014) focused on a
willingness to conserve, and Martin-Lopez et al. (2007) asked about the
respondent’s willingness to pay, which supports the focus on an individual’s
willingness to take action to conserve the environment in this study.
Methodology and Instrumentation: Proenvironmental Behavior
Like biophilia, proenvironmental behavior is well represented in the
literature with close to 20,000 results in Google Scholar for the keyword
proenvironmental behavior and its variations; however, unlike biophilia
research, it has been studied directly using a variety of methodologies and
instruments. Literature on proenvironmental behavior has utilized both
qualitative and quantitative methods and a variety of theoretical frameworks
including the theory of planned behavior, value-beliefnorm theory, and the
bioecological model. Instruments used to study proenvironmental behavior
are also varied; however, proenvironmental behavior studies with an
ecological or environmental citizenship focus often utilize the New
Ecological Paradigm. The term proenvironmental behavior is very broad
and has been operationalized in numerous ways throughout the years.
Larson, Stedman, Cooper, and Decker (2015) utilized a mixed-method
approach to operationalize proenvironmental behavior. Larson et al.’s (2015)
data collected through snowball sampling of 41 rural upstate New York
“nature-based recreationists” (p. 115) and a web based and mailed survey of
1027 residents in the same region was “examined using confirmatory factor
analysis” (p. 118). Confirmatory factor analysis “is almost always used in
the process of scale development to examine the latent structure of a test
instrument” (Brown, 2014, p. 3). Brown (2014) noted that confirmatory
factor analysis is used before structural equation models (SEM), which is
often used in proenvironmental behavior research. Larson et al. (2015)
found proenvironmental behavior to be a “four-dimensional structure”
consisting of “conservation lifestyle, land stewardship, social
environmentalism, and environmental citizenship” (p. 420). These four
dimensions, while measured differently by Larson et al., have been
identified as factors of proenvironmental behavior for decades.
Masud, Akhtar, Afroz, Al-Amin, & Kari, F. B. (2015) explored
factors relating to proenvironmental behavior in Singapore by surveying 400
residents in the state of Selangor age 18 and over through convenience
sampling and found that individuals reporting proenvironmental behavior
were significantly influenced through personal attitude toward the
environment, awareness of environmental needs, and knowledge of how
individual actions affect the environment. Their study concluded that
proenvironmental behavior in the region could be improved through
increased public policy that aimed to increased individual environmental
knowledge and awareness (Masud et al., 2015). These findings are
reiterated throughout the literature on proenvironmental behavior regardless
of sampling methods, research design, or instrumentation.
Proenvironmental behavior is often approached as the relationship
between individuals and nature in terms of action. This action is often
studied utilizing the valuebelief-norm (VBN) theory of environmentalism.
Stern’s (2000) VBN theory combined the NEP with the adverse
consequences for valued objects and perceived ability to reduce to measure
individual environmental belief. Studies often use VBN to explore the
relationship between individual environmental belief and a single
proenvironmental behavior, such as recycling electronic waste (Saphores,
Ogunseitan, & Shapiro, 2011) and support for increased carbon tax (Harring
& Jagers, 2013).
Methodology and Instrumentation: Influence on this Study
A Google Scholar search on ecological citizenship literature published
since 2013 revealed 50% of the literature is qualitative in nature, and 50% is
mixed methods or quantitative. The NEP guided 58 of the studies and VBN
guided 32 studies. When the same search was conducted on
proenvironmental behavior, literature published since 2013 is nearly 41%
qualitative and 59% quantitative or mixed methods. Within
proenvironmental behavior research, NEP accounted for roughly 25% of the
studies instrumentation and VBN accounted for 30% of the studies
framework or instrumentation. These results support Growneveld et al.’s
(2014) findings that qualitative methods are the preferred choice within
public policy, but complex relations within the field often utilize a
quantitative or mixed method design to better understand the relationship.
No study has been found that directly addresses the role of political
agents on the development of ecological citizenship; however, a key study
that identified the influence of political agents on the development of
ecological citizenship and proenvironmental behavior was conducted by
Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002). Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) reviewed a
selection of environmental behavior models, explored individual model
strengths and weaknesses, and developed a model that identified barriers to
proenvironmental behavior. These identified barriers have guided many
studies presented within this literature review, but a common actor between
the barriers has not been explored. Barriers to proenvironmental behavior
are: existing knowledge and values, lack of knowledge, lack of incentives,
lack of environmental consciousness, and lack of opportunities (Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002, p. 257). Knowledge, incentive, and opportunities are
provided through external means that influence internal values and
consciousness.
Building on studies that explored environmental belief and behavior
(e.g., Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Middlemiss, 2010; Wolf et al., 2009) and
studies that explored environmental action (e.g., Kelly & Able, 2012;
Seyfang, 2006; Spaargaren & Oosterveer, 2010), this study fills a gap in
understanding how ecological citizenship is developed by combining belief,
measured by the NEP, and willingness to take action by focusing on indirect
agents of influence. These indirect agents have the power to directly drop
the barriers to environmental behavior identified by Kollmuss & Agyeman,
which can only serve to increase environmental behavior within the
grasslands and promote ecological citizenship within the region. The focus
of this study has not been addressed before but has been identified as a need
for further study to better understand how ecological citizenship can be
developed through indirect methods. Therefore, this quantitative study is
necessary to fill this gap in understanding and contribute to the quantitative
literature that will increase knowledge on the predictive factors of
environmental behavior.
Summary
This chapter traced the development of environmental behavior from
the individual level to becoming a national and international agenda. To
promote a sustainable community, Dobson (2003) argued that there needed
to be a shift in citizenship from liberal and republican to a post-cosmopolitan
concept where individuals act in the best interest of global citizens and
future generations. To achieve this, Dobson (2003) introduced ecological
citizenship where proenvironmental individuals enter political space.
The bioecological model can be used to explore the development of
ecological citizenship from biophilia in the person, through proximal
processes with family, friends, and nature in the microsystem, to engaging
nature as adults through programs offered in the mesosystem by NGOs and
agencies in the exosystem. These programs are shaped by, and help shape,
communal norms and values found in the macrosystem. This development
of an ecological citizen occurs over the individual’s lifetime and serves to
influence future generations through changing familial norms and values.
The multigenerational changes found in the development of ecological
citizenship, and environmentalism in general, is strengthened by the
bioecological model. Studies have focused on how individuals develop
ecological citizenship from the individual level, but none have focused on
the role of entities in the exosystem, political actors and organizations, in the
development of ecological citizenship. Once this gap is filled, exosystem
entities can increase influence over the development of ecological
citizenship through better programs and more aligned rules and regulations.
Chapter 3 presents the research design and rationale for its selection as
well as a thorough description of the study’s population. Sampling
techniques are also presented, as are procedures for how participants will be
solicited and selected. The study’s instrument will be presented as well how
the survey has been previously used to explore proenvironmental behavior
and ecological citizenship. Threats to the study and ethical procedures close
out the chapter.
Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
My purpose in this study was to explore the roles of state legislators
and agents, state organization partner directors and staff, and NGO directors
and staff in the development of ecological citizenship within Iowa, Kansas,
Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. To accomplish this purpose, I
used a quantitative approach to measure current levels of proenvironmental
behavior and receptiveness to ecological citizenship, and to determine the
relationship between the individual’s personal beliefs and professional role.
In this chapter, I introduce the research design and present the
rationale for selecting this design, as well as how this design connects to the
research questions and study variables. In the next section, I discuss my
methodology in the study with a focus on the population, sampling
procedures, and recruitment of study participants. I also present the
instrument that used in this study and why I selected the willingness to take
action and NEP surveys. In the next section, I present threats to the study
created through variable selection, instrument selection, and data analysis. I
conclude the chapter with a description of ethical procedures that I
implemented to protect the integrity of the study and anonymity of the
participants.
Research Design and Rationale
Researchers have three general options for designing their studies:
qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Empirical studies have often
used case study, experimental, correlational, and regression designs to
explain or predict the relationship between individuals and environmental
behavior. Qualitative methods, such as case study and phenomenological
designs, produce “descriptive data” that focus on understanding individual
understanding of the world around the individual (Taylor, Bogdan, &
DeVault, 2015), whereas quantitative methods, such as experimental and
correlational designs, explore “relationships between variables” (Creswell,
2009, p. 4).
Within public administration, the predominant design is qualitative;
however, Groeneveld, Tummers, Bronkhorst, Ashikali, and Theil (2014)
found 41% of public administration articles used quantitative methods.
Growneveld et al. (2014) also found that distribution of quantitative methods
between subfields were not equal. Exploring proenvironmental worldviews
and individual willingness to take action within the political system falls
under public policy and management categories, which often use
quantitative approaches. I considered a variety of designs for this study, but
found correlation and linear regression to be the most fitting to adequately
address the research questions and add to the body of knowledge on
ecological citizenship development.
Case studies cannot be generalized, focus on a single concept
approached from different angles, use multiple methods of data collection,
and often answer questions of how and why (Thomas, 2016). Lester and
Cottle (2009) used a case study design to “examine the nature of climate
change visualization within television news” (p. 921) and found “visual
rhetorics of climate change . . . can encourage ecological citizenship” (p.
933). The case study approach would be applicable in this study if the focus
were on one single aspect, such as recycling, or one specific organization or
location, such as Quivira National Refuge or Ducks Unlimited; however,
that was not my intent in this study, and therefore, the case study design was
not applicable.
Experimental studies are quantitative and generalizable and allow the
researcher to “assign subjects to different research groups and control who is
exposed to the independent variable, when they are exposed to it, and the
conditions under which the experiment takes place” (O’Sullivan, Rassell, &
Berner, 2008, p. 58). Von Meyer-Höfer, von der Wense, and Spiller (2015)
used an experimental design to determine whether food labeling practices
influenced sustainable food purchases in Germany. Although the
experimental design could be applied to the development of ecological
citizenship, a treatment variable, such as a unique program or educational
course, would be needed. This study on the development of ecological
citizenship does not focus on any single treatment, but rather focuses on a
group of individuals that have the power to influence individual
environmental behavior through indirect methods and, as such, the
experimental design was not applicable to my study.
The correlational design, like experimental designs, is a quantitative
approach to explaining the relationship between two or more variables;
however, unlike experimental designs, correlational studies cannot predict
outcomes based on cause and effect (Creswell, 2009). Martinsson and
Lundqvist (2010) explored ecological citizenship through a correlational
design to determine whether a relationship existed between shifts in attitude
and ecological citizenship, and they concluded that individuals with
increased attitudes toward the environment and increased environmental
behavior could be considered to exhibit ecological citizenship; however, the
findings do not imply that increased attitudes toward the environment cause
or predict ecological citizenship but rather that a relationship exists between
the two beliefs. The correlational design serves as the primary design for
this study.
Regression studies are like correlational studies in that they both
explore relationships between two or more variables independent variables
and the dependent variable; however, regression studies examine this
relationship one step further to determine if one or more of the independent
variables can predict, to some degree, the dependent variable (Creswell,
2009). Jagers et al. (2011) utilized regression analysis to determine “Which
aspects of ecological citizenship theory are most important as drivers for
pro‐environmental behavior” (p. 4) and found that perceptions of “social
justice and dismantling the public‐private distinction” (p. 22) are significant
predictors of proenvironmental behavior when viewed through ecological
citizenship principles. Jagers et al. (2011) also noted that additional studies
that included a wider variety of independent variables are needed to better
understand the factors of ecological citizenship and proenvironmental
behavior development. It is for this reason that I selected linear regression
as the second method of analysis for this study.
I focus on the indirect, influential relationship between residents of the
grasslands and political agents with a focus on the development of
ecological citizenship to determine if selected independent variables predict
the worldview of the respondent to better understand how that individual
perceives their role in the development of ecological citizenship within their
states. My research questions directly seek to understand the relationship
between state legislators and the development of ecological citizenship, state
organization partners and the development of ecological citizenship, and
NGO administrators and the development of ecological citizenship. The
following research questions guide this quantitative study:
RQ1: What roles do state legislators and agents perceive that state
governments can play in fostering environmental citizenship among
residents in their states? Ho1: There is no significant relationship
between state legislator and agents’ worldview and willingness to take
action.
Ha1: There is a significant relationship between state legislator
and agents’ worldview and willingness to take action.
RQ2: What roles do state organization partner directors and staff
perceive that their partnerships can play in fostering ecological
citizenship among residents in their states?
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between state
organization partner director and staff’s worldview and
willingness to take action. Ha2: There is a significant
relationship between state organization partner director and
staff’s worldview and willingness to take action.
RQ3: What roles do NGO administrators and staff believe their
organizations can play in fostering ecological citizenship among
residents in their states?
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between NGO director
and staff’s worldview and willingness to take action.
Ha3: There is a significant relationship between NGO director
and staff’s worldview and willingness to take action.
Regression studies measure responses to determine which, if any,
independent variables predict the dependent variable. This study has one
dependent variable, ecological citizenship, and one primary independent
variable. The independent variables, both primary and secondary, are: sex,
political affiliation, political values, education, race or ethnicity, and
environmental worldview. These variables were selected because they
highlight each of the subsystems found within the bioecological model. Sex
and ethnicity is inherent within the individual, whereas political values,
party affiliation, and education are constructed through previous
experiences. An individual’s worldview is shaped by previous generations
and interactions throughout the individual’s lifetime. This set of
independent variables can serve as benchmarks for each subsystem within
the bioecological model to determine which, if any, predict an individual’s
willingness to take action which is a direct influence on others, thereby
completing the circle of influence between generations. How these variables
are operationalized and measured will be presented in the next section.
Methodology
Regression designs, like all quantitative designs, rely on a clear
definition of the population and application of appropriate sampling
techniques to produce results that are generalizable for the entire population.
This section outlines the study’s population, sampling and sampling
procedures, procedures for recruitment, data collection methods,
instrumentation and operationalization of constructs, and data analysis plan,
such that the study could be replicated within the same parameters or serve
as a guide for other populations.
Population
Quantitative research aims to produce results that are generalizable to
the full population but must first define that population explicitly
(O’Sullivan et al., 2008). The population for this study are all state
legislators and agents, all state organization partners identified in each
state’s wildlife action plan, and all environmental NGO directors and staff.
This population is far too large and must be reduced to a target, or study,
population. The target population for this study is: state legislators and
agents, state organization partner directors and staff, and environmental
NGO directors and staff living and working in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa,
North Dakota, and South Dakota in 2017. These three groups represent
entities within the exosystem that have the power to influence individual
development of ecological citizenship through indirect means, such as public
policies and program development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Dobson,
2003). Each group has a set of clearly identifiable individuals derived from
state and organizational websites, and state produced publications. This
allowed for identification of acceptable population estimates for each group
to determine the appropriate study sample size.
According to the National Convention on State Legislatures (2017),
the aggregate state senate is 40.2% Democrat, 57% Republican, and 2.8%
Other, and the aggregate state house of representatives is 43% Democrat,
56.4% Republican, and 0.6% Other. For this study’s population, the
aggregate state senate is 20% Democrat, 57.4% Republican, and 22.6%
Other, and the aggregate state house of representatives is 26.7% Democrat
and
73.3% Republican. The 22.6% Other identified within the aggregate state
senate is because Nebraska has a nonpartisan, unicameral legislative branch.
There is a total of
608 state legislators in this group’s target population (Table 2).
Table 2
Political Affiliation Within the Region
State
State Legislature State House of
Representatives
Democrat Republican Other Democrat Republican Other
KS 9 31 40 86
ND 9 38 13 81
SD 6 26 10 60
IA 20 29 1 41 59
NE 49
Total 44 124 50 104 286
The population for state organization partnerships was derived
through the state wildlife action plan for each selected state. To determine
the target population size for each identified organization, a search of the
organization’s website and institutional material was conducted to identify
board members, directors, and regional staff. Some states included
educational facilities, federal agencies, and national organizations as state
partners, but these were excluded from this group’s population because of
the scope and limitations of this study. The total number of individuals
identified for this group’s target population is 795 individuals from 65
organizations (Table 3).
Table 3
State Organization Partnership Population by State
State
Number of selected
state organization
partnerships
Total number of
identified individuals
for population
KS 26 312
ND 10 64
SD 8 168
IA 6 146
NE 15 105
Total 65 795
The last group in this study are environmental NGO directors and
staff. This is the largest of the three groups and is not identified within the
state wildlife action plans. Members of this group were identified through a
variety of methods including identifying local chapters of national
environmental organizations, surveying state websites to identify programs
managed by local environmental organizations, using Google to locate
environmental and conservation organizations within the state, and to
examine organizational website to locate related and partner organizations
within the state (Table 4). Each state has an association of conservation
districts which constitutes the largest individual entity within this group.
This group of organizations is still within the exosystem along with state
organization partners and state legislators and agents but has a more direct
relationship with a wider portion of the community than the other entities.
Care was taken to identify only those positions, such as director and board
members, that would have less direct interaction with the community than
other positions, such as volunteer coordinator or youth activity instructor.
Organizations selected for this study were chosen because they operate state-
wide, provide membership or volunteer opportunities for interested
individuals, and focus on ecological citizenship principles including
reducing ecological footprints, sustainable development, and sustainable
consumption. The total number of identified individuals within this group is
3,195.
Table 4
Selected NGO Population by State
State
Number of selected
environmental NGOs
Total number of
identified individuals
for population
KS 15 762
ND 12 579
SD 16 583
IA 14 647
NE 10 624
Total 67 3195
The total identified population for this study is 4,276. There is a
hidden population within each group that consists of aides, organizational
staff members, and others known to the respondent within the same group,
but not identified in the population survey. The next section outlines the
sampling and sampling procedures taken to achieve the desired sample size.
Sampling and Sampling Procedures
In this study, I utilized two sampling techniques: simple random
sampling and snowball sampling. Simple random sampling technique is
used when the population size is known, and each member of the population
has an equal chance of being included in the study (O’Sullivan, Rassel, &
Berner, 2016). For this study, the primary participants are known and easily
identifiable due to their positions as lawmakers, agency directors, and NGO
administrators. The second sampling technique, snowball sampling, is used
when other participants that are not easily identifiable by the researcher, but
would be accessible by the participant (Goodman, 1961). The online survey
will be advertised to primary participants along with a request to distribute to
staff members. This technique will allow for a maximum number of
participants within the desired population. A power analysis using
G*Power was conducted to determine the desired sample size. A power
analysis requires three decisions by the researcher: power, significance level,
and effect size. The power of the study refers to the probability of rejecting
a false null hypothesis, or Type II error (Cohen, 1992). As noted by Cohen
(1992), a power of
.80 is enough to neither increase the risk of error nor increase the study’s
resources. Significance level, or alpha, is the risk of falsely rejecting a null
hypothesis, or Type I error, and is often set at .05 (Cohen, 1992). The last
decision in determining a sample size is the effect size. The effect size can
be small (r = .05), medium (r = .15), or large (r = .25) and refers to the
strength of the relationship between the variables (Cohen, 1992). For this
study, a power of .80, medium effect size (r = .15), a significance level
of .05, and five predictors, or independent variables, was used in G*Power
to determine the recommended sample size of 92. Response rates for survey
studies often range between 10% and 30% (e.g., Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek,
2004). In quantitative studies with multiple populations, such as this study,
the sample size must be larger than recommended (O’Sullivan et al., 2016).
To determine the desired sample size for this study, the G*Power
recommended sample size was multiplied by three to account for the three
population groups, then divided by 30% to account for the low expected
participation rate. In this way, the sample size is 920 and will meet the
minimum recommended G*Power sample size if participation rates are low.
Simple random sampling technique is used when the population size is
known and each member of the population has an equal chance of being
included in the study (O’Sullivan et al., 2016). For this study, the primary
participants are known and easily identifiable due to their positions as
lawmakers, agency directors, and NGO administrators. The second
sampling technique, snowball sampling, is used when other participants that
are not easily identifiable by the researcher, but would be accessible by the
participant (Goodman, 1961). As presented earlier, there are unidentified
possible participants who are staff members and directors of other,
equivalent organizations. The next section presents the procedures for
recruitment, participation, and data collection.
Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection
Recruitment, participation, and all data collection were conducted
electronically. Identified individuals that are selected in the random
sampling will be contacted by email and informed of the opportunity to
participate in the study. This initial contact email will include a link to the
survey and a request to forward the email to others that fit the description of
the study participant. Contacted individuals have the option to participate or
not participate. The survey will be delivered online through SurveyMonkey
and the only identifying information that will be collected is the group to
which the participant belongs: state government, partnering organization, or
non-partnering organization. Organizations listed in the state wildlife action
plans will be identified to make selection of group easier. Using an
electronic delivery method will allow disclosure, consent, and exit
procedures to be incorporated into one survey package. A follow up email
will be sent 15 days after initial email. The following section describes the
instrument used in the survey, as well as how the instrument questions relate
to the research questions and hypotheses.
Instrumentation and Operationalization of Constructs
This study will integrate two instruments. The first instrument,
Dunlap et al.’s New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale, was revised in 2000
and measures environmental concern through 15 statements. These
statements measure endorsement of the dominate social paradigm or the new
environmental paradigm, which is closely related to ecological citizenship
(Dunlap et al., 2000). Questions in this scale are ordinal and utilize a 5-point
Likert scale that ranges from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Permission to use this instrument is freely given by the author and does not
have an associated fee. The NEP scale has been used extensively to measure
environmental attitudes in a variety of studies including international
contexts (e.g., Fleury-Bahi, Marcouyeux, Renard, & Roussiau, 2015;
Ogunbode, 2013; Xue & Zhao, 2015), consumer behavior studies (e.g.,
Kumar & Ghodeswar, 2015; Polonsky, Vocino, Grimmer, & Miles, 2016;
Sudbury-Riley, Hofmeister-Toth, & Kohlbacher, 2014), environmental
education (e.g., Atav, Altunoğlu, & Sönmez, 2015; Kuo & Jackson, 2015;
Spinola, 2015), and in conjunction with the value-belief-norm theory and
survey (e.g., Angeles, 2015; van Riper & Kyle, 2014). The second
instrument, willingness to take action, was created by Sinatra, Kardash,
Taasoobshirazi, and Lombardi in 2012. This questionnaire explores
willingness to take action regarding global warming, but the questions are
applicable to reducing one’s ecological footprint as required by Dobson.
This questionnaire is available for educational purposes without requiring
permission to use as long as the authors are properly cited and is available
without a fee. The questions from this instrument are also ordinal and use a
4-point Likert scale ranging from Not Willing at All to Willing Enough to
Convince Others. As is common with environmental and ecological
behavioral studies, this questionnaire is often combined with other surveys
and questionnaires to meet the needs of the researcher. Sinatra et al. (2012)
combined multiple instruments and reported the willingness to take action
questionnaire’s reliability was α = .85 in their study of 140 college students;
while Schoenefeld and McCauley’s (2015) study reported a willingness to
take action reliability of α = .97.
I combined these two instruments to create a survey that traces the
development of ecological citizenship from individual worldview to
promoting ecological citizenship in others (Appendix A). Each of the
questions on the survey directly measure or relate to an aspect of ecological
citizenship as it could be developed using the bioecological model.
Demographic information including age and sex are directly related to the
individual system that all other systems are constructed from. The 15
questions derived from the NEP directly relate to the respondent’s
worldview, and the 12 questions from the willingness to take action measure
the respondent’s willingness to promote ecological citizenship in others.
The literature review outlined two thoughts, anthropocentrism and
biocentrism, and two actions, sustainable consumption and sustainable
development, that shape ecological citizenship. The three research questions
inquire into whether thought can predict action, and if so, does that thought
need to be significant before an individual takes action. Each question on
the survey relates to one of these four areas that shape ecological citizenship
(Table 5).
Table 5
Relationship Between Instruments and Ecological Citizenship
Factor of ecological citizenship Dunlap’s NEP (2000) Sinatra’s WTTA (2012)
Anthropocentrism 1,3,5,7,9,11,13
Biocentrism/moral obligation 2,4,6,8,10,12,14
Sustainable consumption 1,3,5,6,7,8,10,12 Sustainable development
2,4,9,11
Operationalization of a variable describes how that variable is defined,
and how it will be measured. Operationalization of variables can also help
connect the research question, hypothesis, and instrument. This study has a
total of six variables that are operationalized as follows:
•Ecological citizenship, the dependent variable, is an ordinal
variable that utilizes the willingness to take action scale to
determine how willing the respondent is to convince others to act
environmentally and reduce their ecological footprint.
•Worldview, an ordinal independent variable, is determined by
responses on the NEP. Positive responses to the seven even
questions, and negative responses to the eight odd questions
determine an individual’s endorsement of the new ecological
paradigm, or a new environmentally friendly worldview.
•Group, a nominal independent variable, allows the individual to
identify which exosystem group the respondent is currently
employed through a single question on the survey.
•Political affiliation is a nominal independent variable measured by
one survey question that allows the respondent to identify if they
are Democrat, Republican, or a third party.
•Sex, the last independent variable, is a dichotomous measurement
of the respondent’s sex.
Data Analysis Plan
Data collected from the surveys will be analyzed using SPSS. After
collecting the survey data from SurveyMonkey, the data can be screened,
cleaned, and prepared for SPSS analysis. The data will first be checked for
missing data or duplicate cases. If there are duplicate cases, the duplicate
will be removed. Descriptive analysis of the data will help determine if any
cases with missing data affect the study. Preparing the data for analysis
includes coding the dichotomous variable Sex (0 = male, 1 = female),
nominal variable Political Affiliation (0 = Republican, 1 = Democrat, 2 =
Other, and 3 = No Answer), and nominal variable Environmental Activity (0
= No Participation, 1 = 1
Activity, 2 = 2 Activities, and 3 = 3 Activities). The variables Worldview
and Willingness to Take Action do not need recoding.
The data collected in this study tests hypotheses related to three questions:
•What roles do state legislators and agents perceive that state
governments can play in fostering ecological citizenship among
residents in their states?
•What roles do state organization partner directors and staff perceive
that their partnerships can play in fostering ecological citizenship
among residents in their states?
•What roles do NGO administrators and staff feel their organizations
can play in fostering ecological citizenship among residents in their
states?
The correlational study tests the hypothesis that there is a significant
relationship between the respondent’s worldview and their willingness to
take action. By exploring this relationship further, I can add to the literature
on factors predicting ecological citizenship within the U.S. grasslands by
conducting regression testing.
Threats to Validity
Threats to external validity are factors that affect the generality of the
study, while threats to internal validity challenge the correlation and
causation results of the study (O’Sullivan et al., 2016). Many threats to
internal validity, such as maturation and history, do not exist in this study
due to the one-time survey with no pre-test or post-test. The primary threat
to internal validity is caused by the sampling method. While the main
sampling method is simple random sampling where each member of the
target population has an equal chance to be included in the study, the
secondary snowball sampling method introduces self-selection bias into the
study as staff members opt to participate or not participate in the study.
Some participants found through snowballing may feel obligated to
participate in the study.
Threats to external validity in this study are lower than threats to
internal validity. Due to the nature of the study, only one group, state
legislators, is not in an environmental position, which implies the sample
will be very representative of the study’s population. Generalization to the
region’s entire population, however, is limited, but the results would be
generalizable to environmental leaders and staff within other regions of the
United States.
Ethical Procedures
For this study I utilize a quantitative survey delivered online with
three follow-up emails to remind potential participants about the study. The
Walden Institutional Review Board application was completed following
successfully defending this proposal as required by Walden University.
Participants will be approached through e-mail and all communication will
be through online methods which will allow for easier access to participants
and not require access or personal interaction. There are few ethical
concerns expected in regard to recruitment. Data collection will take place
online which will protect anonymity of the participant with the only
identifier being their categorical employment response. Data will be
retrieved from the online survey and stored in an encrypted file locally and
in password protected cloud storage for five years. No one will have access
to the data and after five years the data will be destroyed by deleting the
cloud storage and file.
Summary
In this chapter, I presented the study’s purpose, to better understand
the role of political agents in the development of ecological citizenship, and
research questions that will be used to serve that purpose. To accomplish
this purpose, I will conduct a correlation and regression study to explore the
relationship between the worldview and ecological citizenship. Dunlap’s
NEP has been extensively used to measure environmental concern and,
along with Sinatra’s WTTA questionnaire, will serve as the basis for this
study. Online surveys, and non-experimental studies, have fewer threats to
validity and what threats remain are easily addressed through statistical
analysis methods. Walden University provides explicit instructions on how
to obtain permission to begin the study, and these will be followed after
successfully defending this study proposal. In Chapter 4, I present the data
results of the study and Chapter 5 presents the results in context of the
bioecological model and how further research is necessary to fully
understand the role of the political system in the development and fostering
of ecological citizenship.
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
My purpose in this quantitative study was to explore the perceived
roles of state legislators and agents, state organization partner directors and
staff, and NGO administrators and staff in the fostering of ecological
citizenship within Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North
Dakota. I selected these states for this study because their borders lie solely
within the U.S. grasslands. This region is more than 95% privately owned,
which makes understanding how public entities perceive their roles in the
development and fostering of ecological citizenship within their states
imperative to the environmental health of the region. Ecological citizens
bridge the gap between private action and public policy through individual
environmental behavior, encouraging environmental behavior in others, and
participation in public policy processes including the development of state
wildlife action plans, citizen science programs, and state-based
environmental behavior programs.
In Chapter 2, I presented an extensive review of the literature and
found that much is known about how direct interaction between individuals
can aid the development of ecological citizenship (e.g., Russ et al., 2015;
Shapiro et al., 2016; Steg, 2016); however, many scholars noted the need to
better understand how agents of indirect influence aid in the development
and fostering of ecological citizenship (e.g., Lummis et al., 2016; Islar,
2016; Scoville, 2016). I developed three research questions and hypotheses
to better understand how agents of indirect influence view their roles on the
development and fostering of ecological citizenship within their states:
RQ1: What roles do state legislators and agents perceive that state
governments can play in fostering ecological citizenship among
residents in their states? Ho1: There is no significant relationship
between state legislator and agents’ worldview and willingness to
take action.
Ha1: There is a significant relationship between state legislator
and agents’ worldview and willingness to take action.
RQ2: What roles do state organization partner directors and staff
perceive that their partnerships can play in fostering ecological
citizenship among residents in their states?
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between state
organization partner director and staff’s worldview and
willingness to take action. Ha2: There is a significant
relationship between state organization partner director and
staff’s worldview and willingness to take action.
RQ3: What role do NGO administrators and staff believe their
organizations can play in fostering ecological citizenship among
residents in their states?
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between NGO director
and staff’s worldview and willingness to take action.
Ha3: There is a significant relationship between NGO director
and staff’s worldview and willingness to take action.
I conducted an online study between August 20, 2017, and October 1,
2017, to explore these research questions and test the hypotheses. In
Chapter 4, I present the results of this study beginning with a brief
description of how I conducted the study, and whether I made any deviations
from the proposed plan that I presented in Chapter 3. In the second section
of this chapter, I report descriptive statistics of the participants and how each
variable relates to both their environmental worldview view and their
willingness to take action to help the environment. In the third section, I
report the results of hypothesis testing and briefly places those results in
context of the current literature. I conclude Chapter 4 with a summary of
key results and how those results relate to what is known about ecological
citizenship.
Data Collection
I did not conduct a pilot study because the NEP scale has been widely
used in environmental behavior research since 2000 when Dunlap expanded
the original NEP scale to 15 Likert-scaled items. Atav et al. (2015) used the
NEP to determine environmental attitudes of students in Turkey and found
that the students were ecoconscious, but they also noted that the NEP was
culturally dependent. Jagers and Matti (2010) also used the NEP scale to
determine environmental attitude in Sweden, but they found that
environmental attitude, if it is to be considered ecological citizenship, is
nonterritorial. Both studies reverse scored items on the NEP to create a less
positive environmental worldview to more positive environmental
worldview scale. A less positive environmental worldview is an
endorsement of the dominant ecological paradigm, and a more positive
environmental worldview is an endorsement of the new ecological paradigm.
My study consisted of three distinct groups: state legislators and
agents, state partnership directors and staff, and environmental NGO
administrators and staff. I identified state legislators through their respective
state’s legislature website where the individual’s name and email address or
phone number was published online. I used the state SWAP to identify
formal state partners then used Google to locate the organization or agency’s
website where I found contact information for staff and board members. The
last group, NGOs, proved more difficult to identify, but through mining the
websites of state partners, national organizational websites, and 501(c)(3)
search engines, I compiled a list of administrators, staff, and board members
to invite to participate in the study.
I submitted my application to conduct the study to Walden
University’s institutional review board (IRB) on July 17, 2017 and received
final approval to begin collecting data on August 8, 2017 (Walden
University IRB approval number 08-08-170598391). Between August 8,
2017, and August 20, 2017, I formalized the population list of 3,821 names
and contact information. I then separated the population list was by group
and I assigned everyone a randomly generated number. I then sorted each
group was by the random number and I selected the first 600 names of each
group for the study’s sample.
I contacted everyone on the sample list via email or phone on August
20, 2017, and August 21, 2017. If the email was undeliverable, or the phone
number was not current, then I removed that individual from the sample list
and I replaced the name with the next name on that group’s list until a total
of 600 individuals for each group could be invited to participate in the study.
I replaced a total of 37 (2%) individuals during the initial invitation process.
Depending on type of initial contact, I conducted follow-up emails or phone
calls on September 3 and 4, as well as September 17 and 18, and sent a final
email on September 27, 2017 that thanked participants for their time and
provided a website address where the results will be available.
Deviation From Planned Data Collection
In Chapter 3, I presented the anticipated data collection plan; however,
two deviations were made during the study. First, SurveyMonkey was not
used to deliver the invitation and follow-up email. After consulting my
dissertation committee and considering the possibility that the
SurveyMonkey email may be blocked through organizational spam filtering,
I chose to use my official Walden University email account to deliver the
invitation and follow-up emails. This option also allowed me to
individualize each email with the individual’s name, organization, and
include a link to the survey. The second deviation to the anticipated plan
was the exclusion of the request to forward the survey invitation to others in
their organization or agency. Walden IRB rejected this anticipated method
of snowball sampling, so I relied on opening a discussion with those who
requested more information and/or was contacted over the phone to obtain
another individual’s contact information that may qualify or want to
participate in the study. Only five individuals were found using this method
and all were in Group 3. No further deviations from the anticipated data
collection plan were made, and the revised plan was carried out between
August 20, 2017 and October 1, 2017.
Participation, Data Cleaning, and Final Response Rates
I closed the survey with SurveyMonkey on October 1, 2017 and
downloaded the data in Excel format. Once the data were downloaded, I
deleted the survey from SurveyMonkey and the loaded raw data onto a flash
drive for safe keeping. The raw data file does not contain any identifying
information and I placed the data in a password protected file. In addition to
the raw data, the flash drive also contains the population and sample list in a
password protected file. These files will remain on the flash drive in
addition to the final data folder and analyzed data files, both in password
protected format, for five years as required by Walden University.
The survey administered through SurveyMonkey for each group
consisted of the same 13 questions (Appendix A). The first question was
informed consent and only those who selected yes were permitted to
participate in the study. Three questions were Likert-scaled and contained
NEP, WTTA, and factors of ecological citizenship items. Three questions
were open-ended questions that are quantified by the yes/no/I don’t know
response provided by the respondent. The remaining six questions were
demographic questions that allowed further analysis and interpretation of the
survey.
Of the 1800 individuals invited to participate, 31 (2%) declined after
the initial contact. Most individuals who declined to participate in the study
did not provide a reason for declining; however, several state legislators did
provide reasons ranging from a desire to help their constituents only to a
perceived difference in political views based on the study’s subject. After
the initial email, 21 (1%) potential participants requested additional
information on the nature of the study, how the study applied to their
organization, and seeking assurance that their responses would be
anonymous. Communication from potential participants declined after the
initial invitation and the final follow-up yielded no communication.
A total of 814 individuals (45%) participated in the study to some
degree; however, not all participants remained in the final study. Ninety-two
respondents (11%) failed to complete any question or item past the informed
consent, and 34 respondents (4%) completed question 2, the NEP, but failed
to complete question 3, the WTTA, thereby leaving the survey without
minimally complete data. These 126 respondents (15%) were removed from
the final data set. Upon running a basic analysis of the data, six respondents
(1%) were also removed on the basis that too many items were missing from
Questions 2 and 3 to produce a valid individual response, thereby leaving
682 (38%) respondents in the final study.
If any of the 682 remaining respondents failed to respond to any item
on Questions 2 or 4, had the cell filled with a four indicating they did not
agree or disagree. None of the remaining respondents had missing items in
Question 3. I assigned nonresponsive answers to non-Likert scaled data a 0
for no response. I utilized SPSS’ options to mark no response entries as
missing data. The three open-ended questions had the highest rates of
missing data, but these questions serve to better understand exploratory
questions and do not directly affect the outcome of the analysis. There are
five variables that had missing data and may affect data analysis: age (n = 8),
race or ethnicity (n = 12), level of education (n = 16), political party
affiliation (n = 26), and political values (n = 21). I entered all individual
items into SPSS as separate variables; however, some individual items were
combined to make the variables used in this study (Table 6).
Table 6
Definition and Derivation of Study Variables
Variable Derivation Definition
NEP Question 2 Environmental worldview
WTTA Question 3 Willingness to engage in ecological
behavior
Citizenship Question 4 Views on ecological citizenship key themes
Access Question 5 Perceptions on equal access to natural
resources
Participation Question 6 Perceptions on promotion of public
participation
Opportunities Question 7 Perceptions of amount of participation
opportunities
Group SurveyMonkey Respondent’s group based on invitation
code
State SurveyMonkey Respondent’s state
Sex Question 9 Respondent’s sex
Age Question 8 Respondent’s age
Ethnicity Question 10 Respondent’s self-identified race or
ethnicity
Education Question 11 Highest level of school completed by the
respondent
Party Question 12 Respondent’s self-identified political party
Values Question 13 Respondent’s self-identified political values
The response rates varied within each group. State legislators and
agents had the lowest response rate (19%); however, at the time the survey
was conducted three of the states included in the study were not in session
and many potential legislative participants responded with an automatic
response stating they were not in session and do not check their email
regularly. State partnership directors and staff had the highest response rate
(55%), and NGO administrators and staff had a 40% response rate (Table 7).
Table 7
Summary of Invitation and Participation Based on State and Group
%
% %
Iowa 147 22 15.0 149 80 53.7 155 49 31.6 151
Kansas 162 33 20.4 214 120 56.1 47 23 48.9 176
Nebraska 49 13 26.5 200 97 48.5 53 25 47.2 135
North Dakota 140 25 17.9 26 21 80.8 272 95 34.9 141
South Dakota 102 24 23.5 11 10 90.9 73 45 61.6 79
Total
Note. I = invited, P = participated after data cleaning.
Descriptive Statistics
In this section, I report the results of descriptive analyses on key
variables from both the sample and group perspective. The general results
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Total
n
I P I P I P
600 117 19.5 600 328 54.7 600 237 39.5 682
show that respondents have concern for the environment, are willing to
engage in some forms of ecological behavior, and that ecological citizenship
is present within the sample.
Environmental Worldview
The NEP measures the respondent’s endorsement of a “pro-ecological
worldview” (Anderson, 2012, p. 260), and serves as this study’s independent
variable. The NEP utilizes a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 for
Strongly Disagree to 7 for Strongly Agree with a 4 being Neither Agree or
Disagree. When a respondent disagrees with the eight odd items it means
they endorse the dominant social paradigm, and when they disagree with the
seven even items it means they endorse the new ecological paradigm (Table
8). Dunlap et al. (2000) noted, “The decision to break the NEP items into
two or more dimensions should depend upon the results of the individual
study” and that “if the entire set of items (or at least a majority of them) are
found to produce an internally consistent measure, then we recommend
treating the NEP Scale as a single variable” (p. 431). The results of a
Cronbach alpha test on question 2, α = .90, indicated that no two items were
significantly correlated, and that internal consistency could be improved to α
= .91 with the removal of item 14. Because of the reliability test, the NEP
will be considered as a single independent interval variable that measures the
respondent’s environmental worldview.
Table 8
Percentage and Mean Distribution of NEP Items
Item – Do you agree or
disagree:
We are approaching the limit
of the number of people the
earth
SD D SWD N SWA A SA M
can support 7.0 14.2 6.9 11.1 26.7 20.4 13.6 4.52
Humans have the right to
modify the natural
environment
to suit their needs 5.3 14.8 21.8 10.4 29.2 14.5 4.0 3.97
When humans interfere with
nature it often produces
disastrous consequences 2.3 6.3 11.0 12.8 27.4 26.2 13.9 4.91
Human ingenuity will
insure that we do NOT
make the earth
unlivable 5.9 19.1 21.8 15.1 24.5 10.3 3.4 4.22
Humans are severely abusing
the environment 5.6 5.9 12.0 6.5 21.3 24.0 24.8 5.03
The Earth has plenty of
natural resources if we just
learn how
to develop them 7.0 15.7 14.7 13.0 24.9 17.2 7.5 3.85
Plants and animals have as
much right as humans to exist 6.6 7.6 6.7 13.6 11.6 32.0 21.8 4.99
Item – Do you agree or
disagree:
SD D SWD N SWA A SA M
Despite our special abilities
humans are still subject to
the
laws of nature 0.3 0.7 0.6 3.2 16.6 43.0 35.6 6.06
The so-called “ecological
crisis” facing humankind
has
been greatly exaggerated 25.4 24.6 15.4 10.9 10.9 8.1 4.8 4.99
The earth is like a spaceship
with very limited room and
resources 5.3 7.8 11.6 15.7 24.9 22.6 12.2 4.64
Humans were meant to rule
over the rest of nature 21.0 20.7 11.0 16.9 12.6 10.4 7.5 4.59
The balance of nature is very
delicate and easily upset 1.3 6.0 18.3 14.7 23.5 26.1 10.1 4.72
Humans will eventually learn
enough about how nature
works
to be able to control it 18.8 35.8 22.3 11.6 8.7 2.9 0.0 5.36
If things continue on their
present course, we will soon
experience a major
ecological
catastrophe 6.0 7.8 9.1 15.4 21.0 22.0 18.8 4.79
Note. SD = strongly disagree, SWD = somewhat disagree, D = disagree, N =
neither agree nor disagree, SWA = somewhat agree, A = agree, SA =
strongly agree.
Overall, the respondents have a moderate environmental worldview
(M = 60.48, SD = 18.993), and neither the minimum nor maximum score
was reported. The moderate environmental worldview shared by all three
groups creates a working environment between the three groups that could
be receptive to new environmental policies and programs; however,
respondents in Group 2 and Group 3 reported a more pro-ecological
worldview than Group 1 (Table 9). The variation in worldview may be
attributable to the nature of the group and their role in the development and
fostering of ecological citizenship within their states. State legislators are
the most removed from directly influencing the environmental behavior
within their states, while many respondents in Group 2 and 3 works directly
with groups or agencies responsible for directly providing opportunities for
environmental engagement.
Table 9
Average NEP Scores Based on Group
95% Confidence Interval
n M SD Lower Upper
Group 1 117 60.48 18.993 57.00 63.96
Group 2 328 74.06 13.915 72.55 75.58
Group 3 237 74.09 15.236 72.14 76.04
Total 682 71.74 16.161 70.53 72.96
Willingness to Take Action
The five items used in this study from the original WTTA scale keep
the 4-point Likert scaling ranging from Not at All Willing to Willing Enough
to Convince Others and specifically addressed views on sustainable
development and sustainable consumption, which are two key factors of
ecological citizenship. One item, item 6, was added to Question 3 that
specifically addressed the environmental needs of the grasslands utilizing the
4-point scaling options. Like with the NEP, results of reliability testing on
Question 3, α = .82, indicated that no two items were significantly
correlated, and that internal consistency could not be improved with the
removal of any item (Table 10). The respondent’s willingness to engage in
environmental behavior will be discussed in terms of categorical analysis to
gain a deeper understanding of the differences in sustainable consumption
and sustainable development views based on other characteristics; however,
as the internal consistency is acceptable, and the WTTA is viewed as a
continuous scale of the respondent’s willingness to engage in selected
environmental behaviors, it will be treated as a single continuous variable for
hypothesis testing.
Table 10
Percentage and Mean Distribution of WTTA
Item: How willing are you to do the following:
I’m willing to use stop using plastic grocery
bags
NW SW TW WCO M
and use recycled bags instead 4.5 22.6 43.8 29.0 2.97
I’m willing to stop buying bottled water
because the manufacturing process for plastic
water bottles is
carbon intensive 8.7 30.2 34.3 26.8 2.79
I’d be willing to carpool 13.9 36.2 35.2 14.7 2.51
I’m willing to pay a .50 cents surcharge per
gallon of
gas to go toward greenhouse gas reduction 39.7 27.9 21.8 10.6 2.03
I’m willing to reduce the numbers of hours a
week I use electronic devices (computer, cell
phone, TV,
etc.) 18.9 41.6 32.8 6.6 2.27
I'm willing to plant native plants in order to
improve
the environmental health of the U.S. grasslands 3.7 12.5 32.3 51.6 3.32
Note. NW = Not at all willing, SW = somewhat willing, TW = totally
willing, WCO = willing enough to convince others.
The respondents are generally willing to engage in environmental
behavior when there is minimal personal impact. Over 95% of respondents
are willing to plant native plants, but 40% of respondents are not willing to
pay a .50 cent surcharge on gas even though both actions improve the air
quality in the grasslands. Respondents are less likely to stop buying bottled
water than to use recycled bags at the grocery store even though both actions
reduce the amount of plastic in landfills. The reason for these differences
between different environmental behaviors is not a factor of my study, but as
Sinatra et al. (2012) found, an individual’s attitude toward environmental
need is a distinct driver of their willingness to engage in environmental
behavior. The same general willingness to engage in environmental
behavior was not found in each group.
Respondents in Group 1 have the largest proportion of individuals
reporting that they are not willing to use reusable bags at the grocery store (n
= 24), will continue buying bottled water (n = 34), are not willing to carpool
(n = 39), and are not willing to plant native plants (n = 18). Over half of the
respondents in Group 1 (n = 60) reported that they are not willing at all to
pay a gas surcharge which could have a direct impact on the grassland’s
environmental health as Group 1 approves state taxation programs.
Respondents in Group 2 (32%) and Group 3 (45%) shared a similar
unwillingness to pay an additional surcharge on gas; however, they also
reported a higher proportion of respondents who would be willing enough to
convince others to pay a surcharge than Group 1 (6% in Group 2 and 3% in
Group 3), which implies that an individual’s attitude has a greater influence
on their willingness to engage in environmental behavior than their group in
this study (Table 11).
Table 11
Percentage Distribution of WTTA Items by Group
NW SW TW WCO
Group 1
Use recycled bags 20.5 30.8 23.9 24.8
Stop buying bottled water 29.1 36.8 17.1 17.1
Carpool 33.3 29.1 29.1 8.5
Pay a gas surcharge 51.3 13.7 25.6 9.4
Reduce electronic device usage 38.5 33.3 26.5 1.7
Plant native plants 15.4 27.4 29.9 27.4
Group 2
Use recycled bags 1.8 19.2 49.7 29.3
Stop buying bottled water 3.7 29.9 38.4 28.0
Carpool 8.5 43.6 30.8 17.1
Pay a gas surcharge 32.0 37.8 17.7 12.5
Reduce electronic device usage 15.9 39.6 36.6 7.9
Plant native plants 0.9 7.9 33.2 57.9
Group 3
Use recycled bags 0.4 23.2 45.6 30.8
Stop buying bottled water 5.5 27.4 37.1 30.0
Carpool 11.8 29.5 44.3 14.3
Pay a gas surcharge 44.7 21.1 25.7 8.4
Reduce electronic device usage 13.5 48.5 30.8 7.2
Plant native plants 1.7 11.4 32.1 54.9
Note. NW = Not at all willing, SW = somewhat willing, TW = totally
willing, WCO = willing enough to convince others.
Respondent’s Demographics
The respondents in this study were 60% male (n = 408) and 40%
female (n = 274), which is statistically different than the U.S. Census Bureau
reported distribution in the region. Group 1, state legislators and agents, is
historically predominately male, which partially explains the skewness of the
data. In general, women (M = 76.45, SD = 12.975) reported a more pro-
ecological worldview than men (M = 68.58, SD = 17.295), which was
expected due to the nature of ecological citizenship. Men were least likely
to engage in any environmental activity included in this study (2%);
however, men were more willing than women to convince others to pay a
gas surcharge (11%). Women were more willing to convince others to
engage in personal environmental activities such as reducing electronic
usage (56%) and using recycled bags at the grocery store (62%).
The respondents range in age from 18 to over 60; however, eight
respondents (1%) declined to provide this information for the study. Over
80% of the respondents (n = 607) were age 30 or older, which was not
unexpected given the nature of the study, but 31% of the respondents (n =
209) were over 60, which was unexpected given the focus of the study. The
environmental worldview is generally positive for each age group with the
least pro-ecological worldview being reported within the 18 to 20 age group
(M = 67.00, SD = 0.000), and the most pro-ecological worldview being
reported within the 21 to 29 age group (M = 75.08, SD = 13.888).
Six respondents (5%) in the 40-49 age group and five respondents
(2%) in the over 60 age group reported a general willingness to not engage
in any of the environmental behaviors related to this study. Between 20%
and 30% of respondents in all age groups, except 18 to 20, reported a general
willingness to convince others to engage in environmental behavior. There
is a slight negative correlation between a respondent’s age and their
environmental worldview, rs = -.042, p = .27, but this relationship is not
significant. The relationship between respondent’s age and their willingness
to engage in environmental behavior is also negative, rs = -.159, p < .05, but
these results are significant which implies that as the respondent ages, the
less likely there are to actively participate in environmental behavior.
Each of the five states included in this study are nearly equally
represented, but South Dakota (11%) is the least represented, and Kansas
(26%) is the most represented. Equal state representation was expected
because each state has a stake in the environmental health of the U.S.
grasslands and each of the three groups included in this study have worked
together within their states to create the state’s wildlife action plan and other
environmental programs. The proportional distribution between states is
significantly different, Χ2 = 37.38, p < .05, which, depending on the other
variables, could affect the results of the study. There is less than a 2-point
spread though in the environmental worldview and willingness to engage in
environmental behavior reported amongst the states, which implies the
respondent’s state does not significantly affect their environmental
worldview or willingness to engage in environmental behavior.
Sixteen respondents (2%) did not provide their highest obtained level
of education; however, the remaining 666 respondents are generally well
educated with 91% reporting having earned an associate degree or higher
(Figure 8). Fourteen respondents (2%) reported earning a high school
diploma or equivalent and 45 respondents (7%) attended college but did not
earn a college degree. Given the nature of the study, the level of educational
attainment of the sample was not unexpected and does fit the educational
profile of the region as described by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Many studies have found a correlation between environmental
education and increased positive environmental worldviews (e.g., Soga et
al., 2016; Spínola, 2015); however, my study involved general education and
did not purposively select individuals with environmentally focused
education. Respondents with no college education reported the least pro-
ecological worldview (M = 63.93, SD = 10.709), and respondents with a
graduate degree generally reported a high pro-ecological worldview (M =
71.61, SD = 17.895); however, respondents with a bachelor degree had the
most pro-ecological worldview (M = 73.61, SD = 13.659), which suggests
that education does increase positive environmental worldviews, but there is,
for this sample, no significant difference in environmental worldview
between those with a bachelor degree and those with a graduate degree
(Table 12).
Table 12
Average NEP Scores Based on Education
95% Confidence Interval
Level of Education n M SD Lower Upper
High school degree or
equivalent
14 63.93 10.709 57.75 70.11
Some college but no degree 45 65.27 20.469 59.12 71.42
Associates degree 33 66.18 14.882 60.90 71.46
Bachelor’s degree 314 73.61 13.659 72.09 75.12
Graduate degree 260 71.61 17.895 69.42 73.79
Total 666 71.69 16.139 70.46 72.92
Like with the respondent’s environmental worldview, there is a
significant correlation between education and a willingness to engage in
environmental behavior, but this positive relationship is very weak, rs = .084,
p < .05. There were 8 respondents (1%) with some college, but no degree,
that reported a general willingness to not engage in any environmental
behavior presented in this study. Respondents with a bachelor or graduate
degree expressed a general desire to engage in all environmental behaviors
and 153 respondents (23%) with a bachelor or graduate degree reported a
willingness to convince others to engage in environmental behavior. These
results support other studies (e.g., Soga et al., 2016) that found biophilia
fades during middle childhood, but can be
reignited through personal experiences as an adult. Education plays a
significant role in an individual’s experiences, and many colleges and
universities have campus opportunities to participate in environmental
activities.
The self-identified ethnicity results of the respondents were not
unexpected as the region is predominately White or Caucasian with less than
5% of other ethnicities according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Of the 670
respondents who provided this data, 94% of the respondents (n = 629)
reported being White or Caucasian with the remaining 6% being reported as
3.7% Multiple Ethnicity (n = 25), and 1% American Indian (n = 8), African
American (n = 4) and Hispanic (n = 4). The only ethnicity that does not fall
within the expected range described by the U.S. Census Bureau were
respondents who identified as Multiple Ethnicity. Twelve respondents (2%)
utilized the Multiple Ethnicity textbox option to state that their race had
nothing to do with the environment, they were American, and to report that
the respondent was human. One respondent utilized the textbox to report
being South Asian rather than selecting the Asian / Pacific Islander option.
Respondents who identified as Multi-Ethnic reported the least pro-
ecological worldview (M = 59.48, SD = 21.529), while Hispanic respondents
reported the most proecological worldview (M = 79.00, SD = 17.321).
When exploring environmental worldview and willingness to engage in
environmental behavior through the respondent’s ethnicity, it became clear
that there was no significant relationship between the respondent’s ethnicity
and their environmental worldview or environmental behavior.
High and low endorsements of the new ecological paradigm are found in
every state and every ethnicity, but with such low counts for non-White or
Caucasian respondents, it is difficult to determine if these results are
reflective of the respondent’s personal experiences and beliefs or if they are
reflective of regional differences between states
(Table 13).
Table 13
Average NEP Scores Based on Ethnicity
95% Confidence Interval Ethnicity n M SD
Lower Upper
American Indian or Alaskan
Native 8 70.38 16.673 56.44 84.31
Black or African American 4 65.00 .000 65.00 65.00
Hispanic 4 79.00 17.321 51.44 106.56
White / Caucasian 629 72.40 15.616 71.18 73.62
Multiple Ethnicity 25 59.48 21.529 50.59 68.37
Total 670 71.89 16.013 70.67 73.10
Twenty-six respondents (4%) did not provide their political affiliation.
Of the
656 respondents who did provide this information, 42% are Democrat (n =
280), 41% are Republican (n = 267), and 17% reported being an
Independent (n = 109). Most respondents reported being an Independent
(22%) or Independent within a political party (44%). For this study, I
further divided political affiliation into strong, weak, and independent for
Republican and Democrats. This allowed for a more focused analysis of
how political affiliation may influence the respondent’s environmental
worldview and willingness to engage in environmental behavior.
There is a moderate negative relationship between the respondent’s
environmental worldview and their political affiliation, rs = -.513, p < .05.
Strong Democrats reported the most positive environmental worldview (M =
82.30, SD = 13.985) and Strong Republicans reported the least positive
environmental worldview (M = 56.41, SD = 20.697). Respondents
identifying as Independent Republican (M = 63.72, SD = 13.597) or
Independent Democrat (M = 78.44, SD = 11.856) reported less positive
environmental worldviews than Weak Republicans or Weak Democrats
(Table 14). These results were not unexpected, but the fact that all political
party affiliations reported a generally positive environmental worldview
suggests that ecological citizenship is, in fact, compatible to some degree
with contemporary political processes in the United States.
Table 14
Average NEP Scores Based on Political Party Affiliation
95% Confidence Interval
Political Party n M SD Lower Upper
Strong Democrat 104 82.30 13.985 79.58 85.0
2
Weak Democrat 28 80.68 7.404 77.81 83.5
5
Independent Democrat 148 78.44 11.856 76.51 80.3
7
Independent Independent 109 73.07 13.174 70.57 75.5
7
Independent Republican 146 63.72 13.597 61.50 65.9
4
Weak Republican 48 67.73 10.295 64.74 70.7
2
Strong Republican 73 56.41 20.697 51.58 61.2
4
Total 656 71.74 16.188 70.50 72.9
8
Respondents had a selection of five political values to choose from:
Very Liberal, Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, and Very Conservative
(Table 15). Twenty-one respondents (3%) opted to not respond to this
question, but the remaining respondents were 10% Very Liberal (n = 64),
19% Liberal (n = 125), 39% Moderate (n = 257), 24% Conservative (n =
159), and 8% Very Conservative (n = 56). Respondents who identified as
Very Liberal reported the most positive environmental worldview (M =
81.34, SD = 14.392), and those who identified as Very Conservative
reported the least positive environmental worldview (M = 56.18, SD =
19.825). Most respondents who identified as Democrat also identified as
Liberal (n = 45) or Very Liberal (n = 48), whereas those who identified as
Republican also identified as Conservative (n = 41) or Very Conservative (n
= 29). Those who identified as an Independent Independent mostly reported
being a Moderate (n = 76). No respondent who identified as either Strong or
Weak Democrat identified as Conservative or Very Conservative, and no
Strong or Weak Republican respondent identified as Liberal or Very Liberal.
Table 15
Average NEP Scores Based on Political Value
Political Value n M SD Lower Upper
Very liberal 64 81.34 14.392 77.75 84.94
Liberal 125 82.75 11.829 80.66 84.85
Moderate 257 73.27 11.963 71.80 74.74
Conservative 159 62.06 14.510 59.79 64.34
Very conservative 56 56.18 19.825 50.87 61.49
Total 661 71.70 16.145 70.47 72.94
95% Confidence Interval
The respondent’s political party affiliation and political values
combine to produce strong influences on their environmental worldview.
There is a 30-point gap in average environmental worldviews within
Independent Independents, which is the only political party affiliation to
contain all five political values. Environmental worldviews became more
positive as political values changed from Very Conservative to Moderate for
Republican respondents, and environmental worldviews became less
positive as values changed from Very Liberal to Moderate for Democrat
respondents.
The respondent’s willingness to engage in environmental behavior
follows a similar pattern with Democrats reporting a higher willingness to
engage in environmental behavior and Republicans reporting a lower
willingness (Figure 9); however, there were 11 respondents (1 Strong
Democrat, 1 Independent Republican, 9 Strong Republicans) who reported a
general desire to not engage in any form of environmental behavior. These
same 11 respondents (1 Very Liberal, 1 Conservative, 9 Very Conservative)
are also the only respondents not willing to engage in any form of ecological
behavior based on their political values. Strong Republicans were the least
likely to use recycled grocery bags (3%) or stop buying bottled water (4%).
The desire to not carpool was bipartisan with 10 Strong Democrats (1%), 43
Independents (6%), and 27 Strong Republicans (4%) all reporting a general
unwillingness to carpool. The willingness to pay a gas surcharge was
polarizing with 190 Republican respondents (29%) rejecting the idea
outright, compared to 22 Democrats (3%).
Factors of Ecological Citizenship
Survey question 4 included 12 Likert-scaled items that explored four
distinct factors of ecological citizenship: social justice, public/private
demarcation, unbounded responsibility, and non-reciprocal responsibility.
Overall reliability for question four was acceptable, α = .71; however, the
Cronbach alpha results for each factor indicated that only social justice, α
= .76, and unbounded responsibility, α = .72, were reliable, therefore, items
pertaining to the public/private demarcation, α = .30, and non-reciprocal
responsibility, α = .32, were removed from further analysis (Table 16).
Values for both social justice and unbounded responsibility range from 3 to
21.
Table 16
Percentage and Mean Distribution for Factors of Ecological Citizenship
Item – Do you agree or
disagree:
The ecological health of the
U.S. grasslands is the
shared responsibility of
landowners, agencies,
organizations, and
SD D SWD N SWA A SA M
communities within the
region
0.3 1.0 2.3 3.4 13.3 32.3 47.4 6.15
Residents of the grasslands
are responsible for reducing
food waste through
sustainable
consumption 3.7 4.5 5.9 24.9 28.2 24.5 8.4 4.76
Environmental polluters
should be taxed on their
pollution to pay for
correcting their
environmental damage 4.3 2.8 2.6 9.4 17.0 26.1 37.8 5.62
Buying goods in the U.S.
negatively impacts the
environment in other
countries
13.0 25.8 9.5 25.4 12.6 10.6 3.1 3.43
Consumers are obligated to
consider the production
worker's rights when
buying goods produced
outside of the
United States 6.3 9.7 8.5 20.7 29.2 18.5 7.2 4.41
Consumers are obligated to
consider future generations
when making purchases 4.7 4.1 5.9 16.3 29.6 22.7 16.7 4.97
Note. SD = strongly disagree, SWD = somewhat disagree, D = disagree, N =
neither agree or disagree, SWA = somewhat agree, A = agree, SA = strongly
agree.
The respondents shared a general high regard for both social justice (M = 16.48, SD
= 3.438) and unbounded responsibility (M = 12.75, SD = 3.913). Respondents in
Group 1 (M = 14.21, SD = 4.970) supported social justice less than Group 2
(M = 16.98, SD = 2.812) or Group 3 (M = 16.92, SD = 2.814), but all three
groups shared a moderate view on unbounded responsibility. Men and
women share similar views on ecological justice and unbounded
responsibility. Views on social justice and unbounded responsibility follow
the same trend as environmental worldview and willingness to engage in
environmental behavior with Democrats supporting both factors more than
Republicans, and Liberals supporting them more than Conservatives.
A respondent’s political party affiliation, political values, views on
social justice, and views on unbounded responsibility are all correlated, but
there is a negative correlation between the political views and views on
ecological citizenship, rs = -.344, p < .05. This is important because as
individuals, each respondent engages in activities that reflect both social
justice and unbounded responsibility. For example, a respondent can
purchase fair trade goods from a supplier that guarantees a fair price was
paid and that no child labor was involved, thereby exhibiting a positive view
on unbounded responsibility, but as vote against increasing fines for
pollution or vote against improving food reclamations, thereby exhibiting a
negative view on social justice. Understanding the personal motivation
toward various factors of ecological citizenship is beyond the scope of this
study, but each group faces the same conflict between personal and
professional action.
Perceptions on Equitable Access to Nature
The three items on unbounded responsibility focused on obligations to
others based on individual choices but did not address obligations to other
community members. The first of three open-ended questions fill that gap
by asking for the respondent’s view on whether their state government
ensures equal access to nature for all state residents. Only 83% of
respondents (n = 566) responded to this question. Considering that this
region is more than 90% privately owned, it was not surprising that only
33% of respondents (n = 186) believed there was equal access to nature, and
22% (n = 126) did not know if the state ensured equal access to nature.
Very unexpected results were found when the sample’s responses
were broken down by the respondent’s group. Only 18 respondents (19%) in
Group 1 believed that their state governments ensured equal access to
natural resources in their states compared to 110 respondents (40%) in
Group 2 and 58 respondents (29%) in Group 3. Many respondents who
believed their states do provide equal access and provided an explanation for
their response believe that there are no access restrictions to state parks and
that the state is under no obligation to provide equal access to most
resources.
An interesting contradictory view was found in those who do not
believe (n = 254) their states provides equal access to resources. Many
respondents noted that their states were primarily privately owned and that
the state favored agricultural and oil needs above the needs of the
community. A few respondents noted that they had no knowledge of public
lands within their states that would consider natural lands. A recurring
theme in the open-ended response though is that the state does not own
much of the grasslands, so it is the responsibility of the land owner to decide
if they want to open their land for public use. In terms of ecological
citizenship, this theme supports the dominant social paradigm rather than the
pro-ecological paradigm, which implies there is room for improvement in
attitude towards equitable access to natural resources in the grasslands.
Perceptions on Public Participation and State Partners
All state wildlife action plans highlight the need for partnerships
between state agencies, environmental organizations, and other interested
parties. These partnerships create and implement state-wide conservation
projects that benefit the region. The second open-ended question addressed
the perceived promotion, or willingness to participate, in state organization
partnerships to address the environmental needs of the community and
grasslands. One hundred and two respondents (15%) elected to not
participate with this question. Of the remaining 580 respondents, 69%
believed that state partnerships promote public participation when
developing environmental policies and programs. While all groups have the
potential to partner together, Group 2 was created specifically through
identified partnerships that created the state wildlife action plan and 70% of
respondents (n = 202) in this group believed their partnership promoted
public participation in the process. Group 3 had the lowest proportion of
respondents who believed their input into state environmental policy was
welcome (22%).
Less than 30% of respondents who participated in this question
provided further explanation of their response; however, several themes
appeared in their expanded responses. There is a clear separation between
public participation and collaboration. As several respondents in Group 3
noted, state agencies and legislators are interested only in public input, not
actively collaborating with organizations whose mission is to engage the
public in environmental activities. However, several respondents in Group 1
noted that public input is required by law for many policies, but special
interest groups, such as those in Group 3, only represent their group and not
the public. Several respondents in Group 1 view organizations in Group 2
and 3 as “worse than a waste” and as “ideologically leftist environmental
groups” that try to “eliminate predators from the ecosystem” so that hunting
clubs have greater enjoyment. The acrimonious attitude between some state
legislators, state partners, and environmental organizations may negatively
influence the development of ecological citizenship within the community
by unintentionally dividing the community based on these attitudes.
Perception on Environmental Opportunities Offered by NGOs
State lawmakers and state partners create the laws and regulations that
govern environmental behavior within their states, but NGOs offer the
opportunity for the public to actively engage in environmental behavior
through programs frequently created with state or agency funding. Almost
17% of the respondents selected not to participate in this question, but 51%
of the respondents that did participate (n = 289) believed that environmental
organizations in their states offered enough opportunities for those residents
who did want to participate, while 39% (n = 223) did not feel there were
enough opportunities . Many respondents cited transportation and income as
barriers to participating in environmental opportunities provided by
environmental organizations.
Roughly half of each group believed there were ample opportunities
to participate, but as one respondent in Group 1 noted, they are “not going to
bus people to the grasslands for free to watch the butterflies.” Respondents
in Group 3 represent environmental organizations in this study, and 50%
believe their organization does provide ample opportunities, while 40% do
not, and 10% did not respond to the question. Few respondents who believe
there is ample opportunity expanded their responses; however, two
respondents noted that while there were opportunities available, they were
not for everyone as “a lot of people are just trying to survive which puts the
thoughts of helping with the environment on the back burner” and that
“people are afraid to expose themselves in fear of retaliation” since
environmental activism is considered radical in their states.
Most respondents in Group 3 who did not believe there were ample
opportunities expanded their responses. One common self-reported theme
was the general lack of funding for programs, which further highlights the
animosity between some respondents in Groups 1 and 3. Determining the
funding sources of Group 3 was beyond the scope of this study. Another
common theme related to the organizations themselves with several
respondents noting that the organization only wants the individual’s money
and monthly dues to belong to the organization meant that only wealthy
people could participate. The last theme that emerged from their expanded
responses was that the organizations had programs available, but only
advertised in areas that would be seen by selected individuals. Many
respondents implied there was a racial bias in determining where
organizations advertised and who they marketed their opportunities to.
The expanded perceptions found in Group 3 are not shared by the
other two groups. Many respondents in Group 1 noted that their states have
great environmental organizations that provide ample opportunities if people
want to participate. This perception shifts the focus away from state funding
issues and makes it a personal funding issue which supports the contrasting
results in environmental worldview between the groups. Respondents in
Group 2 were most critical of the environmental opportunities offered by
Group 3. Several respondents noted that organizations held fundraisers for
themselves but provided very little for their members. Some respondents in
Group 2 noted that opportunities were advertised in only English, and that
organizations were too selective in who could attend the function. Some
respondents in Group 2 represent environmental NGOs and they noted a
difficulty in finding volunteers under 50 which decreases participation by
younger people. This question produced the most finger-pointing results,
but all three groups noted the lack of general willingness to participate found
within their community. These results are echoed in the respondent’s own
willingness to fully engage in all types of environmental behavior.
Summary of Descriptive Statistics
Group 1 (n = 117) consisted of primarily White male state legislators
over the age of 60. All five states were represented in the group although
with uneven distribution as Nebraska was underrepresented. The
respondents in this group were well educated with over 76% having earned
at least a bachelor’s degree. Both democrats and republicans were well
represented with neither party resulting in a large skew of the results.
Conservative values outweighed Liberal values, but 34% of the group
reported being a Moderate. More than half the group believe their states
offers enough opportunities to participate in environmental activities and
75% believe that state organization partnerships promote public participation
in environmental policy development, but only 20% believe that there is
equitable access to natural resources in their states. Respondents in Group 1
reported an environmental worldview 14 points lower than the other two
groups, but the average respondent does exhibit a proenvironmental
worldview (M = 60.48, SD = 18.993). This worldview may contribute to
their willingness to engage in some forms of environmental behavior (M =
13.42, SD = 4.476). Respondents in Group 1 report a higher obligation to
their community (M = 14.21, SD = 4.970) than the global community (M =
11.78, SD = 5.161).
Group 2 (n = 328) was primarily White men over the age of 21. All
five states were represented in the group although with uneven distribution
as North Dakota and South Dakota were underrepresented. The respondents
in this group were well educated with 90% reporting having earned at least a
bachelor’s degree. Both democrats and republicans were well represented
with neither party resulting in a large skew of the results. Conservative
values outweighed Liberal values, but 46% of the group reported being a
Moderate. More than half the group believe their states offer enough
opportunities to participate in environmental activities and 70% believe that
state organization partnerships promote public participation in
environmental policy development, while 40% believe that there is equitable
access to natural resources in their states. Respondents in Group 2 reported
an environmental worldview like Group 3, and the average respondent
exhibits a proenvironmental worldview (M = 74.06, SD = 13.915). This
worldview may contribute to their willingness to engage in some forms of
environmental behavior (M = 16.49, SD = 3.555). Respondents in Group 2
report a higher obligation to their community (M = 16.98, SD = 2.812) than
the global community (M = 12.81, SD = 3.679).
Group 3 (n = 237) was primarily White men over the age of 30. All
five states were represented in the group although with uneven distribution
as North Dakota was overrepresented. The respondents in this group were
well educated with 88% reporting having earned at least a bachelor’s degree.
Both democrats and republicans were represented; however, there is a skew
toward Republican. Political values were nearly evenly distributed, and 31%
of the group reported being a Moderate. Half the group believe their states
offer enough opportunities to participate in environmental activities and 65%
believe that state organization partnerships promote public participation in
environmental policy development, while only 29% believe that there is
equitable access to natural resources in their states. Respondents in Group 3
reported an environmental worldview like Group 2, and the average
respondent exhibits a proenvironmental worldview (M = 74.09, SD =
15.236). This worldview may contribute to their willingness to engage in
some forms of environmental behavior (M = 16.29, SD = 3.546).
Respondents in Group 3 report a higher obligation to their community (M =
16.92, SD = 2.814) than the global community (M = 13.14, SD = 3.421).
Results
In the descriptive statistics section, I discussed the results of
Spearman correlational testing between the respondent’s political values and
party affiliation; however, I did not examine the relationship between the
respondent’s environmental worldview and their willingness to take action.
The results of a Pearson correlation test on these two variables indicated that
there is a moderate, yet significant relationship between the respondent’s
environmental worldview and their willingness to engage in environmental
behavior, r(682) = .670, p < .05. The hypothesis testing for each research
question examines if this relationship holds for each group.
Research Question 1: Perceived Role of State Government
The first research question posed in this study was: What roles do
state legislators and agents perceive that state governments can play in
fostering ecological citizenship among residents in their states? The results
of a Pearson correlation test on Group 1’s NEP and WTTA indicated there is
a strong positive relationship between the state legislator’s environmental
worldview and their individual willingness to engage in selected
environmental behaviors, r(117) = .784, p < .05. The null hypothesis that
there is no significant relationship between a state legislator’s environmental
worldview and their willingness to take action is rejected. As a state
legislator adopts a pro-ecological worldview, the more willing they are to
actively help the environment through individual action; however, as the
descriptive analysis found, their willingness may not be applied equally to
different environmental actions. To explore this relationship further, I
conducted a linear regression analysis to first determine if the state
legislator’s environmental worldview can predict their general willingness to
take action. There are six assumptions to linear regression. For hypothesis
testing, both the NEP and WTTA are measured on a continuous scale which
satisfied the first assumption. Analyzing a scatterplot of NEP and WTTA
scores indicated there is a linear relationship between the two variables,
thereby satisfying the 2nd assumption of linear regression. A case-wise
analysis did not indicate any outliers outside of three standard deviations,
thereby satisfying the third assumption of linear regression. The Durbin-
Watson statistic, d = 1.859, indicated that the data is not autocorrelated,
which satisfies the fourth assumption of independent observations. A
scatterplot of the residuals of the predicted value and residual indicated a
slight heteroskedasticity of the data, but this may be the result of the small
sample size rather than a violation of the fifth assumption of
homoscedasticity. The final assumption of a linear regression is the normal
distribution of the residuals and was satisfied through a Normal P-P plot. As
there is only one independent variable in this regression, there is no need to
test for multicollinearity, or correlation between independent variables that
may influence the analysis. With the assumptions of linear regression met
for Group 1, I proceeded with the analysis.
The results of the liner regression analysis indicated that the state
legislator’s environmental worldview significantly predicted their
willingness to take action, β = .185, p < .05, R2 = .61 (Table 17).
Respondent’s predicted willingness to take action is equal to 2.247 + .185
(NEP) when environmental worldview is measured as a continuous variable.
Respondent’s willingness to take action increased .185 points for every 1-
point increase in NEP. As the respondent adopts a pro-ecological
worldview, their willingness to engage in environmental behavior increases.
The respondent’s environmental worldview accounts for 61% of the
variation in their willingness to take action, thereby further supporting the
rejection of the null hypothesis for research question 1. As the NEP
accounts for more than half the variation in WTTA scores within Group 1, no
further analysis will be taken; however, these results and what may account
for the other 40% of variation in WTTA will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Table 17
Simple Linear Regression Analysis for WTTA in Group 1
SE B
(constant) 2.247 .865 2.598 .011
Total NEP Score .185 .014 .784 13.532 .000
R2 = .61
Research Question 2: Perceived Role of State Partners
The second research question posed in this study was: What role do
state organization partnership directors and staff perceive that their
partnership can play in fostering ecological citizenship among residents in
their states? The results of a Pearson correlation test on Group 2’s NEP and
WTTA indicated there is a significant moderately positive relationship
between the respondent’s environmental worldview and their individual
willingness to engage in selected environmental behaviors, r(328) = .569, p
< .05. The null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between a
state organization partnership director and staff’s environmental worldview
and their willingness to take action is rejected. As a member of a state
partnering organization or agency adopts a pro-ecological worldview, the
B β t p
more willing they are to actively help the environment through individual
action; however, as the descriptive analysis found, their willingness may not
be applied equally to different environmental actions. To explore this
relationship further, I conducted a linear regression analysis to first
determine if the director or staff’s environmental worldview can predict their
general willingness to take action. As research question 2 utilizes the same
dependent and independent variable as Research Question 1, the first and
second assumptions have been met. No case-wise outliers were identified
and the Durbin-Watson statistic, d = 1.937, indicated the data is not
autocorrelated, thereby satisfying the third and fourth assumptions. The
Normal P-P plot indicated a normal distribution of the residuals and a
scatterplot of the residual and predicted value indicated homoscedasticity.
With all assumptions of linear regression met, I continued with the analysis.
The results of the regression test indicated that the state organization
partnership director and staff’s environmental worldview significantly
predicted their willingness to take action, β = .145, p < .05, R2 = .32 (Table
18). Respondent’s predicted willingness to take action is equal to 5.725
+ .145 (NEP) when environmental worldview is measured as a continuous
variable. Respondent’s willingness to take action increased .145 points for
every 1-point increase in NEP. As the respondent adopts a pro-ecological
worldview, their willingness to engage in environmental behavior increases.
The state organization partnership director and staff’s environmental
worldview accounts for 32% of the variation in their willingness to engage
in selected environmental behaviors, which further supports the rejection of
the null hypothesis; however, since the NEP accounts for less than 50% of
the variation in WTTA further exploration into ecological citizenship within
this group is warranted, but is outside the scope of this study; however, a
multiple linear regression analysis indicated that only the respondent’s age
and political values were also significant predictors of their willingness to
take action (Table 19).
Table 18
Simple Linear Regression Analysis for WTTA in Group 2
(constant)
B SE B
5.725 .877
β t p
6.530 .00
0
Total NEP Score
R2 = .32
Table 19
Summary of Multiple
Linear
.145 .012
Regression for WTTA
.569 12.493 .00
0
B SE B β t p
(Constant) 14.599 3.368 4.335 .00
0
Respondent's state -.055 .162 -.015 -.343 .73
2
Age -.295 .118 -.111 -2.499 .01
3
Sex .189 .341 .026 .554 .58
0
Race / Ethnicity -.112 .521 -.010 -.214 .83
1
Level of education .005 .211 .001 .023 .98
1
Political party affiliation -.188 .154 -.088 -1.224 .22
2
Political values -.998 .282 -.266 -3.534 .00
0
Total NEP
score R2 = .43
.105 .014 .398 7.696 .00
0
Research Question 3: Perceived Role of NGOs
The third research question posed in this study was: What role do
NGO administrators and staff feel their organizations can play in fostering
ecological citizenship among residents in their states? The results of a
Pearson correlation test on Group 3’s NEP and WTTA indicated there is a
significant moderately positive relationship between the respondent’s
environmental worldview and their individual willingness to engage in
selected environmental behaviors, r(237) = .613, p < .05. The null
hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between NGO
administrator and staff’s environmental worldview and their willingness to
take action is rejected. As an environmental NGO administrator or staff
member adopts a pro-ecological worldview, the more willing they are to
actively help the environment through individual action; however, as the
descriptive analysis found, their willingness may not be applied equally to
different environmental actions. To explore this relationship further, I
conducted a linear regression analysis to first determine if the administrator
or staff’s environmental worldview can predict their general willingness to
take action.
As research question 3 utilizes the same dependent and independent
variable as Research Question 1 and 2, the first and second assumptions have
been met. No casewise outliers were identified and the Durbin-Watson
statistic, d = 2.095, indicated the data is not autocorrelated, thereby
satisfying the third and fourth assumptions. The Normal P-P plot indicated a
normal distribution of the residuals and a scatterplot of the residual and
predicted value indicated homoscedasticity. With all assumptions of linear
regression met, I continued with the analysis.
The results of the regression test indicated that the NGO administrator
and staff’s environmental worldview significantly predicted their willingness
to take action, β = .143, p < .05, R2 = .38 (Table 20). Respondent’s
predicted willingness to take action is equal to 5.730 + .143 (NEP) when
environmental worldview is measured as a continuous variable.
Respondent’s willingness to take action increased .143 points for every 1-
point increase in NEP. As the respondent adopts a pro-ecological
worldview, their willingness to engage in environmental behavior increases.
The NGO director and staff’s environmental worldview accounts for 38% of
the variation in their willingness to engage in selected environmental
behaviors, which further supports the rejection of the null hypothesis;
however, since the NEP accounts for less than 50% of the variation in
WTTA further exploration into ecological citizenship within this group is
warranted, but is outside the scope of this study; however a multiple linear
regression analysis indicated that only the respondent’s political party
affiliation was also a significant predictor (Table 21).
Table 20
Simple Linear Regression Analysis for WTTA in Group 3
B SE B β
(constant) 5.730 .908
t p
6.314 .000
Total NEP Score .143 .012 .613 11.879 .000
R2 = .37
Table 21
Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for WTTA in Group 3
B SE B β t p
(Constant) 13.173 2.308 5.707 .00
0
Total NEP score .101 .014 .434 7.375 .00
0
Respondent's state -.066 .127 -.026 -.522 .60
2
Age -.177 .128 -.070 -1.388 .16
7
Sex .505 .380 .070 1.329 .18
5
Race / Ethnicity .074 .247 .015 .300 .76
4
Level of education -.137 .204 -.035 -.671 .50
3
Political party
affiliation
-.523 .168 -.251 -3.121 .00
2
Political
values R2 = .48
-.332
Summary
.249 -.110 -1.331 .18
5
Chapters 1 through 3 established the need and scope for this study and
Chapter 4 presented the results of the study conducted to better understand
the perceived role of three distinct groups that can directly and indirectly
influence the development of ecological citizenship within their states. The
first group, state legislators, indirectly influences the development of
ecological citizenship within their states through the laws they develop, but
these laws have the ability to directly foster ecological citizenship within the
other two groups. The second group, state organization partners, directly
influences the development of ecological citizenship within their states
through statewide programs such as the Chickadee Program in Kansas and
Monarch Watch throughout the region. The second group also indirectly
influences the fostering of ecological citizenship through their relationship
with state legislators. The last group, environmental NGOs, have the most
direct influence on the development of ecological citizenship within their
states through the hand-on opportunities they provide to residents and
visitors within the grasslands. The third group also has direct influence on
the fostering of ecological citizenship within the other two groups through
lobbying and other political processes. Previous studies have focused on
individual development of ecological citizenship through their personal
values, norms, and other internal motivators; however, few studies have
explored ecological citizenship from the external perspective. The results of
this study fill that gap while exposing more gaps within these three groups
that may be significant to understanding the development and fostering of
ecological citizenship within the grasslands.
An exploratory analysis of the 682 respondents found that the three
groups were distinct in their age distribution, with younger respondents
favoring partnerships or NGOs over state legislatures, although this may
simply be the result of the political process itself. All five states were
represented, as were levels of educational attainment; however, as with age,
the distribution between groups and within groups were statistically
different. These differences in distribution imply that the results of this
study may not be applicable to the region, but results do suggest there are
clear and distinct relationships between variables found within each group.
I found that respondents who identified as Democrat or liberal
reported a more pro-ecological worldview than those who identifies as
Republican or conservative. This result is important because Dobson (2000)
believed that ecological citizenship was incompatible with certain political
views and values; however, in this study, all political views and values
reported some form of pro-ecological worldview. This study’s results also
support Soga et al. (2012) in their findings that an individual’s
environmental worldview depends on education, as respondents who
reported earning a college degree also reported a more pro-ecological
worldview and an increased willingness to engage in environmental
behavior.
This study focused on two groups of ecological behaviors included in
the WTTA: sustainable development and sustainable consumption. Results
indicated that respondents were more willing to engage in behavior that
affects others than behaviors that require the most personal sacrifice.
Respondents were more willing to plant native plants in their yard than pay a
gasoline surcharge to pay for greenhouse gas emissions, yet 37% of
respondents believed that environmental polluters should be fined. The
individual/public dichotomy was found in the respondent’s perception of the
other two groups as well. All three groups were critical of each other and
many respondents blamed the other groups for not doing enough to help the
environment or neglecting to represent the entire community rather than
select interest groups.
After gaining an insight into the group’s characteristics and beliefs, I
conducted a correlation analysis and linear regression to determine if there
actually was a relationship between the respondent’s environmental
worldview and their willingness to take action. The results of the correlation
tests indicated that there was a positive relationship within each of the
groups; however, the regression analyses indicated that the respondent’s
worldview contributed more to the variance in WTTA in Group 1 than the
other two groups. Only a third of the variation in WTTA is explained by
their worldview in Groups 2 and 3. Other factors may be attributable to the
remaining variance, but they are outside the scope of this study. Chapter 5
discusses these results and how they relate to other studies as well as
discusses how limitations in this study highlighted more questions that need
to be answered to fully understand the development and fostering of
ecological citizenship within the United States.
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
My purpose in this quantitative study was to explore the perceived
roles of state legislators, state organization partnership directors, and NGO
administrators in the development and fostering of ecological citizenship
within Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Most
studies on ecological citizenship focused on internal development, or
development based on the individual’s values and ethics, but I found no
studies that focused on the perceived role of external agents. External agents
have the power to influence the development and fostering of ecological
citizenship through public policy, public programs, private programs, and
individual interaction. The results of an online survey, correlation analysis,
and regression testing indicated that the respondent’s environmental
worldview is significantly correlated to their willingness to engage in
environmental behavior, but the amount of explained variance in the
respondent’s environmental behavior based on their worldview ranged from
32% for state organization partnership directors to 61% for state legislators.
Further analysis for state organization partnership directors and NGO
administrators indicated that the respondent’s political values, political party
affiliation, and age may also be predictors of ecological behavior.
This chapter begins with a thorough discussion of the results in terms
of confirming, disconfirming, or extending what is known about the
development and fostering of ecological citizenship, and how ecological
citizenship can be developed through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model
lens. The nature of the bioecological model allows for the narrowed focus
on entities within the exosystem and how individuals within these entities
perceive their roles in the development of ecological citizenship through
public policy and programs. In this chapter, I also expand on the limitations
of the study that I highlighted in Chapter 3 to include new limitations
discovered during data collection and analysis. Recommendations for
further study as well as the implications of this study on positive social
change and public policy complete this chapter.
Interpretation of the Findings
This quantitative study had three expressed research questions:
•What roles do state legislators and agents perceive that state
governments can play in fostering ecological citizenship among
residents in their states?
•What roles do state organization partner directors and staff perceive
that their partnerships can play in fostering ecological citizenship
among residents in their states?
•What roles do NGO administrators and staff feel their organizations
can play in fostering ecological citizenship among residents in their
states?
There was one unstated research question that I also included in this
study: Does ecological citizenship exist within any of the three groups
included in this study? This section begins with the unstated research
question, and then I examine the results of the expressed research questions
in depth.
Ecological Citizens in the U.S. Grasslands
There were 168 individuals (91 female and 71 male) who participated
in the current study who could be defined as ecological citizens by their pro-
ecological worldview and willingness to take action. I found ecological
citizens in each of the three groups; however, Group 2 (27%) and Group 3
(27%) had higher proportions of ecological citizens than Group 1 (13%).
Kansas had the greatest number of ecological citizens (n = 47) and South
Dakota had the fewest (n = 15); however, none of the individual states were
significantly different in ecological citizen proportions, Χ2 = 1.349, p = .853.
The ecological citizens that I found in this study range in age from 21 years
to older than 60 years, represent all seven political party affiliations, and
represent all five political values noted in Chapter 4. They are generally
well educated with 91% reported having earned at least a bachelor’s degree.
Ecological citizens found in this study reported a highly pro-ecological
worldview with an average NEP of 83.38 (SD = 9.955) and a high
willingness to take environmental action (M = 20.81, SD = 1.593). In
2011, Jagers surveyed Swedish households and found that nearly 25% of the
respondents could be described as ecological citizens through their beliefs,
values, and behaviors. Jagers (2011) described the common ecological
citizen in their study as an educated young woman between 15 and 29 years
old who lived in a large city and identified as a Green Party or Left Party
member (p. 32). Jagers (2011) also found that the individual’s perception of
environmental need was the greatest predictor of the individual’s willingness
to engage in environmental behavior (p. 33). The ecological citizens
described in the current study confirm characteristics found in Jagers’ study;
however, there are key differences in how political views and individual
perception influenced the respondent’s environmental behavior.
Many studies on ecological citizenship posit that it is incompatible
with conservative political views, or that to develop ecological citizenship
individuals must accept Green Party principles (Melo-Escrihuela, 2015);
however, the Green Party is not a leading party in the United States and few
state legislatures have any Green Party members, which supports the belief
that ecological citizenship could be developed and fostered within any
political party and value system. The results of the current study confirm
that ecological citizenship can be developed irrespective of the individual’s
political views and values; however, that confirmation does not hold true for
Group 1, which is the most political of the three groups, thereby both
confirming and disconfirming Melo-Escrihuela’s findings.
No individual in Group 1 with conservative or very conservative
values was found to be an ecological citizen, nor were there any Republicans
within Group 1 identified as ecological citizens. The absence of
conservative or Republican ecological citizens within the state legislative
group confirms the assumption that ecological citizenship is a left-leaning
ideology (Melo-Escrihuela, 2015); however, if ecological citizenship was
incompatible with conservative or Republican values as demonstrated in
Group 1, then they should also be absent from Groups 2 and 3. Group 2 has
one individual identified as a Strong Republican ecological citizen with very
conservative values, and Group 3 included both conservatives and
Republicans that were identified as being an ecological citizen, thereby
challenging the confirmation that left-leaning or green political ideologies
are required for the development of ecological citizenship.
The development of ecological citizenship relies on the individual’s
perceptions of connectedness to not only nature, but also their local
community and the global community. Guckian, de Young, and Harbo
(2017) differentiated between “green consumers” and “green citizens” and
found that sample demographics were not significant predictors of
ecological citizenship; however, they also found that the motivation for
adopting ecological citizenship was intrinsic and associated with the
individual’s biophilia, while green consumerism was associated with
intrinsic feelings of social connection (p. 87). In the current study, I did not
differentiate between consumers and citizens, but rather described the
respondent’s willingness to engage in sustainable consumption and support
sustainable development; however, the I did confirm Guckian et al.’s
findings that an individual’s environmental actions were not predicted by
their age, gender, or ethnicity.
Engaging in sustainable consumption, such as using paper, plastic, or
reusable bags at the grocery store, is a personal choice. Supporting
sustainable development, such as voting for and supporting taxation on
environmentally unfriendly behavior or supporting local parks and
environmental activities through property tax levies, is also a personal
choice; however, as Guckian et al. (2017) noted, “The decades-long
mainstream approach has been to focus almost all of the attention on
providing people with green consumer choices (e.g., buying green products,
shopping at organic stores, using green appliances at home) while ignoring
opportunities to encourage green citizenship” (p. 87). Within the ecological
citizen subgroup, 72 respondents (43%) believed that their states offered
enough opportunities for residents to engage in environmental activities,
thereby confirming Guckian et al’s position that, even within the ecological
citizen subgroup, there is a certain level of neglect in terms of encouraging
ecological citizenship; however, 99 respondents (59%) believed that the state
supports partnerships between state agencies and public organizations,
which implies that on a professional level, ecological citizenship is
encouraged through working relationships that indirectly fosters the
development of ecological citizenship, thereby disconfirming Guckian et al’s
position. On the surface, it appears that political systems within the
grasslands encourage ecological citizenship; however, there are marked
differences in support based on the type of encouragement and behavior
being requested.
Types of encouragement explored throughout the current study
included paying individuals for environmental behavior, taxing polluters,
social pressure, and social guilt. Receiving payment for environmental
behavior has been discussed in many studies (e.g., Jayachandran et al., 2017;
Kerr, Lapinski, Liu, & Zhou, 2017; Seyfang, 2016; Whillans & Dunn, 2015),
but as Whillans and Dunn (2015) found, “individuals who were paid by the
hour making the economic value of time chronically salient—were less
likely to engage in a broad range of environmental behaviors” (p. 48);
however, Maki, Burns, Ha, and Rothman (2016) found that once individuals
began receiving payment for environmental behaviors, they continued those
behaviors after payments ceased which suggests that, for some individuals,
ecological citizenship can be encouraged through financial means, but the
effect of short-term financial incentives on long-term environmental
behavior is small to moderate.
Many states have state funded programs that pay residents to plant
native plants to help the local environment; however, participation rates for
these programs are often low which decreases the program’s effectiveness.
Studies conducted in other countries, however, found that paying for
environmental behaviors can reverse deforestation and improve local
biodiversity when the program has full support of the political system (e.g.,
Jayachandran, et al., 2017). Kolinjivadi et al. (2017) argued that paying for
environmental behaviors is a “neoliberal performative” that places economic
values on nature (p. 16). Exploring the idea that paying for environmental
behavior, and thereby fostering ecological citizenship, is an act of
neoliberalism is outside the scope of the current study; however, the current
study found that 69 of the 119 identified Democrat ecological citizens and 4
of the 15 identified Republican ecological citizens do not believe that
residents should be paid for environmental behavior, thereby disconfirming
Kolinjinadi’s position; however further inquiry into the political influence on
the acceptance or rejection of payment for environmental services is
warranted as the current study found a greater proportion of Republicans
believe that residents should be paid for environmental behavior, which
negates the neoliberalism connection. The current study also found that the
position of not supporting paying residents for environmental behavior was
nearly evenly split between Liberal (56%) and Conservative (50%) values.
As with Guckian et al.’s study, the current study included individuals
who work closely with environmental issues which can produce results that
may not be reflective of the general population, but unlike Guckian et al.’s
study, the results of the current study do not suggest a preexisting support for
financial incentives. In fact, 47 respondents from Group 2 (52%) do not
believe that residents should be paid for environmental behavior, even
though this group works directly with state legislators and state agencies to
develop the state’s SWAP and incentive programs, and 38 respondents from
Group 3 (60%) also do not believe that residents should be paid for
environmental behavior; however, some respondents view entities in Group
3 as “only being interested in the environment to increase profits through
paid memberships”. These results challenge Guckian et al’s assumption that
the public do not hold the same position solely based on the respondent’s
employment choices. One possible explanation for the shared belief that
residents should not be paid for engaging in environmental behavior may be
attributable to the public perception “that the government has assumed
responsibility for protecting the environment” (Turaga et al., 2000, p. 221)
through the creation of financial incentives themselves and payments serve
only to reward selected individuals. The perceived separation of residents
based on support for agriculture or oil was found throughout the qualitative
responses provided in the current study.
The implications for these findings are far reaching. First, the
ecological citizens subgroup identified in the current study are in positions to
both directly and indirectly influence the development of ecological
citizenship within their states, and while the willingness to convince others
to take action is present, the majority of ecological citizen respondents are
selective in how they choose to convince others to act on behalf of the
environment. This reluctance can impact policy development, program
development, and promotion of existing policies and programs. Second, the
non-collective willingness to support financial incentives for environmental
behavior creates conflict within the system that must work in unison to meet
the needs of both human residents and the natural environment. In the
current study, 80% of ecological citizen respondents believed that meeting
environmental needs is best served through partnerships between states and
organizations, yet there is no consensus on how to promote environmental
behavior. Lack of a consensus imposes limitations on the effectiveness of
current policies and environmental programs. Direct financial incentive one
method of directly encouraging positive environmental behavior within a
community. The current study also explored one method of encouraging
positive environmental behavior through punishing negative environmental
behavior.
In the current study, I found that nearly all the 168 ecological citizen
respondents support the taxation or fining of environmental polluters to
correct the harm done to the environment. Pollution taxation is one aspect of
environmental justice, which is a key component to ecological citizenship.
Closely linked with social justice and equal rights, environmental justice
often focuses on individual rights and how those rights are impacted by
externalities; however, as Middlemiss (2010) noted, “there is a considerably
greater emphasis on rights rather than responsibility in much work on
environmental justice” (p. 155). Middlemiss (2010) highlighted the
ecological citizen’s responsibility to “act within environmental limits” (p.
157); however, this responsibility is constrained by four capacities: cultural,
organizational, infrastructural, and personal (p. 160).
Cultural norms and values limit the actions of individuals based on
perceived responsibility toward that action (Jagers et al., 2014; Lummis et
al., 2016). In the current study, it could be assumed that the ecological
citizen subgroup has a shared cultural norm and value system that fostered
individual ecological citizenship development; however, the willingness to
engage in environmental behaviors is not uniform within the subgroup. For
example, 24 respondents (21%) would be somewhat willing or not willing at
all to carpool, which implies a decreased sense of individual responsibility
toward their ecological footprint. In the United States driving is often
viewed as a right, rather than a privilege, which could account for the
decrease in individual responsibility; however, 42 respondents (36%) would
also be somewhat willing or not willing at all to pay a $0.50 surcharge on
gas to toward greenhouse gas reduction, which further decreases the
perceived individual responsibility of an ecological citizen to reduce one’s
carbon footprint. These results suggest that while ecological citizenship
does possess a high regard for environmental justice, the actions of
ecological citizens can display opposing norms and values as the lack of
willingness to reduce the number of cars on the road generates pollution that
impacts the whole community, rather than just the individual.
Organizational “resources for sustainability offered by the
organizations that a person is connected with” (Middlemiss, 2010, p. 160)
can assist or hinder the development of ecological citizenship. In terms of
the current study, organizational resources can include citizen science
opportunities and courses offered through local colleges and universities,
lobbying efforts of environmental organizations, and sustainable
development goals. Infrastructural resources are “facilities for sustainable
living which a person can access” (Middlemiss, 2010, p. 160) and are often
provided by the government or organizations, such as local parks, recycling
plants, or classroom space for master gardening classes. Organizational and
infrastructural resources provided the interaction necessary to develop
ecological citizenship; however, access to these resources can be limited
based on the individual’s location, income, mobility, and education.
Local parks can provide free access to nature but can also be viewed
as a dangerous place because of other social issues such as homelessness and
drug usage (McCord & Houser, 2017; Rader et al., 2015), which can
decrease the use of the park by families, thereby diminishing the early
development and fostering of biophilia. Organizational resources, such as
master gardening classes or activities for paid members, are often out of
reach for those on limited incomes or limited mobility. Resources offered
by both the government and organizations was viewed as catering to a select
group of individuals while ignoring the needs of the whole community. As
one respondent commented, “the ‘so-called’ environmental groups are
nothing more than paid hunting clubs that are supported by legislative
members and the conservation work of others”. Other respondents
commented that charging a membership fee to watch birds was “unethical”
and served “nothing but the organization’s bank account”. With 50% of the
ecological citizen subgroup believing that there are ample opportunities to
engage in environmental behavior, yet only 35% believe that there is
equitable access to natural resources, there is a clear and distinct gap
between perceived organizational and infrastructural resources.
The last capacity identified by Middlemiss (2010) was the personal
capacity, or “the person’s resources for sustainability” (p. 160), which
includes education, finances, and mobility. Finances and mobility were
briefly discussed in terms of how the government and organizations use
these finite resources to intentionally, or unintentionally, limit environmental
engagement to those with expendable personal resources or uninhibited
mobility; however, personal capacity is a clear embodiment of the
bioecological model and the multi-generational aspect of ecological
citizenship. Several items in the current study related to personal resources
that could be used by the identified ecological citizens to further foster its
development within their community; however, the results were mixed in
terms of support based on the respondent’s group.
As noted earlier, the ecological citizen subgroup is well-educated, but
the current study did not inquire as to what major or type of education the
respondent obtained, which created a gap that may have affected the results
if the respondent’s education was environmentally focused. How a person
chooses to use their personal resources can also indicate their position and
support for sustainable consumption and development based on the
perceived individual’s responsibility to their local community, the global
community, and the environment. In the current study, 78% of respondents
agreed to some degree that the Earth has limited space and natural resources,
and 98% of respondents believed that grasslands’ environmental health was
the shared responsibility of the government, landowners, agencies, and
communities within the region. Over 80% of respondents who clarified their
view on equitable access to natural resources noted that the majority of their
states was privately owned and “it should not be assumed that property
owners would welcome visitors on their property to look at birds and
butterflies”.
The shared responsibility for limited resources implies the respondents
actively practice sustainable consumption and support sustainable
development; however, the results of the current study suggests that shared
responsibility applies only to local needs, which violates the nonreciprocal
responsibility and unbounded responsibility factors of ecological citizenship.
Nearly 42% of the ecological citizen respondents do not believe that goods
purchased in the United States negatively impacts the environment in other
countries even though 90% of respondents believe that consumers are
obligated to consider future generations when making purchases. Studies
conducted over the last 15 years have found a strong relationship between
U.S. imports and increased carbon dioxide emissions in other countries (e.g.,
Prell, Feng, Sun, Geores, & Hubacek, 2014; Stretesky & Lynch, 2009),
which further supports the need for ecological citizenship that practices
sustainable consumption and development.
I found that all respondents in the ecological citizen subgroup within
each group were at least somewhat willing to stop buying bottled water, use
recycled bags at the grocery store, and to plant native plants to restore the
grasslands; however, these actions are passive and often individually
motivated rather than motivated through communal need for a cleaner
environment. These actions, however, can also lead to others engaging in
the same behavior through a sense of social guilt or social collective action
(Bissing-Olson et al., 2016; Dresner et al., 2015; Hausmann et al., 2015).
In the current study, 27 ecological citizen respondents (3 from Group
1, 24 from Groups 2 and 3) feel that the state government pressures residents
to engage in environmental behavior, which confirms Kolinjivadi et al.’s
position that ecological citizenship can be viewed as a neoliberal
performative. Thirty-two ecological citizen respondents (1 from Group 1, 31
from Groups 2 and 3) believe that organizations make residents feel guilty if
they do not participate in environmental activities which confirms
Dresner et al.’s findings. Guilt, and feelings of pressure to act
environmentally, has a positive effect on environmental behavior when there
is “high environmental concern”, but has a negative effect on those with
“low environmental concern (Wonneberger, 2017). Providing resources and
opportunities to foster ecological citizenship would improve its development
rather than treating the environment as if it were another cause to be
championed. As one respondent noted, “If I want to participate, I can, but I
should be allowed to not participate”.
The current study confirmed many assumptions and previous findings
on ecological citizenship, but also found that those confirmations were
limited in scope and often applicable to only one group. Ecological citizens
do exist within the political system of the U.S. grasslands. This finding can
now be applied to the bioecological model to determine how the exosystem
can use its direct and indirect influence on the individual to develop and
foster ecological citizenship, but first results of the current study’s research
questions must be examined further to determine the full extent of that
influence. Previous studies on political systems and the development of
ecological citizenship was limited, and the current study provides a stepping
stone for future research that will aid in understanding the relationship
between individual ecological citizenship and political systems.
Research Question 1: State Legislators and Ecological Citizenship
The results of a Pearson correlation test on Group 1’s NEP and WTTA
indicated there is a strong positive relationship between the state legislator’s
environmental worldview and their individual willingness to engage in
selected environmental behaviors, r(117) = .784, p < .05. Results of a linear
regression analysis, β = .185, p < .05, R2 = .61, indicated that the state
legislator’s environmental worldview significantly predicted their
willingness to take action. The null hypothesis, that there is no significant
relationship between a state legislator’s environmental worldview and their
willingness to take action, was rejected. As a state legislator in the five
states included in the current study adopts a pro-ecological worldview, their
willingness to personally engage in environmental behavior increases. As
there have been no other studies found that directly explored the relationship
between state legislator’s pro-ecological worldview and ecological
citizenship, the current study provides a starting point for future studies.
Seyfang (2007) noted that ecological citizenship, if left to the public, will
not be actively developed, but rather ecological citizenship development,
and sustainable community development, requires an active government
pursuing the requisite changes in social constructs that promote ecological
individual behavior and the acceptance of grassroots environmental
movements in policy development. Chan et al. (2016), Dobson (2009), and
Dresner et al. (2015) all noted that governmental supported changes in social
norms and values are drivers of ecological citizenship development. State
legislators and agents, state organization partnership directors and staff, and
NGO directors and staff, create a network of decision makers that have the
power to influence individual behavior and promote social change.
Ecological citizens think and act locally and globally, demonstrate
proenvironmental behavior, participate in environmental political processes,
and believe that today’s actions impact future generations (Bell, 2005;
Dobson, 2003; MeloEscrihuela, 2008; Schild, 2016). While the previous
section identified 15 state legislators that could be defined as ecological
citizens, the entire group has direct and in-direct influence on the
development and fostering of ecological citizenship within their states. Of
the 117 state legislators who participated in the current study, 72% reported
a proecological worldview. The significance of the level of state legislators
who endorse a pro-ecological worldview implies that the state legislative
bodies in the five-state region would be supportive of environmental policy
and programs; however, 50% of the respondents do not believe that the
Earth’s resources are limited and 43% believe that the ecological crisis has
been greatly exaggerated, which indicates a gap between overall worldview
and select environmental needs.
As state lawmakers, the respondents can indirectly influence the
development and fostering of ecological citizenship within their states.
First, as Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) noted, an individual’s experiences
are indirectly shaped by the exosystem, and state legislators are one entity
within the exosystem. State legislators can create laws that prohibit the use
of plastic grocery bags, which will require the use of other grocery bag
options. Second, as individuals and as a group, state legislators can
indirectly influence the development and fostering of ecological citizenship
through changes in the macrosystem. Changes in public policy that promote
early development of ecological citizenship can negate the need for direct
public policy regarding environmental behavior. For example, increased
environmental education can improve awareness of how plastic use impacts
the environment, which will indirectly promote the use of recycled bags
without the need for direct legislation guiding future generations.
The current study measured the respondent’s ecological worldview
which is developed through the individual respondent’s experiences, but the
first research question focused on how state legislators and agents used those
personal experiences to develop and foster ecological citizenship in others.
Only 24 respondents were not willing at all to stop using plastic grocery
sacks and use recycled bags, which implies a certain developed concern for
the environment, but only 29 state legislators are willing to encourage others
to use recycled bags at the grocery store. These results indicate a general
acceptance of personal responsibility, but also a general unwillingness to
impose their view on others.
The reluctance to impose personal views of environmental behaviors
on others was found in all aspects of the current study except for planting
native plants. This reluctance could hinder the development of ecological
citizenship within their states through not fully supporting legislation that
funds or promotes opportunities to engage with nature. As several state
legislators noted, the states included in the current study are primarily
privately owned, and it is not the right of the state to tell landowners “they
must allow tree huggers” on their property, nor is it the responsibility of the
state “to bus people from the city to visit a state park”.
The perception that it is not the government’s responsibility to
facilitate environmental interaction within their states was contradictory to
the group’s general belief that state-based conservation efforts are dependent
on public support; however, this contradiction is felt within the state
organization partnerships that help created the state wildlife action plans that
encourage public participation and partnership with state agencies and
organizations. As many respondents in Group 2 and 3 noted, “the state
government serves only agriculture and big oil”. These two sectors are
secure in private landownership, which shifts environmental responsibility
from the state to state-based partnerships and environmental organizations.
These two groups also have the closest relationship with the public and
increased opportunities to develop and foster ecological citizenship within
the region.
Research Question 2: State Organization Partnerships and Ecological
Citizenship
The results of a Pearson correlation test on Group 2’s NEP and WTTA indicated
there is a significant moderately positive relationship between a state
organization director and staff’s environmental worldview and their
individual willingness to engage in selected environmental behaviors, r(328)
= .569, p < .05. Results of a linear regression analysis, β = .145, p < .05, R2
= .32, indicated that the director and staff’s environmental worldview
significantly predicted their willingness to take action. The null hypothesis,
that there is no significant relationship between a state organization
partnership director and staff’s environmental worldview and their
willingness to take action, was rejected.
The state organization partnership director and staff’s environmental
worldview only accounted for 32% of the variation in their willingness to
engage in selected environmental behaviors, so a multiple linear regression
test was conducted to determine if any demographics also significantly
predicted their willingness to engage in environmental behavior. The results
of the additional regression testing indicated that the director and staff’s
political values and age were also significant predictors; however, both
indicated a negative predictive effect. As the director or staff member of a
state organization partnership ages, they are less willing to engage in
environmental behavior. Like with Group 1, very little research has focused
on the role of individuals, agencies, and organizations that assisted in the
development of their respective state wildlife action plans and their
perceived role in the development and fostering of ecological citizenship
within their states; however, the results of the current study for state
organization partnership directors and staff can be interpreted through the
state wildlife action plan that served to identify potential participants in the
current study.
Group 2 was the largest group in the current study with 328
respondents and reported the greatest percentage of respondents who
endorse the new ecological paradigm with only 7 respondents supporting the
dominant social paradigm. There were many interesting findings within this
group. First, even though there is a high level of NEP endorsement, only
27% reported a high willingness to engage in environmental behavior and
convince others to do the same. Second, 46 respondents (14%) do not
believe that conservation in the grasslands is best served through the very
partnership they created; however, 97% of the group believe that the
grasslands’ ecological health is a shared responsibility. Third, there is a
large amount of opposing views within the group regarding resources and
ecological health. Lastly, many respondents question the perceived value of
state organization partnerships.
State organization partnerships are presented in four of the five states’
wildlife action plans as highly valued and necessary components of state-
based conservation efforts. Nebraska views its SWAP as a way to create
“new opportunities for collaboration between farmers, ranchers,
communities, private and governmental organizations and others for
conserving Nebraska’s biological diversity, our natural heritage” (Schneider
et al., 2011, p. 2) and acknowledges these partnerships before beginning
their SWAP. North Dakota acknowledged the invaluable resource that state
organizations provide when developing their state SWAP and “recognized
the scope and magnitude of these endeavors and embraced the need to
coordinate efforts with partners and solicit their input” (Dyke et al., 2015, p.
2). South Dakota “encourages voluntary partnerships among governmental
entities, tribes, organizations, and private citizens to help prevent fish and
wildlife from becoming endangered and to provide … wildlife and habitat
diversity for the future sustained enjoyment and use …” (South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, 2014, p. viii). Kansas “continues to
collaborate with our conservation partners in academia and other
state/federal agencies” and acknowledges that “The feedback and assistance
from these groups, their willingness to participate in all aspects of the plan
revision, and overall support is outstanding”, which allows the state SWAP
to be effective in identifying and monitoring the conservation needs of the
state (Rohweder, 2015, p. iii).
While creating state organization partnerships is a congressional
requirement for receiving federal funds for conservation, only Iowa
presented these partnerships as a mere requirement, rather than a fully
integrated and essential component of state-based conservation. The Iowa
SWAP did identify individuals and organizations that served as “either as
members of committees or as consultants and reviewers of specific portions
of the IWAP” (Zohrer, 2015, p. 5) which allowed me to invite these partners
to participate in the current study. The way state SWAPs present their
partnerships with environmental organizations and experts may contribute to
the lack of enthusiasm for the partnership as reported by many respondents
in Group 2. To prevent unintentionally identifying individuals who
participated in the current study, the respondent’s state will not be identified
in this discussion.
Goals of every state SWAP include identifying current ecological
need, postulating future ecological need, and identifying strategies for state
agencies, organizations, and the public so that these needs can be met.
Congress established these goals and element 7 relates to partnerships
between the state, tribes, and organizations (Schneider et al., 2011). The
state SWAPs involved in the current study all indicate that the state has
limited resources that must be conserved for future generations. This
sentiment is generally well supported by members of the partnership. The
current study found that only 21% believe that the ecological crisis has been
exaggerated and 67% believe that the Earth has limited room and resources.
It is important to note that nearly twice as many state organization partners
than state legislators believe the state has limited resources. With limited
resources and high private land ownership, partnerships are vital to the
ecological health of the region.
Nebraska’s SWAP stated it should “Strive for shared responsibility
between landowners, agencies, organizations, and communities” (Schneider
et al., 2011, p. 31) and North Dakota’s SWAP stated, “large number of
partners shows the strength of the state’s SWAP by demonstrating the buy-in
by not only NDGFD staff but our partners across the fish and wildlife
community” (Dyke et al., 2015, p. 135), which implies the state supports a
shared governance and responsibility toward protecting the limited resources
that is best achieved through working partnerships. This is confirmed
through responses from all groups with 93% of all respondents agreeing to
some degree that environmental health is a shared responsibility of
landowners, agencies, organizations, and communities within the region;
however, the shared responsibility can be viewed as a collection of
individual activity, such as using recycled bags, or as a communal activity,
such as paying a surcharge on gasoline.
The current study found that while the state SWAPs promote an ideal
communal approach, many respondents capable of influencing others
through their partnership with the state perceive environmental behavior as
an individual activity. Only six respondents were not willing to use recycled
bags while shopping, which indicated a general concern for the environment
and acceptance of individual responsibility in terms of sustainable
consumption; however, only 29% of respondents indicated a willingness to
convince others to endorse sustainable consumption. Sustainable
consumption, and the public’s need to modify individual behavior, was
noted in each of the state SWAPs included in the current study. The lack of
willingness to encourage others to participate in sustainable consumption
may be the result of personal perceptions of what convincing others means.
For example, when responding to the open-ended questions in the current
study, several respondents noted that “libtards are always telling us what to
do” and that “no state should force residents to behave environmentally”.
Developing and fostering ecological citizenship on a personal level does not
require legislation, but rather personal influences through direct and indirect
methods. Each state SWAP noted the need for increased environmental
education, which was also noted by several respondents.
Supporting sustainable development endorses the communal approach
to shared responsibility; however, 32% of the respondents indicated they
would be unwilling to pay a $0.50 surcharge on gasoline to go toward
greenhouse gas reduction, but 91% indicated they would be willing to
carpool. None of the state SWAPs addressed the effect of individual
behaviors on the environmental health of the region, which minimizes the
available influence of state organization partnerships on the development
and fostering of ecological citizenship. The need for public participation is
noted in the state SWAPs, but in conjunction with the partnerships and non-
partnering organizations; thereby leaving the state out of encouraging the
communal response without the need for additional legislation. Increases in
environmental legislation can lead individuals to believe “that the
government has assumed responsibility for protecting the environment”
(Turaga et al., 2000, p. 221).
As noted earlier, every state SWAP requires state organization
partnerships and public participation, but not all respondents in these
partnerships believe the partnership or participation is valued or best serves
the environmental needs of the state. Only 86 to 88% of the respondents
answered the open-ended questions regarding their perception of public
participation and partnerships; however, 70% indicated they believe state
organization partnerships promote public participation and 51% believed
that these partnerships offer enough opportunities for public participation.
The Kansas, South Dakota, and Nebraska SWAPs stressed communication
between the state and partners, but as one respondent noted, “most
environmental policies are only influenced by state outreach agencies, while
actual polices are decided by the legislation branches without full intent of
the state outreach agencies”. The value of the partnership in assisting the
state government was also questioned by other respondents who noted state
legislators and agencies “provide lip service” and “only listen to big ag and
money”. Many respondents expressed feelings of “working against the tide”
when describing the state organization partnership.
Respondents in Group 2 expressed an even wider range of opinions on
whether the state, state organization partnerships, and environmental
organizations promote public participation. All state SWAPS indicated it
was created with public input; however, some respondents questioned the
value and necessity of such input. One respondent noted, “Many of our
citizens are low functioning peasants that predisposes them to squander
resources than complain when they are used up”, and several respondents
remarked on the level of public knowledge as they “wouldn’t know the
difference between a prairie dog and a pit bull” and “people only know what
Fox News tells them”. This view of the public was not shared by the entire
group, but several respondents did note that the public’s perceived level of
environmental knowledge was lacking. One respondent noted, however, that
even though they work for a state organization partner, “as a citizen, I do not
feel my voice matters, so I do not attend public meetings”. This perception
of not being heard was not addressed in the current study but may explain
the general lack of willingness to convince others to engage in ecological
citizenship.
Research Question 3: NGOs and Ecological Citizenship
The results of a Pearson correlation test on Group 3’s NEP and WTTA
indicated there is a significant moderately positive relationship between the
respondent’s environmental worldview and their individual willingness to
engage in selected environmental behaviors, r(237) = .613, p < .05. Results
of the linear regression test indicated that the NGO administrator and staff’s
environmental worldview significantly predicted their willingness to take
action, β = .143, p < .05, R2 = .38. The null hypothesis that there was no
significant relationship between NGO administrator and staff’s
environmental worldview and their willingness to take action was rejected.
The NGO director and staff’s environmental worldview accounts for 38% of
the variation in their willingness to engage in selected environmental
behaviors, and results of a multiple linear regression indicated that the
respondent’s political party affiliation also predicted their willingness to
engage in environmental behavior. Like Groups 1 and 2, there are few
studies that have explicitly explored the development of ecological
citizenship within the NGO sector, rather many studies have focused on the
opportunities available within the sector that contribute to internal
environmental beliefs and individual behavior (Kobori et al., 2016; Schwartz
et al., 2013; Soranno et al., 2015).
Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) noted that potential barriers to
proenvironmental behavior include institutional barriers created through
institutional decisions. Forrester et al. (2016) and Lewandowski and
Oberhauser (2015) found that opportunities provided by NGOs increased
proenvironmental behavior by providing the social opportunities needed to
foster internal behavioral change; however, institutional decisions influence
the opportunities available to the public. In the current study, the perception
that NGOs offered enough opportunities to participate in environmental
activities was evenly split. State legislators pass environmental legislation,
state organization partnerships establish goals for the community through the
state SWAP, and NGOs work directly with the public to achieve those goals.
If individuals within the NGO sector itself have doubts about its
opportunities, then the development and fostering of ecological citizenship
can be hindered.
The current study confirms some of Kollmuss and Agyeman’s barriers
to proenvironmental behavior. Many respondents noted that it is not the lack
of opportunities that is hindering the development of ecological citizenship,
but rather the lack of environmental knowledge and interest that prevents
residents from participating in provided opportunities. Nearly 35% of the
respondents who expanded on their responses noted that environmental
education in their public schools were lacking, and one respondent noted that
stewardship classes should also be offered. Interestingly many respondents
in Group 3 were the most critical of residents in their states. As one
respondent noted, “Most people are too busy watching Husker football and
shopping at WalMart to worry about the environment”, and another
remarked that “activism especially on environmental issues is considered
'radical.' Also, people are afraid to expose themselves in fear of retaliation.
Retaliation or ridicule is also quite common”. One respondent summarized
the sentiment expressed by many respondents when they noted, “it depends
on the individuals. If they CARE about the environmental activities there
are definitely ways to be involved and participate in a wide variety of
activities and organizations”. These responses provide a counter perspective
of potential participants than Dresner et al. found in their study, which
suggests there is a regional or cultural influence that also affects
participation in environmental activities.
Respondents in Group 3 were also highly critical of other NGOs. The
current study included large, multi-state organizations and small, local
organizations which may account for some of the variation in perspectives.
Many respondents remarked on the financial aspect of opportunities offered
by NGOs and blamed “high dues” and “penny pinching” organizations for
the lack of participation. Some respondents implied that organizations only
looked for “their kind of people” to participate, while one respondent noted
that “if you are of a minority you have an easier shot at being accepted for
certain programs because we want the diversity”, which rejects the inclusive
nature of ecological citizenship. Perceived racial bias in institutional
offerings were not identified in Kollmuss and Agyeman’s study but may
affect the group’s role in the development and fostering of ecological
citizenship.
A few respondents were critical of environmental policy itself and
placed the lack of participation and opportunity as a result of governmental
action. One respondent noted that there were ample opportunities “provided
that they show transparency when it comes to the burden(s) imposed by
some failed environmental regulations (federal) enacted in the 1960's that
gave too much power & government over-reach to the US Fish
& Wildlife Service & the EPA to name a few” and that “The poster child of
failed federal environmental reg. programs is the Endangered Species Act!”.
Several respondents noted that the state government pays landowners
through cost-sharing programs, similar to the Chickadee program in Kansas,
which politicizes the environment and implies that “only agricultural
individuals and companies are heard” by the state. The current study found
that 53% of respondents in Group 3 do not agree with paying residents to
engage in environmental behavior, which may explain the animosity
expressed by some respondents toward state-based environmental services
programs; however, this relationship was not explored further in the current
study.
A theme developed in the open-ended responses in Group 3 that was
not present in the other two groups. NGOs often rely on donations and
volunteers to achieve the organization’s goals, and many respondents noted
both the financial limitations of their organization and low funding support
from the state. These are both institutional barriers that may discourage the
development and fostering of ecological citizenship within their states. One
respondent noted, “If the public is paying CRP payments to a person for
personal gain there should be access to the public” and another supported
this idea that once payment is received, then the land should be open to the
public; however, the majority of respondents firmly support private
landownership without governmental interference. Many respondents who
identified their organization as being an NGO that provides educational
opportunities noted that they simply do not have the finances necessary to
expand their services. These institutional limitations have a direct impact on
the development of ecological citizenship. As Dobson (2003) stated,
ecological citizens “will avail themselves of the opportunities for collective
action with which political systems present them” (p. 103) and these
opportunities for collective action are severely limited without support from
the government or public.
Bioecological Model and Ecological Citizenship Development
The findings discussed so far have focused on individual groups and
the ecological citizen subgroup. Development and fostering of behavioral
changes from the exosystem can be accomplished through supporting
changes in the communal norms and values found in the macrosystem, or
through the mesosystem that directly and indirectly influences individual
development. This section begins by interpreting the results of the current
study in relation to the perceived role of the political system in the
development and fostering of ecological citizenship through changes in the
macrosystem and concludes with an interpretation of the results in relation
to the perceived role of the political system through direct and indirect
influence within the mesosystem. Hill et al. (2015) noted that vulnerable
ecosystems can be protected, and carbon footprints reduced, when political
systems promote environmentally friendly behavior by supporting
environmental social movements rather than eliciting behavior through laws
and regulations. The current study did not explicitly uncover the
respondent’s views on environmental social movements; however, the
responses of the open-ended questions shed some light on the perceived
value of current environmental social movements.
Many respondents used words that denote a negative perception of
environmental social movements and individuals who support such
movements. As one respondent noted,
“environmentalists are just tree-hugging liberals with too much time on their
hands” and another referred to environmental activists as “women who can’t
get a man.” Several respondents, and invited individuals who declined to
participate, politicized the current study and noted that “too many democrats
and liberals already try to dictate our lives” and one respondent even took
the opportunity to use the open-response option to note, “Your questions still
indicate to me that you are a socialist dreamer.” The presence of politically
based responses in all three groups was anticipated because of the nature of
the study, but the lack of support for changes in social values and norms was
not previously found in the literature. Many environmental policies during
the 1970s were the direct result of changes in social norms and values. The
results of the current study challenge the willingness of the exosystem to
foster changes in the macrosystem that would decrease the need for more
regulations, which implies individuals working in the exosystem may prefer
more direct methods of eliciting social change.
The exosystem can directly influence individual behavior though
public policy and program offerings. Chapter 4 discussed findings related to
the respondent’s willingness to take action and, as already discussed in
Chapter 4 and 5, this willingness does not generally extend to convincing
others to take action. Human development, according to Bronfenbrenner
and Ceci (1994), requires a series of increasingly complex interactions
between individuals and their environment. Many respondents noted that
the opportunities are there for those who want to participate and, in some
larger or wealthier communities, opportunities for youth within their
schools; however, as Schüle, Gabriel, and Bolte (2017) found, low
socioeconomic neighborhoods faced decreasing public greenspace which
negatively impacts the neighborhood’s health and well-being, and Chen and
Chang (2015) found that inequity was caused not by socioeconomic status of
the neighborhood, but was caused by inequitable access to public greenspace
caused by lack of transportation. The mixed opinion regarding the level of
opportunities provided by the state government, state organization
partnerships, and NGOs supported the multiple findings regarding public
access in that each community faces its own set of barriers that impact the
individual’s development of ecological citizenship; however, without having
a well-implemented and accepted joint approach for providing and ensuring
inclusive environmental engagement, individual willingness to take action
will not foster ecological citizenship effectively.
A key document produced within the exosystem is the state’s SWAP.
The state SWAP represents a pathway for the exosystem to develop and
foster ecological citizenship through the mesosystem, and directly through
the microsystem. For example, the Nebraska SWAP recognizes that
“implementation of a state wildlife action plan requires the cooperative
efforts of a wide range of governmental entities, private organizations and
citizens. Partnerships and cooperative arrangements can be used to promote
collaboration and communication” (Schneider et al., 2011, p. 30) and serves
as an excellent example of how exosystem entities can promote cooperation
that will foster the development of ecological citizenship. Schneider et al.
(2011) identified 12 actions that are needed to promote collaboration and
communication, thereby fostering environmental behavior within the
community:
1. Support existing and develop new regional forums that include
diverse representation from landowners, agencies, private
organizations and others that facilitate the exchange of ideas, promote
networking, and engage in problemsolving to address issues related to
endangered species management, public lands ownership and
management, landowner confidentiality, private property rights, etc.
Present Natural Legacy information at various forum meetings.
Distribute local contact information and address concerns by
conducting seminars, workshops, and social functions that promote
communication, cooperation and the exchange of ideas.
2. Develop and widely distribute clear and concise publications about
conservation programs, stresses to biological diversity, and actions
needed to conserve biological diversity. Make it widely available in
printed and electronic formats.
3. Regularly inform the public of proposed initiatives, management
actions, policy changes, and conservation successes and failures
through public meetings, workshops, field trips, one-on-one meetings,
seminars, presentations at stakeholder meetings, media, and other
effective venues.
4. Develop and implement recognition and appreciation programs to
acknowledge the efforts of farmers, ranchers, acreage owners,
organizations, community leaders, and others who demonstrate
meritorious achievement in the conservation of biological diversity.
5. Design and conduct training programs that instruct conservation
practitioners and others in effective public participation techniques.
6. Strive for shared responsibility between landowners, agencies,
organizations, and communities when implementing the Nebraska
Natural Legacy Project.
7. Institute a citizen-science and education initiative that draws on
volunteers of all ages to assist with monitoring, research, stewardship,
and education of natural habitats and wildlife. Opportunities are
available with existing programs (e.g., Master Naturalist, Adopt-A-
Stream, Project FeederWatch) and should be supported.
8. Improve existing and establish new communication channels among
conservation practitioners and their agencies/organizations to improve
coordination, reduce conflicting and confusing messages conveyed to
the public, and to develop a shared vision for the conservation of
biological diversity.
9. Facilitate conservation projects by communicating information about
possible funding sources, trained contractors, and resources such as
native seed suppliers. Encourage involvement in conservation
programs, particularly featuring acres where producers are
experiencing a decreased profit margin. In many cases, producers may
realize no net loss from their participation in conservation programs.
10. Seek opportunities to facilitate understanding and collaboration
between the rural and urban publics.
11. Establish networks between public land managers and neighboring
private landowners to improve communication, increase respect, and
build trust.
12. Look for opportunities to collaborate with bordering states to develop
and implement conservation strategies for Biologically Unique
Landscapes that truncate Nebraska state lines (p. 31).
Each of these 12 items, create opportunities for individuals to connect
within the mesosystem that can be taken back to their homes,
neighborhoods, and workplaces that can then influence others to engage in
the same behavior. The stronger the collaboration and partnership is within
the exosystem, the more communal values can change without the need for
further government policy. The Nebraska SWAP demonstrates a common
theme found within most literature on environmental behavior: public policy
can produce forced temporary change (Agyeman & Evans, 2006; Barry,
2006; Dobson, 2003), but only changes in personal values and ethics is
permanent (Francis & Si, 2015; McShane, 2014). These personal changes
are the result of effective communication, partnership, and collaboration
between all systems of the bioecological model.
Limitations of the Study
Chapter 1 presented limitations of the study conceived before the
study was conducted including: low participation rate, incomplete data,
access to target population, and inability to determine if the respondent was
providing truthful responses. These limitations were addressed prior to
conducting the study through increasing the sample size in anticipation of
low participation rates, identifying missing data through SPSS and remove
the survey if too much data was missing, and assuming the respondent
would be honest in their responses. Since the current study was conducted
completely online and anonymously, there was no reason to assume the
participant would lie, and the results imply that the majority, if not all, of the
respondents provided honest responses. There was one limitation identified
in Chapter 1, access to target population, that could not be mitigated, and, in
fact, was amplified because of the timing of the study. Many state
legislators were not available to participate in the study because the state
legislative session had ended before the study was conducted. Several
limitations of the current study were discovered while conducting the study
and analyzing the data. One limitation that was not considered prior to
conducting the study was the effect of my perceived political views and
values. Several invited participants inquired about my political party
affiliation, voting district, and state of residence. One invited participant
even requested I provide my voting record before they would consider
participating in the study. This limitation was not mitigated during the
current study, but rather discussed in Chapter 4 as a possible reason for low
participation rates for Group 1. Several items on the survey in the current
study were found to have low reliability scores, which created another
unforeseen limitation. Items pertaining to the public/private demarcation, α
= .30, and non-reciprocal responsibility, α = .32, were removed during data
analysis which prevented an in-depth analysis of the individual factors of
ecological citizenship. By removing these items however, the overall
reliability and validity of the study was maintained.
The last limitation not considered prior to conducting the study arose
from the results of the survey. While it was assumed that the respondents
would be truthful in their responses, understanding the relationship between
the respondent and their perceived role in the development of ecological
citizenship was not as simple as a Likertscaled response. Not having a
qualitative response to clarify the respondent’s position on individual factors
of the NEP, further reasoning for their WTTA responses, and not identifying
the respondent’s degree field limited the inferences that could be made
regarding the data.
Recommendations
Chapter 2 highlighted the many gaps in what is known about the
development and fostering of ecological citizenship, and this study aimed to
begin filling one gap by focusing on the perceived role of the political
system in ecological citizenship development by individuals within the
political system of the U.S. grasslands. The results of the current study
confirmed the findings of many other studies that found an individual’s
environmental worldview can, in some cases, predict proenvironmental
behavior; however, the current study also identified new gaps in ecological
citizenship development within the political system. The following are
recommendations for future study to address new gaps and limitations
identified in the current study:
1. Future studies on the development and fostering of ecological
citizenship in the U.S. grasslands, or any other geographic region,
would be best addressed through a mixed-method approach.
Quantitative approaches, such as the current study, allow for
identification of the relationship and predictive nature of variables, but
without the respondent’s reasoning for the provided responses, the
study is limited in its ability to fully understand the relationship
between the respondent and ecological citizenship.
2. The inclusion of inquiry regarding the respondent’s environmental
education would allow for the study to better understand the
relationship between education and ecological citizenship. The
current study found that identified ecological citizens are college
graduates and have high pro-ecological worldviews, but the study was
unable to determine if the high pro-ecological worldview was the
result of environmental education.
3. Survey or questionnaire items regarding the public/private
demarcation and nonreciprocal responsibility aspects of ecological
citizenship need to be developed so that future studies can fully
explore how political systems address these aspects.
4. The role of sustainable development in the development and fostering
of ecological citizenship needs to be studied further as the results of
the current study indicated that current methods of paying for
environmental services is not supported within the political system,
and respondents reported a reluctance to actively participate in
sustainable development activities.
5. Results of secondary regression testing discussed in Chapter 4
indicated that, in some groups, political values and party affiliation are
also predictors of ecological citizenship. This finding needs to be
studied further as none of the respondents in the current identified as a
Green Party member which implies ecological citizenship is not
dependent on non-traditional political views.
6. The qualitative responses provided by respondents indicated a
disconnect between how partnerships are expressed by the state, and
how they are perceived by individuals working for those partnerships
and other organizations. Individuals
within the partnership perceive it as “on paper only” and not “truly
listening to their recommendations”, while individuals outside of the
partnership often perceive them as “catering to select groups” rather
than the public. Further research is needed to understand this
disconnect and how state government can facilitate a working
relationship with all environmental engagement providers so that
ecological citizenship can be fostered by both the state SWAP and
organizational relationships that work both to change public policy
and public opinion on environmental needs.
Implications
Chapter 1 briefly discussed the potential implications of the current
study; however, the results of the current study have far reaching
possibilities beyond what was previously discussed. The results indicated
that each of the three groups can benefit from the results of the current study.
The body of knowledge on the development of ecological citizenship, and
proenvironmental behavior in general, can also benefit from the current
study.
Positive Social Change
Creating social change that benefits the environment begins with the
individual. The current study may not create change in the entire 5-state
region, but if its results can reach one individual from each group, then
social change has begun. Several respondents kept in contact throughout the
current study and requested the preliminary results when it was available.
One respondent in Group 3 requested an in-person meeting with the
organization’s board and administration to present the findings along with
recommendations for improving the organization’s ability to promote
ecological citizenship within their community. Ecological citizenship is
multi-generational, and each environmental policy relies on the passing of
knowledge to the next generation to be effective. The current study noted
weaknesses within each group of respondents that, if addressed within the
group, promote positive social change within not only the community, but
the state as well. The nature of the study was limited to five states; however,
many organizations in Group 2 and Group 3 are national or international
organizations which allows for the results of the current study to be
examined internally for applicability to other states or countries, which will
further increase the possible social change of the current study.
Impact on State Government
The current study included state legislators and agents as a participant
group and the results suggest there is great potential for this group in the
development and fostering of ecological citizenship within their states;
however, there is also great reluctance to use the state government and its
resources to fully facilitate its development. Results of the regression
analysis for state legislators indicated that 60% of their individual
willingness to take action can be predicted by their environmental
worldview, but further analysis into the perceived role the government can
play in ecological citizenship development indicated that many state
legislators view access to nature and environmental engagement
opportunities as private matters that are best handled through partnerships
and other organizations.
While it is not suggested that a state’s government should require
private landowners to allow visitors on their property, the state’s SWAP
inclusion of public participation is negated by the lack of assisting with
removing barriers to nature and environmental engagement created by
individual limitations. Responses from state organization partners and
NGOs imply state legislators view the state SWAP as not pertaining to the
government itself, but rather serves as a conservation plan for its agencies;
however, improving the strength of the relationship between agencies,
NGOs, and the state government will contribute to positive social change
through improving biodiversity within the region. Increased biodiversity can
improve public health through decreased allergies (Ruokolainen, Fyhrquist,
& Haahtela, 2016), increase social connections (Dresner et al., 2015), and
even influence career choices (di Fabio & Bucci, 2016). Many respondents
in all three groups noted that the state government does not provide enough
funding for the development and fostering of ecological citizenship within
the state, which further hinders the ability of the state SWAP to engage the
public in environmental activities and awareness that will serve to foster
ecological citizenship development through changes in social norms and
values rather than requiring further environmental public policy.
Impact on State Organization Partnerships
State organization partners, such as the Iowa Wildlife Center and
Pheasants Forever, create social change through lobbying efforts and direct
intervention within the community through animal rehabilitation,
conservation projects, and assisting in the development of the state wildlife
action plan. The results of the current study found that communication
within the partnership has left some respondents feeling “left out of the
loop” which has created a sense of “selective hearing” on behalf of the
partnership. The current study has identified areas where the state
organization partnership could be improved. These areas include:
communication within the partnership to encourage more institutional and
governmental communication and increased dissemination of the state
SWAP to all members of the partnership. Several respondents within the
state organization partnership group indicated they “have never heard of the
state wildlife action plan” and “know a plan was created but have never read
it”. Without knowing the reason for the partnership and how everyone
within the partnership can promote ecological citizenship and environmental
behavior within their states, the ability of the SWAP to foster ecological
citizenship is limited.
Impact on NGOs
Environmental NGOs, such as the Audubon Society and Ducks Unlimited,
currently provide citizen scientist programs and other social opportunities
for residents to engage in environmental behavior; however, participation in
many programs is low. The responses from individuals associated with
environmental NGOs in the current study are divided in their perception of
public participation. Some respondents noted many potential participants
are left out because of “institutional membership dues”, “lack of
transportation”, and a general lack of “knowing how they can participate”.
As one respondent remarked, many organizations “say” they want
volunteers and public participation but then do nothing to ensure the “word
gets out” that the opportunity is available for everyone and not just their
target population. The development and fostering of ecological citizenship
requires public participation and the results of the current study indicate that
there is a general willingness to participate, but institutional barriers are
hindering ecological citizenship development.
To assist state governmental agents and state organization partners in
the development and fostering of ecological citizenship, NGO directors and
staff must first address the contradictory beliefs within the sector. Results of
the current study identified a negative theme that emerged when exploring
the NGO’s role in the development of ecological citizenship. NGOs are the
closest of the three exosystem entities included in this study to the public
and have the most ability to effectively promote changes in the social norms
and values without the need for new laws and regulations. The results of the
current study indicated that while administrators and staff are financially
constrained, the majority of respondents believed that the organizations
could do more to increase public participation including: posting
opportunities in more places, utilizing dues more efficiently, and listening to
both staff and community members.
Impact on Public Policy
While all major international and national environmental policies of
the 20th and early 21st century were read for the current study, the focus
became the congressionally required state-based SWAP. This plan is
required to be created and revised every ten years, but many states have
opted to revise the plan every five years as to provide more opportunities to
identify needs and correct errors made during the implementation of the
plan. One required aspect of every plan is the creation of partnerships that
aid in the plan’s development and promotion of public participation. The
five states included in the current study produced plans that address public
participation and partnerships very differently. Nebraska clearly promotes
and values partnerships and encourages public participation within the
SWAP, which can be adopted by other states within the region when the
state revises its SWAP.
The results of the current study indicated that there is a lack of
distribution of the state SWAP to agencies, organizations, and the public.
While the SWAP can be found online, individuals must know where to look
if they are to find it. Improving public awareness of the SWAP, and what its
purpose is, can increase participation in environmental activities offered by
the partnerships and NGOs, thereby promoting the development of
ecological citizenship within the state. The results also indicated that a
majority of respondents are concerned about the lack of funding provided for
environmental needs. Environmental education within the state school
system can promote sustainable consumption and introduce sustainable
development to the next generation. The students, however, take this
information home to parents and other family members, thereby
disseminating the information within microsystem. When parents or family
members talk to their neighbors or co-workers, they are also disseminating
information on sustainable consumption and development.
By investing in environmental education, beyond compulsory or
“token” classes, one policy, such as the SWAP, can effectively ignite social
change without the need for further policy. Of the five states included in the
current study, only Nebraska directly addresses the role of environmental
education in environmental protection and engagement. A 2003 survey of
600 Nebraska residents found that “98% of respondents think environmental
education should be taught in schools” (Bureau of Sociological Research,
2003, “Appendix D”). The Nebraska SWAP recommended environmental
education be increased through a variety of means including: “adding
environmental education-specific courses or encouraging mentorships with
current classroom educators already incorporating environmental education
into their curriculum” in teacher education programs, “support existing and
develop new programs/partnerships/materials to improve learning
opportunities to all age and ability levels”, “work with the Nebraska
Department of Education to adopt and incorporate the Nebraska
Environmental Literacy Plan”, and “Work with partners, such as
Cooperative Extension, to develop and conduct workshops for landowners,
producers, community leaders, conservation practitioners, educators and
others on topics such as prairie conservation … forest management, aquatic
resources, available costshare programs for projects, etc.” (p. 33). These
recommendations, if implemented, utilize an existing policy to spur future
ecological citizenship development without further policies by using
partnerships to spread environmental education through the state through a
variety of methods which allows the information to reach a greater number
of residents than the SWAP alone. Ecological citizenship is multi-
generational and if the state informs and supports ecological citizenship at
the youth level, then the state is fostering its development within the whole
community provided organizations and partnerships expand their
opportunities to be more inclusive, which relies on funding from the state.
An efficient SWAP promotes this circular responsibility of both state and
organizations so that effective partnerships and policies can be developed.
Impact on Bioecological Model Literature
The results of the current study add to the body of knowledge that used
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model as a framework; however, the current
study also highlighted a possible weakness of the model when used to
predict the development of ecological citizenship. As noted throughout the
study, the bioecological model is not often utilized from an inward
perspective. This new perspective helped identify a barrier to the
development of ecological citizenship: a general unwillingness to convince
others to engage in environmental behavior. An individual possesses a
certain level of biophilia that wans as the individual ages, but can be
rekindled through social interaction; however, the bioecological model does
not consider the perception of individuals within the exosystem. Policy does
not create or speak for itself but is rather a biproduct of individual and
communal demand. Policy can force temporary changes in the social norms
and values, but, as Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1992) noted, changes in the
microsystem are more effective at creating long-term change. The question
that emerged from the current study regarding the bioecological model is
what if the agents in the exosystem do not want to promote change within
the meso- or microsystem? The results of the current study indicated that
respondents are willing to act themselves, but not willing to elicit that
behavior in others, which negates the inward flow of behavioral change.
Conclusion
It is estimated that less than five percent of the North American
grasslands, also known as the North American prairie, remain due to
increased agricultural production, urbanization, and other human activity
(National Park Service, 2016; Pieper, 2005; WWF, 2016). The United
States protects less than one percent of the remaining grasslands through the
National Park Service (National Park Service, 2016), which places
protection and reconstruction of the ecosystem primarily on states,
organizations, and individuals within in that region (United Nations
Environmental Programme, 2012). Many studies have focused on individual
proenvironmental behaviors such as bird watching (Cox & Gaston, 2016)
and visiting local parks (Muratet et al.,2015; Shwartz et al., 2014), as well as
how social constructs (Shapiro et al., 2016; Soga et al., 2016) and an innate
desire to connect with nature (Wilson, 2009) aid in the development of
proenvironmental behaviors; however, none have focused on how ecological
citizenship is developed and how the state government, state organization
partners, and environmental NGOs influence its development in the U.S.
grasslands.
At its core, ecological citizenship and individual ecological citizens
“know that today’s acts will have implications for tomorrow’s people”
(Dobson, 2003, p. 106) and “will avail themselves of the opportunities for
collective action with which political systems present them” (Dobson, 2003,
p. 103). My purpose in this quantitative study was to explore the perceived
role of state legislators and agents, state organization partners, and NGOs in
the development and fostering of ecological citizenship within five states:
Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. These five states
were selected for this study because their borders lie solely within the U.S
temperate grasslands. Grasslands, like forests, are essential to carbon
sequestration and are vital participants in the carbon cycle (Freedman, 2014;
Paustian et al., 2016; Smith, 2014), as well as provide biodiversity within the
region. Loss of biodiversity within a biome, and loss of a biome in its
entirety, can increase disease transmission (Dantas-Torres, 2015), negatively
impact an individual’s mental health (Sandifer et al., 2015), and negatively
affect an individual’s immune system (von Hertzen et al., 2015), which
makes understanding the relationship between the political system and the
development and fostering of ecological citizenship vital to the region.
Chapter 2 traced the rise of the ecological citizen from its earliest
governmental forms in the 17th and 18th centuries as the Massachusetts Bay
Colony prohibited animal abuse (Eliot, 1963, p. 79), London residents
addressed air pollution through the creation of city parks (Evelyn, 1976) and
Tokugawa fought against deforestation by replanting trees in Japan (Marcon,
2015) to the rise of the environmental organization and society in the 19th
and early 20th centuries (Cohen, 1988); however, it was not until 1962 and
the publication of Silent Spring that the environment became a global social
movement.
In Silent Spring, Carson (2002) depicted a fictional town where the
environment had been destroyed by nuclear fallout and pesticides, then
presented an argument against pesticide and chemical use in the United
States. Carson’s work, and other environmental voices of the early 1960’s
were so strong that President Kennedy ordered scientific investigations into
the use of pesticides, and in 1972 DDT was banned in the United States
(Lear, 1993). International response to environmental needs in the 1970s
included the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme
(Johnson, 2012) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
(1973). International approaches valued scientific exchange, assessment, and
promotion of environmental needs within cultural contexts (United Nations
Environment Programme, 2012. These policy themes continued throughout the 20th
century to build off communal demands for a cleaner environment through
transnational meetings and conferences that created a vast network of international
policies that recognized global needs (United Nations Environment Programme,
2012). Late-20th century and early-21st century environmental policy in the United
States has expanded beyond fundamental air, water, and species protection
(e.g., National Organic Program, 2015). Federal and state environmental
agencies create partnerships with NGOs and institutions through State
Wildlife Action Plans to create pathways for individuals to become involved
in environmental policy and protection in their states (e.g., Rohweder, 2015;
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, 2014; Zohrer, 2012). It
is in this new sense of common fight and joint effort to care for the
environment that provided the setting for the current study.
The results of the current study, presented in Chapter 4, indicated that
while the respondent’s individual environmental worldview was
significantly related to their willingness to take action, this worldview was
not equally attributable to the respondent’s willingness across the political
system. A state legislator’s environmental worldview was more predictive
of their willingness to take action than NGO administrators or state
organization partner directors. The results also indicated that while the
SWAP could create a pathway to ecological citizenship, the perceived value
of public participation and state partnerships are not uniform within the
political system.
While much was already known about proenvironmental behavior,
ecological citizenship, and some barriers to ecological citizenship, little was
known about how the political system perceived its role in the development
and fostering of ecological citizenship. The current study, while limited in
its scope, has shed some light on what was not known and has contributed to
the body of literature on both ecological citizenship and the bioecological
model. For the bioecological model to account for the development of
ecological citizens, further research is needed on the resistance of
individuals within the exosystem to elicit changes within the mesosystem
and microsystem. Using the NEP scale, the current study expanded what is
known about ecological citizenship and its relationship to the individual’s
environmental worldview; however, more research is needed to fully
understand how communities, states, and governments can develop and
foster ecological citizenship for future generations and the environmental
health of the world.
