lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384

Contents lists avai

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jenvman

Capturing multiple values of ecosystem services shaped byenvironmental worldviews: A spatial analysis

Carena J. Van Riper a, *, Gerard T. Kyle b

a Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1206 South Fourth St.,Champaign, IL 61820, USAb Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Laboratory, Department of Recreation, Park & Tourism Sciences, 600 John Kimbrough Blvd., Mailstop: 2261,Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 7783, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 October 2013Received in revised form2 April 2014Accepted 13 June 2014Available online

Keywords:Protected areasNew ecological paradigmOutdoor recreationPublic participation geographic informationsystemsEcosystem services

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 217 244 9317; faxE-mail address: cvanripe@illinois.edu (C.J. Van Rip

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.06.0140301-4797/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Two related approaches to valuing nature have been advanced in past research including the study ofecosystem services and psychological investigations of the factors that shape behavior. Stronger inte-gration of the insights that emerge from these two lines of enquiry can more effectively sustain eco-systems, economies, and human well-being. Drawing on survey data collected from outdoorrecreationists on Santa Cruz Island within Channel Islands National Park, U.S., our study blends these tworesearch approaches to examine a range of tangible and intangible values of ecosystem services providedto stakeholders with differing biocentric and anthropocentric worldviews. We used Public ParticipationGeographic Information System methods to collect survey data and a Social Values for Ecosystem Ser-vices mapping application to spatially analyze a range of values assigned to terrestrial and aquaticecosystems in the park. Our results showed that preferences for the provision of biological diversity,recreation, and scientific-based values of ecosystem services varied across a spatial gradient. We alsoobserved differences that emerged from a comparison between survey subgroups defined by theirworldviews. The implications emanating from this investigation aim to support environmental man-agement decision-making in the context of protected areas.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

How can we better articulate and understand multiple valuesof nature? This question has attracted considerable researchattention in the social and behavioral sciences. Previous in-vestigations have indicated that tangible and, at times, monetizedvalues of nature can maintain traction in political arenas andcreate meaningful opportunities to examine tradeoffs amongcompeting “ecosystem services,” defined as the direct and indirectbenefits (e.g., clean air, flood control, timber, recreation) that na-ture provides to people (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; deGroot et al., 2002; MEA, 2005). Although compelling evidence ofecological and economic values has been gathered to demonstratethe implications of changing social-ecological conditions, agrowing body of research has called for broader conceptions ofvalue encompassing ethical imperatives and expressions of thenonmaterial qualities of nature (Chan et al., 2012; Cordell et al.,

: þ1 217 244 1935.er).

2005; Daniel et al., 2012; Martín-L�opez et al., 2012; Raymondet al., 2009). Specifically, insights on behavioral antecedents(e.g., value orientations, worldviews, belief structures) are rarelyincorporated in the study of ecosystem services despite theirability to help explain why valuation occurs and reveal the com-plexities of human behaviors that benefit the environment(Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Turaga et al., 2010).

In this paper we call for stronger integration among disciplinesthat espouse value-related concepts to help ensure that policyoutcomes are not rendered unsuccessful. Information about psy-chological processes can be harnessed to better understandexternal (e.g., markets) and internal factors (e.g., dispositions) thatconfound decision-making (Guagnano et al., 1995), as well ascomplement a well-established bridge between economics andecology. Multiple values e especially those extending beyond theassumptions of rational choice theory e influence the imple-mentation process and carry potential to ensure science is suc-cessfully incorporated in management activities (Knight et al.,2008; Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984). Social science scholarshipmust establish a more inclusive posture toward integrating con-cepts from psychology, economics, and ecology to enhance

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the relationship between “held” values representedby a continuum ranging from anthropocentrism to biocentrism and 12 different typesof “assigned” values of ecosystem services. (Adapted from Brown, 1984.)

C.J. Van Riper, G.T. Kyle / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384 375

management decisions about resource allocation. Given broaderrepresentation of multiple values in decision-making, agencies willbe better positioned to: (a) negotiate consensus-based outcomesand create space for trust to be developed in scientific expertise(Brown, 2009); (b) ensure more equitable and transparent policy-making (Bridge and Perreault, 2009); and (c) encourage greatercompliance with rules and regulations among the individuals mostaffected by policy change (Ban et al., 2013; McCook et al., 2010;Sutton and Tobin, 2009).

Past research has called attention to tiers of the value conceptthat range from core belief structures processed on an individualbasis to more reflective and interactive place-based values (Brown,1984; Manning et al., 1999; McIntyre et al., 2008; Sabatier, 1988;Schroeder, 2013). Extending this line of enquiry, we empiricallyanalyzed two different forms of value across spatial scales to revealvariation in stakeholder interests that may otherwise be margin-alized in environmental planning and management. Specifically,we investigated “held” environmental value orientations thatranged from biocentric (i.e., nature-based) to anthropocentric (i.e.,human-based) worldviews and “assigned” values of ecosystemservices that were mapped by survey respondents via PublicParticipation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) methods(Sieber, 2006). We also used a Social Values for Ecosystem Services(SolVES) analysis tool (Sherrouse et al., 2011) to spatially analyzeassigned value patterns reported by subgroups with differingworldviews, and in turn, identify high priority locations within theterrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of our study area. Thus, thepurpose of this paper was to determine how worldviews gave riseto different preferences for tangible and intangible values ofecosystem services across spatial scales. In the following sub-sections we elaborate on our definition of value, review methodsfor examining this concept, and situate our investigation in thecontext of parks and protected areas. Finally, we present theresearch objectives that guided this study of outdoor recreationistsvisiting Channel Islands National Park.

2. Literature review

2.1. Conceptualizing value

Our conceptualization of value is adapted from research thatdistinguishes between held and assigned values (Brown, 1984). Aheld value is defined as “an enduring belief that a particular modeof conduct or that a particular end-state of existence is personallyand socially preferable” (Rokeach, 1973, p550). This form of valuereflects the most basic elements of cognition that facilitate prefer-ences and induce action. For example, Norlund and Garvill (2002)tested a path model of held values and other factors that shapedbehavior reported by a sample of Swedish residents. In this study,held values were correlated with beliefs and norms that antecededaction. The authors examined the general and environmental heldvalues of self enhancement and anthropocentrism (i.e., concern forindividual interests and human welfare), as well as self transcen-dence and biocentrism (i.e., concern for all life forms beyond theself). Along similar lines, other scholars have argued that heldvalues play a significant role in attitude formation and influenceless stable psychological processes such as place-based preferencesfor resource conditions (De Groot and Steg, 2010; Schultz andZelezny, 1999; Vaske and Donnelly, 1999).

Assigned values are defined as the perceived qualities of anenvironment that provide material and nonmaterial benefits topeople (Bengston and Xu, 1995; Rolston, 1988; Zube, 1987). In-vestigations of assigned value have shown that these place-basedpreferences can be mapped using GIS and rated in relation to oneanother (Seymour et al., 2010). As such, tradeoffs among competing

assigned values of ecosystem services can be examined acrossspatial scales. Past research has related assigned value typologies tocategories of the MEA (2005) to further solidify the linkage be-tween assigned values research often explored under the rubric ofPPGIS methods and the ecosystem services literature (Brown, 2013;Brown et al., 2012). For example, Sherrouse et al. (2011) linked aseries of spatially-anchored ecosystem service values to a suite ofbiophysical metrics (e.g., distance to roads, elevation) that reflectednatural resource conditions in Colorado's Pike and San Isabel Na-tional Forests. Van Riper et al. (2012) also mapped a suite of ma-terial and nonmaterial qualities ascribed to places on HinchinbrookIsland National Park, Australia. These past studies have demon-strated that the perceived benefits of environments that supportoutdoor recreation activities can be mapped across a spatialgradient and conceptualized as distinct processes from held envi-ronmental value orientations that encompass biocentric andanthropocentric worldviews.

A rich theoretical foundation underpins the argument that thereare multiple values of nature. A class of social psychological the-ories that guide the study of environmental attitudes, for instance,provides a formal basis to show that held values shape attitudesand less stable psychological processes such as assigned values,which in turn influence human behavior (Dietz et al., 2005;Schwartz, 1992). Stern et al. (1999) developed the value beliefnorm theory, which indicated that overt responses to feelings ofmoral obligation could be expected when positively influenced byvalues beyond self-interest and belief structures such as environ-mental worldviews. Vaske and Donnelly (1999) also tested a seriesof psychological processes organized into a cognitive hierarchymodel that predicted behavioral intentions reported by Coloradoresidents. Literature in political science (e.g., Sabatier, 2007) andenvironmental ethics (e.g., Callicott, 1984) offer parallel argumentsabout the need for pluralism in the study of value. For example, theadvocacy coalition framework of policy change developed bySabatier (1988) argued that individual decision-making was afunction of multiple sources of information including shared beliefsand external events. From the aforementioned lines of research, amultifaceted conceptualization of value can be rationalizedwhereby broad, core belief structures lead to more specific,malleable preferences for policy outcomes.

C.J. Van Riper, G.T. Kyle / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384376

Our understanding of held and assigned values is depicted inFig. 1, which flows from bottom to top. Held values and similarorientations spanning anthropocentrism and biocentrism provide afoundation on which people base their decisions and interpret theworld around them. Drawing on a spectrum of held values, an in-dividual moves through an arena whereby he or she experiencesnature. This is a relational realm linking held and assigned valuesand reflecting gestalt feelings that emerge from humaneenviron-ment interactions (Schroeder, 2013). At the top of this diagram liesa typology of assigned values indicating preferences for featuresdetected in an environment. The relative perceived importance ofthese assigned values is more immutable than a spectrum of heldvalues (Dietz et al., 2005). In support of this heuristic, past researchhas shown that held values shape attitudes toward management ofprotected areas (Borrie et al., 2002; Tanner et al., 2008). Forexample, Manning et al. (1999) developed a suite of held values andmeasures of ethical disposition to predict Vermont residents' atti-tudes toward management of Green Mountain National Forest.McIntyre et al. (2008) similarly posited held values were abstractconcepts that could be contrasted against place-based measures ofassigned values. Results from this latter study identified particularlocales that weremapped across aworking landscape. These resultsillustrated how assigned values could be depicted in spatial ana-lyses, and in turn, integrated into environmental planning andmanagement.

2.2. Navigating value methodologies

Held values are underlying orientations that drive behavior,similar to the ideas reflected in the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)scale (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap et al., 2000). The NEPmeasures nature-based, ‘primitive’ beliefs that reflect an in-dividual's fundamental priorities about humaneenvironment in-teractions (Oskamp and Schultz, 2005). The NEP scale indicatespotential endorsement of an environmental worldview and iscomprised of statements about living in harmony with (i.e., bio-centrism) or having mastery over nature (i.e., anthropocentrism)(Schultz and Zelezny, 1999; Schwartz, 1994). The dimensionality ofthis construct has been contested (Amburgey and Thoman, 2012),though a large body of research has relied on a two-dimensionalframework and suggested that underlying belief systems predis-pose people to act in support or opposition of policy change(Milfont and Duckitt, 2004; Nooney et al., 2003; Wynveen et al., inpress). Use of the NEP as a reflection of held value is a departurefrom the “Rokeachean” tradition (i.e., Rokeach, 1973); however, theNEP can be considered a proxy because this belief structure oper-ates on a similar cognitive plane as held environmental values(Norlund and Garvill, 2002) and as is more resistant to change than

Table 1Definitions of assigned values of ecosystem services that reflected the tangible and intan

Assigned value Description

Aesthetic I value Channel Islands National Park for the attractive sBiological diversity I value Channel Islands National Park because it provideCultural I value Channel Islands National Park because it preservEconomic I value Channel Islands National Park because it provideFuture value I value Channel Islands National Park because it allows fIntrinsic I value Channel Islands National Park in and of itself forLearning I value Channel Islands National Park because I can learnLife sustaining I value Channel Islands National Park because it helps prSpiritual I value Channel Islands National Park because it is spirituRecreation I value Channel Islands National Park because it provideTherapeutic I value Channel Islands National Park because it makes mScientific I value Channel Islands National Park because it provide

less stable place-based preferences such as assigned values (Dietzet al., 2005).

Multiple classification systems have been proposed in pastresearch to characterize assigned values (Bengston and Xu, 1995;Brown and Reed, 2012; Harmon and Putney, 2003; Rolston, 1988;Tarrant et al., 2003). One typology that has spawned a substan-tive body of PPGIS research was formalized by Brown and Reed(2000). These authors identified 13 conceptually distinct cate-gories from past research to reflect why areas in the Chugach Na-tional Forest were valued. Other scholars have used similarmethods to elicit preferences for assigned values of ecosystemservices and spatially analyze the locations of points assigned toplaces by survey respondents using GIS techniques (Sherrouseet al., 2011, 2014). Specifically, past research has developed valuemapping methods whereby survey respondents are presented witha typology of various landscape qualities (Table 1) and asked tosituate those qualities across a geographic locale. The assignment ofaesthetic value, for instance, indicates that the respondent enjoysthe sites and scenery of a setting in relation to other place-basedservices. This research thread has proved useful for prioritizingmanagement decisions and engaging stakeholders in participatorymapping exercises that identify meaningful and important places(“hotspots” or “coldspots”) (Alessa et al., 2008; Brown andRaymond, 2007; Bryan et al., 2010; Nielsen-Pincus, 2011; Sher-rouse et al., 2011).

2.3. Contextualizing value

Investigations of value, including those elicited via PPGISmethods, require careful consideration in parks and protected areas(PAs). Particularly within the United States, PAs are often touted as“priceless” locales that provide valuable resources for future gen-erations and that serve as symbols of American heritage (NPS,2012). On a global scale, PAs preserve biological diversityincluding ecosystems, habitats, and at-risk species, and they coverapproximately 12% of terrestrial and 4% of aquatic global environ-ments (CBD, 2008). These contexts inherently embody multipleforms of value including: (a) economic benefits of tourism activities(Eagles, 2002); (b) restorative experiences that contribute to hu-man well-being and quality of life (Kaplan, 1995; Manning, 2011);and (c) resources that sustain and support local livelihoods(Naughton-Treves et al., 2005; Robbins et al., 2009). Moreover, PAsare fascinating laboratories for examining a range of values,because they can elicit positive associations with nature (e.g.,sublimity, open spaces, quiet environments) (Harmon and Putney,2003) alongside negative sentiments such as potential feelings ofintimidation (Plieninger et al., 2013) or histories of residentdisplacement (Spence, 1999). As dynamic and changing environ-ments inevitably shaped by human activities (Mascia and Pailler,

gible qualities of nature.

cenery, sights, sounds, or smellss for a variety of plants, wildlife, marine life, and other living organismses historic places and archaeological sites that reflect human history of the islands fisheries, recreation, or tourism opportunities that provide economic benefitsuture generations to experience this placeits existenceabout natural and cultural resourcesoduce, preserve, clean, and renew air, soil, and waterally significant to mes a place for my favorite outdoor recreation activities.e feel better, physically and/or mentally

s an opportunity for scientific observation or experimentation

C.J. Van Riper, G.T. Kyle / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384 377

2011), PA managers and policymakers are increasingly challengedto reconcile competing assigned values and ethical orientationstoward humaneenvironment interactions (Manning et al., 1999).

In response to these intellectual, methodological, and contex-tual challenges, we conducted this research on Santa Cruz Island,which is the largest (96.53 square miles) of five islands withinChannel Islands National Park (CINP) located approximately 20miles off the coast of southern California (Fig. 2). The National ParkService (NPS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) jointly manage24% and 76% of Santa Cruz, respectively. Among other agencies, theNPS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationoversee waters surrounding the island, which are partially pro-tected within a marine reserve network (Davis, 2005). Santa CruzIsland has a Mediterranean climate, is largely covered by grasslandplant communities, and is characterized by dramatic viewshedsincluding bluffs, sea caves, and occasional sandy beaches along thecoastline. An interior mountain range reaches 2450 feet while giantkelp forests flourish in nearshore waters providing habitat for anabundance of marine life. Similar to Ecuador's Galapagos Islands,the CINP harbors endemic species such as the island fox (Urocyonlittoralis) and scrub jay (Aphelocoma insularis). The islands havebeen occupied by humans for approximately 13,000 years,throughout which time indigenous communities (i.e., ChumashNative Americans), ranching operations, recreational activities, andscientific research have shaped its biophysical condition (Gherini,2005). Currently, outdoor recreation activities amount to approxi-mately 30,000 annual visits to the islands and 60,000 visits to theadjacent waters (NPS, 2013).

2.4. Research objectives

This paper explores the conceptualization and measurement ofvalue-related concepts reported by outdoor recreationists on SantaCruz Island within the CINP. Specifically, we mapped a range of

Fig. 2. Map of the study context including Santa Cruz Island an

tangible and intangible assigned values reported by two surveysubgroups defined by their held environmental value orientations(i.e., worldviews). Our results offer a perspective on how spatially-anchored assigned values of ecosystem services are shaped bybiocentric and anthropocentric worldviews. Three objectivesguided this research: (a) identify subgroups within a sample ofoutdoor recreationists on the basis of environmental worldviews,(b) examine the relative perceived importance and spatial distri-bution of 12 assigned values of ecosystem services, and (c) deter-mine the spatial relationships between environmental worldviewsand assigned values across the land and seascapes of Santa CruzIsland.

3. Methods

3.1. Data collection

On-site self-administered surveys were distributed to a randomsample of adult visitors by a team of trained administrators. Oursurvey schedule was stratified by day of the week and time of theday during a period selected to reflect the high use season (June-eAugust, 2012). We randomly selected respondents at pre-definedtime intervals, and in groups, selected individuals with the mostrecent birthday (Battaglia et al., 2008). Our survey station waslocated near Scorpion Ranch, which is in the northeast corner of theisland. We collected data using ASUS Transformer TF3000T tabletsand Droid Survey (version 1.4.1) off-line software (Davis et al., 2012)and recorded all on-site encounters in contact logs to estimateresponse bias on the bases of gender (c2 ¼ .065) and group size(t ¼ 1.256, df ¼ 335). Decisions about data collection and thesampling design were informed by preliminary on-site visits to thepark in August, 2011 and April, 2012 and in consultation with thepark staff. In total, 344 people were asked to participate in thesurvey, 323 of whom agreed, resulting in a response rate of 94%.

d four other islands within Channel Islands National Park.

C.J. Van Riper, G.T. Kyle / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384378

3.2. Measuring and analyzing environmental worldviews

We measured environmental worldviews using an abbreviated10-item version of the revised NEP scale (Dunlap et al., 2000). Ourconfiguration of survey items was based on previous research thathas employed an equal number of positively and negatively-worded statements to represent each hypothesized facet of theNEP (Hall and Moran, 2006; Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010; Milfontand Duckitt, 2004). These items were measured using a Likertscale that ranged from 1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 5 ¼ “stronglyagree” (Table 2). Missing observations (19.7% MCAR) were replacedusing LISREL's (version 8.80) multiple imputation procedure in anextension program called PRELIS. Given the prevalence of a two-dimensional NEP model supported in past research (e.g., Milfontand Duckitt, 2004), we hypothesized that held environmentalvalue orientations would be represented by biocentric andanthropocentric worldviews. To verify this two-dimensionalconceptualization, we used confirmatory factor analysis, relied ona maximum likelihood estimation procedure, and analyzed datawith a positive definite covariance matrix. The hypothesized factorstructure illustrated adequate fit to the data: c2 ¼ 109.990, df ¼ 33(p � .01) (Kline, 2011); RMSEA ¼ .089 (Steiger, 2007), CFI ¼ .915(Bentler, 1990); SRMR ¼ .47 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). All factorloadings exceeded .30 and a reliability analysis (Cronbach's alpha)indicated internal consistency among five positively-worded itemsreflecting biocentrism (a ¼ .706) and five negatively-worded itemsreflecting anthropocentrism (a ¼ .763) (Nunnally, 1978).

To segment respondents into subgroups we performed a K-means cluster analysis (SPSS version 21.0). For this procedure, weentered all NEP survey items into the analysis and consideredmultiple cluster solutions in terms of the: (a) proportion of re-spondents in each cluster; (b) significant differences illustrated byAnalysis of Variance testing; and (c) results from validation ana-lyses using socio-demographic and trip characteristics (Hair andBlack, 2000). Ultimately, we selected a two-cluster solution andcreated a cluster membership variable to segment respondents intosubgroups on the basis of their environmental worldviews. Table 3shows survey respondents' evaluations of the NEP scale and otheritems that were used to distinguish between the two subgroups.

3.3. Measuring and analyzing assigned values

We collected data on the perceived importance and spatial lo-cations of assigned values of ecosystem services during a mappingexercise that involved two tasks. First, we asked respondents toallocate 100 “preference points” across 12 categories of tangibleand intangible values drawn from past research (Brown and Reed,

Table 2Factor loadings, mean values, standard deviations, and internal consistency among surve

Biocentrism (a ¼ .706)We are approaching the limit to the number of people the earth can supportWhen humans interfere with nature if often produces disastrous consequencesPlants and animals have as much right as humans to existDespite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of natureIf we continue on our current course, we will soon experience a major ecological ca

Anthropocentrism (a ¼ .763)Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needsa

Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivableThe earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop themThe balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrThe so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerateda

Note. Measured on a five-point Likert scale where 1 ¼ “strongly disagree” and 5 ¼ “stroa Survey items allowed to covary.

2000) and modified in consultation with our NPS partners(Table 1). In contrast to past PPGIS research (Sherrouse et al., 2011),we used preference points rather than dollar values during themapping exercise because framing particular categories (e.g., spir-itual, intrinsic) in monetary terms may have eclipsed actual esti-mations of perceived value. The second step in this exerciseinvolved situating these values on a 34” by 13” map of Santa CruzIsland created by the National Geographic Society (http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/), which was displayed at the survey sta-tion. We asked respondents to identify places on the map that theybelieved embodied assigned values selected in the first step of theexercise. This activity was an interactive process between therespondent and administrator who recorded information andverified accurate entries on the tablets, and as such, occurred afterthe self-administered portion of our survey. Only data from re-spondents that completed both steps in the mapping exercise wereused for analysis.

Survey data were analyzed using a SolVES (Version 2.0, http://solves.cr.usgs.gov) GIS mapping application developed by the U.S.Geological Survey (Sherrouse et al., 2011, 2014) that interfaced withMaximum Entropy (MaxEnt) modeling software (Phillips et al.,2006). All locations to which respondents assigned values weredigitized in an ArcGIS geodatabase under a point feature class(n ¼ 2245). The total number of preference points associated witheach assigned value in the typology was linked to the digitizedpoints using a unique identifier. Next, weighted kernel densitysurface layers were generated for each assigned value category(Alessa et al., 2008; Silverman, 1986) and then normalized, trans-formed, and standardized on a 10-point value index using SolVES(Sherrouse et al., 2014). The maximum value index for eachassigned value category was multiplied by a logistic surface layergenerated inMaxEnt, which employed amachine learning programto estimate the probability distribution of points given the con-straints imposed by a suite of explanatory environmental variables(i.e., “biophysical metrics”). Using point data reflecting the distri-bution and intensity of valued landscapes as well as the continuousand categorical biophysical metrics selected for analysis, logisticssurface layers were generated inMaxEnt to indicate the probability,on a cell by cell basis, that survey respondents would associateassigned values with places in the study area.

Five biophysical metrics analyzed in MaxEnt were selected forthis study owing to their potential for shaping the perceivedqualities of places and based on the findings from past PPGISresearch (Brown, 2013; Brown and Brabyn, 2012; Sherrouse et al.,2011). The first metric was an elevation layer acquired from theU.S. Geological Survey's National Elevation Dataset (http://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html). Secondly, we used a 16-class

y items in an abbreviated version of the new ecological paradigm scale.

Factor loadings Mean SD

.550 3.58 1.16

.663 3.86 .93

.497 4.22 .90

.341 4.40 .68tastrophe .774 3.81 .99

.498 3.67 .98

.506 3.24 1.10

.476 2.94 1.16ial nations .692 3.72 1.06

.786 3.88 1.08

ngly agree”.

Table 3Profile of the pooled sample and two subgroups defined by environmental worldviews.

Pooled sample Neutral NEP subgroup Strong NEP subgroup

Gender (%)Male 58.6 69.4 52.4 c2 ¼ 8.25*Female 41.4 30.6 47.6

AgeYears (M, SD) 43.53 (14.83) 41.4 (14.78) 44.74 (14.75) t ¼ �1.87

Education (%)Less than high school 1.3 1.9 1.1 c2 ¼ 3.99High school graduate 7.7 11.1 5.8Vocational/trade school certificate 4.0 3.7 4.2Two-year college degree 10.1 8.3 11.1Four-year college degree 35.7 32.4 37.6Graduate degree 41.1 42.6 40.2

Income (%)< $50,000 15.0 14.3 15.3 c2 ¼ .39$50,000e$99,999 32.3 32.4 32.2$100,000e$149,999 25.3 26.7 24.6$150,000e$199,999 13.2 13.3 13.1> $200,000 14.2 13.3 14.8

Ethnicity (%)Hispanic 10.1 11.1 9.5 c2 ¼ .19

Race (%)White 86.8 81.5 89.9 c2 ¼ 4.24*Asian 6.4 9.3 4.8Black or African American 1.0 1.9 .5Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander e e e

American Indian or Alaska Native 2.0 .9 2.7Household sizePeople (M, SD) 2.93 (1.42) 3.19 (1.43) 2.78 (1.39) t ¼ 2.46*

New ecological paradigmBiocentrisma (M, SD) 3.97 (.64) 3.38 (.52) 4.32 (.41) t ¼ 17.39*Anthropocentrismb (M, SD) 2.51 (.77) 3.23 (.57) 2.10 (.53) t ¼ �17.12*

*p � .05.a Agreement with survey items indicated a biocentric worldview.b Agreement with survey items indicated an anthropocentric worldview.

C.J. Van Riper, G.T. Kyle / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384 379

categorical land cover layer drawn from the National Land CoverDatabase 2006 (Fry et al., 2011). The third, fourth, and fifth metricswere distance to management infrastructure including all trailsystems and interpretive centers on Santa Cruz Island, distance tomarine protected areas, and distance to the coastline. We used theEuclidean Distance tool in the Spatial Analyst extension of ArcGIS tocreate our third, fourth, and fifth biophysical metrics. All layerswere treated as 50 m resolution rasters and results were generatedat an output cell size of 500 m. The final value index maps createdusing SolVES andMaxEnt reflected the suitability of different placesfor providing assigned values of ecosystem services within theconstraints imposed by our explanatory variables. These final layersallowed us to evaluate the dispersion, clustering, and randomnessof assigned value points using completely spatially random hy-pothesis testing, which estimated average nearest neighbor sta-tistics (Brown et al., 2002). For a more detailed overview of SolVESand its use of MaxEnt modeling see Sherrouse et al. (2014).

4. Results

In response to our first objective, we identified subgroups ofoutdoor recreationists on the basis of their environmental world-views. The first subgroup, Neutral NEP, represented 36.4% (n ¼ 108)of the sample and was comprised of respondents that reportednearly equal agreement with survey items reflecting biocentrism(M ¼ 3.38, SD ¼ .52) and anthropocentrism (M ¼ 3.23, SD ¼ .57).Respondents in the second subgroup, Strong NEP, represented 63.6%(n ¼ 189) of the sample and took a relatively pronounced stancetoward environmental issues indicated by high levels of agreementwith statements about biocentrism (M ¼ 4.32, SD ¼ .41) and strongdisagreement with statements about anthropocentrism (M ¼ 2.10,

SD ¼ .53). According to results from independent samples t-tests,there were more White females reporting a smaller household sizein the Strong NEP subgroup compared to respondents in the NeutralNEP subgroup. Age, income, ethnicity, and previous experience didnot vary between subgroups. Survey items measuring biocentrism(t ¼ 17.39, p � .001) and anthropocentrism (t ¼ �17.12, p � .001)were perceived differently to a statistically significant degree.

As articulated by our second objective to examine the pointdensity and distribution of assigned values, we evaluated howoutdoor recreationists allocated 100 preference points across thevalue typology. This phase in the analysis allowed us to determinewhy survey respondents thought the CINP was (or was not)important. Aesthetic, recreation, learning, biological diversity, andscientific qualities were assigned the greatest number of preferencepoints by respondents, suggesting the park was most valued forthese purposes. We also found that all categories in the typologyexcept economic value formed statistically significant spatial clus-ters. That is, nearest neighborhood statistics indicated that thedigitized points identifying which areas carried assigned valuegrouped together in several places across our study area (Table 4).This procedure allowed us to determine areas of value abundanceon Santa Cruz Island and in the adjacent waters.

Next, we compared value allocations between subgroups usingan independent samples t-test (Table 5). Among the five mostimportant assigned values identified in response to our secondobjective, three were preferred to significantly different degrees bythe two subgroups: (a) biological diversity, (b) recreation, and (c)scientific. We further examined these three assigned value cate-gories to satisfy our third objective of analyzing the relationshipbetween environmental worldviews and assigned values. TheNeutral NEP subgroup believed the park embodied more

Table 4Preference point allocation and nearest neighborhood statistics for 12 values that outdoor recreationists assigned to places on Santa Cruz Island.

Value type Pooled sample Neutral NEP subgroup Strong NEP subgroup

N R-ratio Z-score N R-Ratio Z-score N R-Ratio Z-score

Aesthetic 440 .22 �31.48 157 .21 �18.98 278 .29 �22.57Biological diversity 424 .49 �20.23 110 .39 �12.29 306 .57 �14.34Cultural 87 .26 �13.28 40 .44 �6.79 46 .37 �8.18Economic 16 .98 �.13 7 .10 �4.54 9 1.33 1.91Future 110 .42 �11.66 34 .28 �8.05 76 .49 �8.44Intrinsic 97 .36 �12.13 40 .45 �6.70 57 .31 �9.92Learning 212 .12 �24.53 57 .05 �13.68 149 .14 �20.18Life sustaining 45 .48 �6.72 21 .46 �4.76 24 .49 �4.83Spiritual 89 .27 �13.16 38 .24 �9.01 50 .27 �9.90Recreation 373 .24 �28.13 156 .16 �20.07 213 .31 �19.37Therapeutic 144 .37 �14.44 54 .13 �12.21 89 .45 �9.97Scientific 208 .51 �13.44 39 46 �6.43 161 .53 �11.51

Note. Spatial statistics included the observed versus expected distance between points (R ratio) and the number of standard deviations from the mean (Z score).

C.J. Van Riper, G.T. Kyle / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384380

recreational qualities than the second subgroup, Strong NEP, whichwas comprised of individuals that reported higher ratings of bio-logical diversity and scientific-based values. The final value indexmaps generated using SolVES and MaxEnt graphically illustratedhow these three assigned values were perceived differently. Wefound varied spatial distributions of assigned value points, sug-gesting that held environmental values manifested differentassigned value patterns (Fig. 3). Specifically, assigned values werespread across a larger geographic area by respondents in the StrongNEP subgroup. These individuals ascribed biological diversity, rec-reation, and scientific assigned values of ecosystem services to theeastern portion of Santa Cruz Island where visitor activities werefacilitated by the NPS, as well as the TNC side of the island wherepublic use was prohibited.

5. Discussion

Compelling evidence of ecological and economic values of na-ture has been gathered to support the long-term success of envi-ronmental planning and management, whilst social values havereceived considerably less attention. In this study we integrateddisciplinary perspectives on the value concept to help illustrate thefull value of nature experienced through outdoor recreation activ-ities. Our results showed that survey respondents defined by their“held” environmental value orientations (i.e., anthropocentric andbiocentric worldviews) reported a range of “assigned” values ofecosystem services that reflected the tangible and intangiblequalities of a U.S. protected area. Using PPGISmethods and a SolVESmapping application, we examined the spatial dynamics of

Table 5Independent samples t-test results and descriptive statistics for 12 assigned values of ec

Neutral NEP subgroup (n ¼ 108) Strong NEP sub

M SD M

Aesthetica 18.36 18.67 16.32Biological diversity 13.04 14.05 17.97Cultural 5.10 7.27 5.19Economica 2.52 5.27 1.55Future 6.70 9.26 9.16Intrinsic 6.95 11.34 6.81Learning 7.78 12.43 8.68Life sustaining 5.46 11.39 5.87Spiritual 3.69 7.07 3.24Recreationa 15.24 15.75 11.16Therapeutic 5.67 10.26 5.60Scientific 5.72 8.66 10.13

*p � .05.a Equal variances not assumed.

assigned values in relation to five biophysical metrics and observedthat outdoor recreationists situated these values in different waysacross the land and seascapes of Santa Cruz Island. We extendedtheoretical propositions about the hierarchical relations amongfacets of the value concept (Brown, 1984; Manning et al., 1999;Sabatier, 1988; Schroeder, 2013) and provided evidence to showthat worldviews were distinguishable from less stable place-basedvalues (McIntyre et al., 2008). Our results attest to the importanceof considering diverse viewpoints to inform resource managementdecision-making, and help to disentangle the conceptual andempirical relationships between multiple value concepts.

We investigated worldviews to determine the extent to whichrespondents subscribed to environmentalism. Drawing on a two-dimensional conceptualization of the NEP scale (Milfont andDuckitt, 2004), our measures of biocentrism and anthropocen-trismmanifested different values ascribed to marine and terrestrialenvironments. We also observed that outdoor recreationists onSanta Cruz Island either viewed people and nature on equal termsor thought that nature had rights to exist irrespective of human use.This endorsement of an environmental worldview may have beenpartially attributable to respondents' previous experiences visitingthe park and high levels of education (Oskamp and Schultz, 2005).Outreach activities that aim to further conservation and preserva-tion of park resources will likely be well-received by individuals inour sample. However, these tendencies are relatively resistant tochange and will not be easily manipulated by resource and recre-ation managers who may wish to encourage environmentally-friendly practices (Stern, 2000). That is, agencies will see moreimmediate results from their efforts to engender environmental

osystem services.

group (n ¼ 189) 95% CI for mean difference t df

SD

15.11 �2.12, 6.19 .97 18715.18 �8.44, �1.42 �2.77* 2957.07 �1.78, 1.61 �.10 2954.11 �.21, 2.15 1.62 179

10.80 �4.90, .02 �1.99* 29510.20 1.28, �2.38 .11 29511.09 1.40, �3.65 �.64 29510.38 �2.97, 2.14 �3.20 2956.14 �1.10, 1.98 .56 294

10.87 .70, 7.45 2.38* 1668.19 �2.07, 2.20 .60 294

10.35 �6.73, �2.09 �3.74* 294

Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of (a) biological diversity, (b) recreation, and (c) scientific assigned values of Santa Cruz Island in Channel Islands National Park. Results are presented fortwo subgroups that reported neutral and strong environmental worldviews. The intensity of values assigned to places for respondents in the two subgroups could range from 1(blue) to 10 (red) on a value index. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

C.J. Van Riper, G.T. Kyle / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384 381

stewardship if they focus attention on less stable psychologicalprocesses such as: (a) the perceived qualities of high versus lowpriority settings; (b) belief structures such as awareness of envi-ronmental impacts and ascribed responsibilities; and (c) personalnorms centered on moral concerns about the performance of lowimpact behaviors and expectations of other park visitors (Van Riperand Kyle, 2014).

We used PPGIS to examine a suite of assigned values ofecosystem services and showed thereweremyriad reasons why theCINP was considered important to outdoor recreationists. Many ofthese reasons reflected the fundamental properties of nature (e.g.,aesthetics, sublime landscapes, cultural resource preservation) thatinspired the protected area movement in the U.S. and subsequentlyin other countries (Nash, 1995). The diversity and strength of re-spondents' value assignments indicated that multiple servicesshould continue to be provided to the public in an effort to fosterstewardship, protect key resources, and sustain local economies.The tangible and intangible qualities of nature that were valued inthis study can be difficult to reconcile with resource managementobjectives (English and Lee, 2004) and fit within post-positivistanalytic frameworks (Satterfield et al., 2013). However, thesevalues are of critical importance because they “lie at the heart of theprotective impulse that drives the modern conservation move-ment” (Harmon, 2004, p9). We contend that multiple, complexvalues were ascribed to Santa Cruz Island and effectively capturedusing PPGIS methods. This study extended previous investigations

of a range of values people place on the physical world (Carver et al.,2009; Klain and Chan, 2012) and illustrated how values can changeover space and time (McIntyre et al., 2008; Seymour et al., 2010).

The perceived values of places should be considered in relativeterms when evaluating preferences reported by survey re-spondents with distinct environmental worldviews. Resourcemanagement is a value laden process that involves tradeoffs indecision-making and thus requires information about potentialcompromises people are willing to make among competing con-ditions (Lawson and Manning, 2001; Van Riper et al., 2011). To thisend, our results showed what was most important to outdoor rec-reationists based on the relative ordering of assigned value cate-gories in a typology adapted from Brown and Reed (2000). Thisinformation is helpful to facilitate communication about changesthat stakeholders are willing to tolerate versus issues that may leadto displacement or unsatisfactory experiences that impede the flowof benefits provided to people fromnature (de Groot et al., 2002). Inour study, perceived biological diversity was one of the mostimportant value types whereas economics was the least important,suggesting that respondents may be willing to tolerate limitationson access and/or economic development to ensure protection of thevarious plants, wildlife, marine life, and other living organisms inthe park. It could be that respondents in our sample viewed theChannel Islands as a relatively invaluable place that was not pri-marily important for monetary benefits and/or resource extraction(Runte, 1997). From a resource management standpoint, it is

C.J. Van Riper, G.T. Kyle / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384382

important to note that visitors may react negatively to de-velopments that impact biological diversity on the islands.

This study fostered an interdisciplinary understanding of howvalues were formed in relation to on-the-ground conditions ofSanta Cruz Island and its surrounding waters. Through the use ofSolVES and MaxEnt we generated value surface layers and identi-fied suitable areas for ecosystem service provision on the basis of acomparison between social and biophysical data. Drawing on fiveexplanatory environmental variables, survey data that measured apsychological construct and information about valuation ofnonmaterial values of nature, we engaged with multiple disciplinesto bridge “the contemporary chasm separating biophysical andsocial science research” (Ostrom, 2007, p15186). We identified highpriority settings on Santa Cruz Island according to areas of valueabundance; however, a variety of configurations can be referencedto direct attention toward places of managerial concern. Forexample, previous studies have argued that the diversity, rarity, andrisk of assigned values can be gleaned frommapping results (Bryanet al., 2010). In a slightly different lexicon, scholars have positedthat richness, diversity, and vulnerability of values also indicate theplaces most likely to foster an appreciation of the physical world(Brown, 2013). Integration of spatially-explicit information (e.g.,constraints imposed from biophysical metrics) alongside measuresof reported preferences (e.g., value mapping survey data) will ul-timately enhance human well-being and help to sustain ecologicalcommunities (Beeco and Brown, 2013; D'Antonio et al., 2013;Palomo et al., 2014; St. Martin and Hall-Arber, 2008).

5.1. Research and management considerations

We investigated multiple value concepts among respondentsthat were predisposed to support environmental protection,because they sought out nature-based experiences. That is,considering the financeable obligation and time commitment tovisit the Channel Islands by crossing at least ten miles of openocean, our sample was comprised of a specifically defined stake-holder group. Although our results are informative for managersthat aim to engage with park visitors, broad educational strategiesshould be carefully formulated owing to the extent to which oursample is generalizable to broader publics. That is, in this studymultiple values were mapped across a spatial gradient by a rela-tively homogenous sample of outdoor recreationists. Managersshould consider the interests of residents that engage in privateboating or water-based, consumptive activities in the case of policychange, because these individuals may express varied spatially-anchored values of ecosystem services (LaFranchi and Pendleton,2008; Van Riper et al., 2012). If a range of value positions areconsidered in decision-making, there will be a greater likelihood ofpublic acceptance of and compliance with policy outcomes (Banet al., 2013), as well as reduced potential for conflicts overcompeting forms of human use within terrestrial and aquatic en-vironments (Steel et al., 1994).

To more effectively reach the CINP constituency, interpretationand outreach can be tailored toward subgroups of the surveypopulation. Individuals in theNeutral NEP subgroup can be targetedon the basis of their inclination to support human use within thepark. That is, this subgroup placed relative importance on therecreation assigned value category suggesting these individualsrelied on interaction with park resources to recognize values car-ried by an environment. To garner widespread support for envi-ronmental protection, individuals in the Neutral NEP subgroupshould be made aware of important places, especially areas whereoutdoor recreation use may be prohibited due to human impacts,restoration, or scientific activities. By contrast, respondents in theHigh NEP subgroup situated values across a broader region

including thewestern portion of Santa Cruz Islandmanaged by TNCand inaccessible to the public. This subgroup valued areas that didnot provide direct, tangible benefits in terms of outdoor recreation,indicating that ethical arguments about the intrinsic values of na-ture beyond utilitarian interests may resonate with these in-dividuals (McCauley, 2006; Rolston and Coufal, 1991). Consideringthe range of value positions expressed by survey respondents, ourfindings shed light on different and potentially shifting publicviewpoints about protection and use of natural resources (Tarrantet al., 2003) and attempt to make tiers of the value concept morelegible for future research and management (Manning et al., 1999).

References

Alessa, L.N., Kliskey, A.A., Brown, G., 2008. Social-ecological hotspots mapping: aspatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landsc. UrbanPlan. 85, 27e39.

Amburgey, J.W., Thoman, D.B., 2012. Dimensionality of the new ecological paradigm:issues of factor structure and measurement. Environ. Behav. 44 (2), 235e256.

Ban, N.C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C.C., Klain, S., Stoeckl, N., et al., 2013. A social-ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social consider-ations. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11 (4), 194e202.

Battaglia, M.P., Link, M.W., Frankel, M.R., Osborn, L., Mokdad, A.H., 2008. An eval-uation of respondent selection methods for household mail surveys. PublicOpin. Q. 72 (3), 459e469.

Beeco, J.A., Brown, G., 2013. Integrating space, spatial tools, and spatial analysis intothe human dimensions of parks and outdoor recreation. Appl. Geogr. 38, 76e85.

Bengston, D.N., Xu, Z., 1995. Changing National Forest Values: a Content Analysis.USDA. Forest Service General Technical Report NC-323, 29 p.

Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107,238e246.

Borrie, W.T., Freimund, W.A., Davenport, M.A., 2002. Winter visitors to YellowstoneNational Park: their value orientations and support for management action.Hum. Ecol. Rev. 9 (2), 41e48.

Bridge, G., Perreault, T., 2009. Environmental governance. In: Castree, N.,Demeritt, D., Liverman, D., Rhoads, B. (Eds.), A Companion to EnvironmentalGeography. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, pp. 475e497.

Brown, M., 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation.MIT Press.

Brown, G., 2013. The relationship between social values for ecosystem services andglobal land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 5, 58e68.

Brown, G., Brabyn, L., 2012. An analysis of the relationships between multiple valuesand physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS andlandscape character classification. Landsc. Urban Plan. 107 (3), 317e331.

Brown, G., Montag, J.M., Lyon, K., 2012. Public participation GIS: a method foridentifying ecosystem services. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25, 633e651.

Brown, G., Raymond, C., 2007. The relationship between place attachment andlandscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Appl. Geogr. 27, 89e111.

Brown, G., Reed, P., 2000. Validation of a forest values typology for use in nationalforest planning. For. Sci. 46 (2), 240e247.

Brown, G., Reed, P., Harris, C., 2002. Testing a place-based theory for environmentalevaluation: an Alaska case study. Appl. Geogr. 22 (1), 49e76.

Brown, G.G., Reed, P., 2012. Social landscape metrics: measures for understandingplace values from Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS).Landsc. Res. 37 (1), 73e90.

Brown, T.C., 1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ. 60 (3),231e246.

Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D., Macdonald, D.H., 2010. Targeting themanagement of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, andhow? Landsc. Urban Plan. 97 (2), 111e122.

Callicott, J.B., 1984. Non-anthropocentric value theory and environmental ethics.Am. Philos. Q. 21, 299e309.

Carver, S., Watson, A., Waters, T., Matt, R., Gunderson, K., Davis, B., 2009. Developingcomputer-based participatory approaches to mapping landscape values forlandscape and resource management. In: Geertman, S., Stillwell, J. (Eds.),Planning Support Systems Best Practice and New Methods, vol. 95. Springer,Netherlands, pp. 431e448.

CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), 2008. Protected Areas in Today's World:their Values and Benefits for the Welfare of the Planet. Technical Series no. 36.Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.

Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services tobetter address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8e18.

Cordell, H.K., Bergstrom, J.C., Bowker, J.M., 2005. The Multiple Values of Wilderness.Venture Publishing, State College, PA.

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al., 1997.The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387,253e260.

D'Antonio, A., Monz, C., Newman, P., Lawson, S., Taff, D., 2013. Enhancing the utilityof visitor impact assessment in parks and protected areas: a combined social-eecological approach. J. Environ. Manag. 124, 72e81.

C.J. Van Riper, G.T. Kyle / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384 383

Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., et al., 2012.Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. 109 (23), 8812e8819.

Davis, G., 2005. Science and society: marine reserve design for the CaliforniaChannel Islands. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1745e1751.

Davis, S.K., Thompson, J.L., Schweizer, S.E., 2012. Innovations in on-site surveyadministration: using iPad interface at National Wildlife Refuges and NationalParks. Soc. Nat. Resour. 17, 282e294.

De Groot, J.I., Steg, L., 2010. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural in-tentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (4), 368e378.

de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification,description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol.Econ. 41, 393e408.

Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., Shwom, R., 2005. Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ.Resour. 30 (1), 335e372.

Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., 1978. The “New Environmental Paradigm”: a proposedmeasuring instrument and preliminary results. J. Environ. Educ. 9, 10e19.

Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E., 2000. Measuring endorsementof the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425e442.

Eagles, P.F.J., 2002. Trends in park tourism: economics, finance and management.J. Sustain. Tour. 10 (2), 132e153.

English, A.J., Lee, E., 2004. Managing the intangible. George Wright Forum 21 (2),23e33.

Fry, J., Xian, G., Jin, S., Dewitz, J., Homer, C., Yang, L., et al., 2011. Completion of the2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. PE&RS77, 858e864.

Gherini, J., 2005. Santa Cruz Island: a History of Conflict and Diversity. Arthur H.Clark Company, Spokane, WA.

Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1995. Influences on attitude-behavior re-lationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav. 27(5), 699e718.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., 2000. Cluster analysis. In: Grimm, L.G., Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.),Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. American Psycholog-ical Association, Washington, DC, pp. 147e206.

Hall, C., Moran, D., 2006. Investigating GM risk perceptions: a survey of anti-GMand environmental campaign group members. J. Rural Stud. 22 (1), 29e37.

Harmon, D., 2004. Intangible values of protected areas: what are they?Why do theymatter? George Wright Forum 21 (2), 9e22.

Harmon, D., Putney, A.D., 2003. The full value of parks: from economics to theintangible. Rowman & Littlefield.

Hawcroft, L.J., Milfont, T.L., 2010. The use (and abuse) of the new environmentalparadigm scale over the last 30 years: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 30,143e158.

Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structureanalysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6 (1),1e55.

Kaplan, S., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative frame-work. J. Environ. Psychol. 15 (3), 169e182.

Klain, S.C., Chan, K.M.A., 2012. Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping ofecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol. Econ. 82, 104e113.

Kline, R.B., 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. TheGuilford Press, New York, NY.

Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A.T., Campbell, B.M.,2008. Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and theresearch-implementation gap. Conserv. Biol. 22 (3), 610e617.

Kumar, M., Kumar, P., 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-culturalperspective. Ecol. Econ. 64 (4), 808e819.

LaFranchi, C., Pendleton, L., 2008. Private Boating and Boater Activities in theChannel Islands: a Spatial Analysis and Assessment. Report prepared for TheResources Legacy Fund Foundation and The National Marine SanctuaryProgram.

Lawson, S.R., Manning, R.E., 2001. Solitude versus access: a study of tradeoffs inoutdoor recreation using indifference curve analysis. Leis. Sci. 23 (3), 179e191.

Manning, R., 2011. Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satis-faction. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Manning, R., Vallerie, W., Minteer, B., 1999. Values, ethics, and attitudes towardnational forest management: an empirical study. Soc. Nat. Resour. 12 (5),421e436.

Martín-L�opez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Amo, D.G.D., et al., 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundlesthrough social preferences. PLoS ONE 7, e38970.

Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., 2011. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and dega-zettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conserv. Lett. 4 (1),9e20.

McCauley, D.J., 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature 443, 27e28.McCook, L.J., Ayling, T., Cappo, M., Choat, J.H., Evans, R.D., De Freitas, D.M., et al.,

2010. Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: a globally significantdemonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. 107 (43), 18278e18285.

McIntyre, N., Moore, J., Yuan, M., 2008. A place-based, values-centered approach tomanaging recreation on Canadian crown lands. Soc. Nat. Resour. 21 (8),657e670.

Milfont, T.L., Duckitt, J., 2004. The structure of environmental attitudes: a first- andsecond-order confirmatory factor analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 289e303.

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis. Wold Health Organization, Washington D.C.

Nash, R.F., 1995. Wilderness and the American Mind. Yale University Press, NewHaven, CT.

NPS (National Park Service), 2012. A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second Centuryof Stewarship and Engagement. National Park Service. Can be accessed: http://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/.

NPS (National Park Service), 2013. Type of Use/Monthly/Annual Visits Report. Na-tional Park Service. Can be accessed: http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/statistics.htm.

Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M.B., Brandon, K., 2005. The role of protected areas inconserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annu. Rev. Environ.Resour. 30 (1), 219e252.

Nielsen-Pincus, M., 2011. Mapping a values typology in three counties of the interiorNorthwest, USA: scale, geographic associations among values, and the use ofintensity weights. Soc. Nat. Resour. 24 (6), 535e552.

Norlund, A.M., Garvill, J., 2002. Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior.Environ. Behav. 34, 740e756.

Nooney, J.G., Woodrum, E., Hoban, T.J., Clifford, W.B., 2003. Environmental world-view and behavior: consequences of dimensionality in a survey of North Car-olinians. Environ. Behav. 35 (6), 763e783.

Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.Oskamp, S., Schultz, P.W., 2005. Attitudes and Opinions. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Ostrom, E., 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad.

Sci. 104, 15181e15187.Palomo, I., Martín-L�opez, B., Zorrilla-Miras, P., García Del Amo, D., Montes, C., 2014.

Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around Do~nana Na-tional Park (SW Spain) in relation to land use change. Reg. Environ. Change 14,237e251.

Phillips, S.J., Anderson, R.P., Schapire, R.E., 2006. Maximum entropy modeling ofspecies geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231e259.

Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., Bieling, C., 2013. Assessing, mapping, andquantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33,118e129.

Pressman, J.L., Wildavsky, A.B., 1984. Implementation. University of California Press.Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., Hatton McDonald, D., Cast, A., Strathearn, S.,

Grangirard, A., Kalivas, T., 2009. Mapping community values for natural capitaland ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1301e1315.

Robbins, P., McSweeney, K., Chhangani, A.K., Rice, J.L., 2009. Conservation as it is:illicit resource use in a wildlife reserve in India. Hum. Ecol. 37, 559e575.

Rokeach, M., 1973. The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New York, NY.Rolston III, H., 1988. Human values and natural systems. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1, 271e283.Rolston III, H., Coufal, J., 1991. A forest ethic and multivalue forest management: the

integrity of forests and of foresters are bound together. J. For. 89 (1), 35e40.Runte, A., 1997. National Parks: the American Experience, third ed. University of

Nebraska Press.Sabatier, P., 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of

policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci. 21, 129e168.Sabatier, P.A., 2007. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., Chan, K.M., 2013. Culture, in-

tangibles and metrics in environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 117,103e114.

Schroeder, H., 2013. Sensing value in place. In: Stewart, W., William, D., Kruger, L.(Eds.), Place-based Conservation: Perspectives from the Social Sciences.Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 131e155.

Schultz, P.W., Zelezny, L., 1999. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes:evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 19,255e265.

Schwartz, S.H., 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoreticaladvances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances inExperimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1e65.

Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents ofhuman values? J. Soc. Issues 50 (4), 19e45.

Seymour, E., Curtis, A., Pannell, D., Allan, C., Roberts, A., 2010. Understanding therole of assigned values in natural resource management. Australas. J. Environ.Manag. 17, 142e153.

Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., Semmens, D.J., 2011. A GIS application for assessing,mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl. Geogr.31 (2), 748e760.

Sherrouse, B.C., Semmens, D.J., Clement, J.M., 2014. An application of Social Valuesfor Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado andWyoming. Ecol. Indic. 36, 68e79.

Sieber, R., 2006. Public participation geographic information systems: a literaturereview and framework. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 96 (3), 491e507.

Silverman, B.W., 1986. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapmanand Hall, New York.

Spence, M.D., 1999. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Makingof the National Parks. Oxford University Press, New York.

St Martin, K., Hall-Arber, M., 2008. The missing layer: geo-technologies, com-munities, and implications for marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32,779e786.

Steel, B.S., List, P., Shindler, B., 1994. Conflicting values about federal forests: acomparison of national and Oregon publics. Soc. Nat. Resour. 7, 137e153.

C.J. Van Riper, G.T. Kyle / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 374e384384

Steiger, J.H., 2007. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in struc-tural equation modeling. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 42 (5), 893e898.

Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 407e424.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief-normtheory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum.Ecol. Rev. 6 (2), 81e97.

Sutton, S.G., Tobin, R.C., 2009. Recreational fishers' attitudes towards the 2004rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Environ. Conserv. 36 (3),245e252.

Tanner, R.J., Freimund, W.A., Borrie, W.T., Moisey, R.N., 2008. A meta-study of thevalues of visitors to four protected areas in the western United States. Leis. Sci.30 (5), 377e390.

Tarrant, M.A., Cordell, H.K., Green, G.T., 2003. PVF: a scale to measure public valuesof forests. J. For. 101, 24e30.

Turaga, R.M.R., Howarth, R.B., Borsuk, M.E., 2010. Pro-environmental behavior:rational choice meets moral motivation. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1185 (1), 211e224.

Van Riper, C.J., Manning, R.E., Monz, C., Goonan, K.A., 2011. Tradeoffs amongresource, social, and managerial conditions on mountain summits of theNorthern Forest. Leis. Sci. 33 (3), 228e249.

Van Riper, C.J., Kyle, G.T., 2014. Understanding the internal processes of behavioralengagement: a latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory.J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 288e297.

Van Riper, C.J., Kyle, G.T., Sutton, S.G., Barnes, M., Sherrouse, B.C., 2012.Mapping outdoor recreationists' perceived social values for ecosystemservices at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Appl. Geogr. 35,164e173.

Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P., 1999. A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wild-land preservation voting intentions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 12 (6), 523e537.

Wynveen, C.J., Kyle, G.T., Sutton, S.G., 2014. Environmental worldview, placeattachment, and awareness of environmental impacts in a marine environment.Environ. Behav. in press.

Zube, E.H., 1987. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landsc. Ecol. 1(1), 37e45.