Environmental Concern, Regional Identity, and Support for Protected Areas in Italy

10.1177/0013916504269644ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005Carrus et al. / REGIONAL IDENTITY AND PROTECTED AREAS

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN,REGIONAL IDENTITY, AND SUPPORTFOR PROTECTED AREAS IN ITALY

GIUSEPPE CARRUS has a Ph.D. in social and environmental psychology from theUniversity of Rome, La Sapienza. His interests in environmental psychology focus onproenvironmental attitudes and identity processes. He recently coedited with MiriliaBonnes the Environmental Psychology section of The Encyclopedia of Applied Psy-chology (Elsevier/Academic Press, 2004).

MARINO BONAIUTO is full professor of social psychology of communication atthe University of Rome, La Sapienza. His interests in environmental psychology focuson natural protected areas, urban environments, environmental quality indicators,social identity, and discursive approaches applied to environmental issues. He re-cently coedited with Mirilia Bonnes and Terence Lee Psychological Theories for En-vironmental Issues (Ashgate, 2004).

MIRILIA BONNES is full professor of environmental psychology at the Universityof Rome, La Sapienza. She is past president of the UNESCO-MAB Italian Committee,and her research interests refer to the theory of place and social psychologicalapproaches to environmental issues. She recently coauthored with Marino Bonaiuto“Environmental Psychology: From Spatial-Physical Environment to SustainableDevelopment” in Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Wiley, 2002).

ABSTRACT: Two field studies examined the relations between environmental con-cern, regional identity, and support for the institution of natural protected areas. Mul-tiple regression (Study 1, N = 316) and structural equation modeling (Study 2, N =157) were performed to assess the role of general and specific proenvironmental atti-tudes and regional identity in predicting participants’ support for two new protectedareas in Italy. As expected, results show the positive role of general and specificproenvironmental attitudes, as well as the positive role of regional identity, in predict-ing support for the protected areas considered. Implications of the results for theenhancement of public levels of consensus in the designation and management of nat-ural protected areas are discussed.

Keywords: environmental attitudes; place identity; social identity; natural pro-tected areas

237

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 37 No. 2, March 2005 237-257DOI: 10.1177/0013916504269644© 2005 Sage Publications

Global environmental changes gained increasing importance for scientificinquiry during the past decades. Among these changes, ecological scientistshave recognized the loss of biodiversity as a priority item in the current envi-ronmental agenda (Williams & Cary, 2002). The concept of biodiversityunderlines the need for every ecosystem to have a wide variety of life forms toensure its vitality over time (Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 2002). At the same time,there has also been a growing awareness of the fact that most of the environ-mental problems, which are of concern at a global level, have a local dimen-sion. Thus, there has been widespread agreement on the difficulty of solvingglobal problems that ignore the local dimension (Zube, 1991).

Governmental authorities around the world have coped with the globalloss of biodiversity primarily by setting up natural protected areas. Suchareas can be a powerful tool for ensuring the continuity of fragile ecosystemsand the future availability of limited natural resources. However, a major bar-rier to the institution of natural protected areas is the frequent opposition oflocal residents and local communities. These groups may perceive the pro-tected area as a loss of freedom or as an obstacle to daily economic suste-nance (Bonaiuto, Carrus, Martorella, & Bonnes, 2002; Stoll-Kleeman, 2001;West & Brechin, 1991). This problem is more relevant for protected areaslocated in highly populated zones. This is frequently the case in many Euro-pean countries and in Italy in particular. In response to this possible opposi-tion, natural scientists, environmental managers, and intergovernmentalagencies have increasingly stressed the need for local community participa-tion to achieve sustainable uses and conservation of biodiversity (Alfsen-Norodom & Lane, 2002).

The psychological processes driving people’s support for or opposition tonatural protected areas are then a relevant issue for environment-behaviorstudies. To date, however, few empirical contributions in this field addressedsuch an issue (Bonaiuto et al., 2002; Corraliza, Garcia Navarro, & Valero,2002; Stoll-Kleeman, 2001). The aim of this article is to investigate some ofthe possible social-psychological factors affecting people’s support for thedesignation of natural protected areas. There are two domains in the environ-mental and social psychological literature on which we will be focused: (a)the literature on environmental concern and proenvironmental attitudes, withparticular reference to issues of common resource conservation within the

238 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / March 2005

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The research presented in Study 1 was financially supported bythe Sardinian Mining Agency of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia. The authors aregrateful to Maria Lucia Lorusso for her help in data gathering in Study 2 and to twoanonymous reviewers for their precious comments on an earlier version of thisarticle.

social dilemmas paradigm, and (b) the role of identity processes, with partic-ular reference to the concepts of place identity and social identity. These twotheoretical domains and their key empirical findings will be briefly reviewedin the following sections. In particular, we will focus on the implications forpublic acceptance of natural protected areas. The article will then present anddiscuss the results of two Italian field studies concerning the relationsbetween proenvironmental attitudes, regional identity, and support for newlyinstituted natural protected areas.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN, SOCIAL DILEMMAS,AND NATURAL PROTECTED AREAS

Environment-behavior research has widely documented people’sincreased concern for the environment in current societies (Fransson &Garling, 1999). Environmental concern refers to “both a specific attitudedirectly determining intentions or more broadly to a general attitude or valueorientation” in a proenvironmental sense (Fransson & Garling, 1999, p. 370).Early research on this topic has shown how concern for nature and for envi-ronmental problems has become an increasingly widespread and shared setof beliefs in many countries (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978). Some basic social-structural characteristics of environmental concern have been identified(Dietz, Stern, & Guagnano, 1998). For example, young, urban, upper classfemales have been found as the most committed to and aware of environmen-tal issues, although recent findings seem to suggest that environmental con-cern is generally increasing across different sociodemographic categories(Fransson & Garling, 1999). More recent works have also focused on thesocial psychological basis of environmental concern and have tried to incor-porate earlier studies into broader expectancy-value models referring to clas-sical social psychological constructs, such as values or beliefs (Dunlap, VanLiere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Gagnon-Thompson & Barton, 1994; Stern,Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999).

Taken together, the literature on environmental concern and proenviron-mental attitudes should lead us to expect stable and generalized levels of sup-port for nature conservation policies, such as the designation of naturalprotected areas, at least at the level of attitudes. Unfortunately, this is notalways the case, particularly among local residents of protected areas. Arecent study by Stoll-Kleeman (2001) has identified a number of crucial fac-tors that may act as barriers to people’s willingness to accept natural pro-tected areas within their territories. Among them, we refer, for example, tothe presence of several social dilemmas arising in the process of instituting anatural protected area.

Carrus et al. / REGIONAL IDENTITY AND PROTECTED AREAS 239

Social dilemmas (SDs) are defined as “situations in which each memberof a group has a clear and unambiguous incentive to make a choice that—when made by all members—provides poorer outcomes for all than theywould have received if none had made the choice” (Dawes & Messick, 2000,p. 111). SDs are thus situations in which the individual interest clashes with ageneral collective interest. Many environmental problems can be defined aslarge-scale “commons dilemmas” (Hardin, 1968; Van Vugt, 2002). Peoplemay frequently experience that behaving in an environmentally unfriendlyway is more advantageous, easier, more accessible, and less costly at theindividual level in the short run. If people only followed their narrow self-interest, as in the famous historical example illustrated by Hardin (1968),then behaving in an antienvironmental way would be the rule and not theexception. However, there are many documented instances in which dilem-mas have been overcome by voluntary cooperation among individuals,groups, and communities (Van Vugt, Snyder, Tyler, & Biel, 2000).

The designation of a natural protected area may be conceived as a type ofcommons dilemma, particularly for those local stakeholders who derive theirdaily sustenance from the exploitation of natural resources within the pro-tected area, resources such as fresh water, land, forests, wild animals, andagricultural products (Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001). For example, the regu-lations in the use of natural resources connected with a natural protected areamay put local residents into a dilemma situation. Residents have to choosewhether to comply with these regulations and limit their individual exploita-tion of natural resources within that area. By choosing to comply, they makeit more likely that resources will be protected over time, but they go againsttheir immediate individual interest. Following this line of reasoning, onemight expect that local residents, and particularly those more directly inter-ested in the economic exploitation of the natural resources within a protectedarea, would be less likely to support its institution. Recent empirical evidencehas supported this prediction (Bonaiuto et al., 2002; Stoll-Kleeman, 2001). Itis interesting that the studies concerned pointed to the role of local identityprocesses in shaping local residents’ reaction to natural protected areas. Thisissue will be discussed more thoroughly in the next section.

IDENTITY PROCESSES AND NATURAL PROTECTED AREAS

Identity processes are a widely addressed issue both in the environmentalpsychological literature and in the more general field of social psychology(see Twigger-Ross, Bonaiuto, & Breakwell, 2003, for a recent review).Recent contributions focused on the links between place-related identity pro-cesses, environmental perceptions, and attitudes toward the environment


(Bonaiuto, Breakwell, & Cano, 1996; Bonaiuto et al., 2002; Devine-Wright& Lyons, 1997; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996; Uzzell, Pol, & Badenas,2002). A relationship between environmental attitudes or behaviors andidentity processes can also be hypothesized in the specific domain of pro-tected area designation. In an in-depth qualitative study, Stoll-Kleeman(2001) showed how group processes encouraging social identity are one ofthe main factors leading to opposition to protected areas in Germany. A simi-lar pattern was found in Italy by Bonaiuto et al. (2002) and by Carrus andBonnes (1999). Bonaiuto et al. (2002) reported significant negative correla-tions between measures of regional identity and place attachment, on onehand, and attitudes toward general and specific national parks, on the other,ranging from r = –.27 to r = –.39. Both Stoll-Kleeman (2001) and Bonaiutoet al. (2002) argued that a strong sense of identification with their local com-munity could lead local residents to oppose the designation of natural pro-tected areas because of the emergence of ingroup–outgroup processesbetween these communities and central governmental authorities proposingthe designation.

However, we claim here that local identity might also drive positive atti-tudes toward specific protected areas. Various arguments supporting such anassumption can be identified, both in the domain of environment-behaviorstudies and in the more general field of social psychology. Uzzell et al. (2002)argued that “socially cohesive communities that have a strong sense of socialand place identity will be more supportive of environmentally sustainableattitudes and behaviors compared with those communities in which cohe-siveness and social and place identities are weaker” (p. 28). The same authorsprovided empirical evidence supporting these assumptions, showing howplace identity positively predicted environmentally friendly conducts(Uzzell et al., 2002). Similar arguments and empirical evidence were pro-vided by Stedman (2002) and by Vorkinn and Riese (2001). Stedman (2002)showed how place attachment, operationalized as local identity salience,positively affected the willingness of property owners to protect a lakeshoresite. Vorkinn and Riese (2001) found that measures of place attachment pre-dicted negative attitudes toward a major hydropower development, causing anegative environmental impact, among residents of a rural area in Norway. Ina similar vein, Bonaiuto et al. (1996) showed how local identification pre-vented people’s negative attributions, cast by an outgroup, concerning theenvironmental quality of their place of residence.

Similar assumptions might also apply to the specific domain of supportfor natural protected areas. An anchoring for such a claim is offered by thesocial identity theory (SIT; Brown, 2000; Capozza & Brown, 2000). SIT con-siders achieving a positive distinctiveness for the self as a basic motivation


leading individuals to identify with a specific group. High identifiers usuallydisplay the tendency to act on behalf of their group instead of as single indi-viduals and to strive to maintain a positive image of their ingroup, even at theexpense of an outgroup (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1997; Hewstone,Rubin, & Willis, 2002). Similarly, if we transpose this to the place level, weshould expect that the more an individual identifies with a specific place, themore he or she might be willing to express positive attitudes toward any envi-ronmental transformation that gives a positive character to that place(Twigger-Ross et al., 2003). Land-use changes, such as the institution of nat-ural protected areas, are expected, at least ideally, to move rural areas in thedirection of environmental and social sustainability. Given the increasedenvironmental concern in our societies, these transformations should be pos-itively evaluated by the public. Also, the provision of a new institutional sta-tus of a protected area to a specific zone by a formal authority should enhanceits place distinctiveness, making it a particularly valuable or special place. Atthe same time, a place-specific perspective implies that significant environ-mental changes positively affecting the specific features or the distinctive-ness of a given territory will also have some bearing on the inhabitants’identity. For this reason, we would expect new protected areas to be posi-tively evaluated by high local identifiers, particularly by those living withinand near the territories concerned.

To summarize, the literature reviewed so far suggests that when a pro-tected area is likely to be an SD for local residents and a locally unwanted pol-icy decision imposed by extralocal authorities, then we should expect anegative relation between local identity and support for the protected area.Conversely, when a protected area is not likely to assume these characteris-tics, then we should expect a positive relation between local identity and sup-port for the protected area. Although the studies by Bonaiuto et al. (2002) andStoll-Kleeman (2001) provided empirical support for the first part of thisassumption, the present article addresses its second part.

Therefore, the main hypotheses put forth in this article are that bothproenvironmental attitudes (general and specific) and local identity shouldpredict people’s support for newly instituted natural protected areas that donot represent an SD for local residents or that do not take on the features of alocally unwanted, top-down policy decision. In particular, the present workfocuses on the concept of regional identity. Regional identity can be con-ceived as being both a place-related identity and a social identity (Bonaiutoet al., 2002; Ros, Huici, & Gomez, 2000; Simon, Kulla, & Zobel, 1995). Fur-thermore, the concept of regional identity is particularly relevant in the con-text of current Italian society. Regions in Italy are specific territorial entitieswith officially defined boundaries and with a certain degree of administrative


autonomy. Moreover, a great deal of political debate is currently going on inItaly about the possibility of assigning even further political autonomy toregions through a devolution process. Two field studies regarding two newItalian protected areas were conducted to test our hypotheses. The two parkswere selected because the public authorities in both cases tried to involvelocal communities right from the early phases of the institution process.Also, the natural resources present in the two parks considered do not repre-sent a major source of economic sustenance for local residents. Therefore,the two parks were taken as suitable arenas for the purposes of this article.

STUDY 1: THE GEOMINERARIAN PARK OF SARDINIA

GENERAL CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

Study 1 was conducted in a new Italian protected area: the GeominerarianPark of Sardinia. The park was designated in 1997 by the Sardinian RegionalAdministration and the Sardinian Mining Agency, and it was formally recog-nized by the Italian government and the UNESCO Italian Commission in1998. The aim of the park was to protect the precious geological and mineralresources distributed throughout the region through the recovering of a com-plex system of old extractive industrial sites. These mining sites are of partic-ular historical and cultural value for the region and its inhabitants. The parkwas also set up to provide alternatives (e.g., eco-tourism) for the poor econ-omy of an area badly hit by the crisis in the mining industry. This industry hasprogressively declined since the early 1960s so that only a few sites arecurrently operating.

AIM AND HYPOTHESES

The main aim of Study 1 was to assess the role of general environmentalconcern, attitudes toward protected areas in general, and regional identity inpredicting support for a specific natural protected area.

As already mentioned, the institution of natural protected areas should bepositively evaluated by the public because of the increased general environ-mental concern of large sections of population in current societies. Thus, wepredict that

H1: Measures of general environmental concern and positive attitudes towardparks in general will predict support for the specific park.


We have also seen how the institution of a new protected area may repre-sent an environmental change enhancing the positive status of the entireregion in which it occurs, for example, in terms of its place distinctiveness. Inthis case, high regional identifiers should also positively evaluate such a spe-cific transformation. Thus, we predict that

H2: Measures of regional identity will predict support for the specific park, inde-pendently of the other attitude measures.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Residents in various areas of Sardinia (N = 316) participated in the study.The study involved 171 females (54.3%) and 144 males (45.7%); 1 partici-pant failed to complete the questionnaire. Age ranged between 18 and 86(M = 37.1, SD = 16.7). Education level was primary school for 34 (10.8%)participants, junior high school for 75 (23.8%) participants, senior highschool for 180 (57.1%) participants, and university degree for 26 (8.3%) par-ticipants; 1 participant failed to complete the questionnaire. With regard toplace of residence, 195 (61.9%) participants lived in small rural villageslocated within or near the park territories, and 120 (38.1%) participants livedin a large city about 60 km away from the park territories; 1 participant failedto complete the questionnaire.

VARIABLES, MEASURES, AND PROCEDURE

Data were gathered through a self-administered paper-and-pencil ques-tionnaire. The sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, and educa-tional level) were purposively balanced among the participants during theprocess of data collection. Trained interviewers directly approached the par-ticipants in informal places (e.g., home, shopping malls, streets) and distrib-uted the questionnaires. The participants were asked to take part in auniversity survey on people’s attitudes toward natural parks. They wereassured of the anonymous nature of the survey and were asked to fill in aquestionnaire for about 20 minutes.

The questionnaire comprised four 7-step Likert-type scales measuring thefollowing variables:


general environmental concern, measured through six items taken from Dunlapand Van Liere’s (1978) New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale;

attitudes toward parks in general, measured through 12 items taken from Bonaiutoet al. (2002);

regional identity, measured through 16 items taken from Carrus (2002); andsupport for the Geominerarian Park, measured through a 16-item scale, partly

adapted from Bonaiuto et al. (2002) and partly obtained from a preliminaryqualitative study conducted by the authors.

The attitudes toward parks in general, support for the GeominerarianPark, and regional identity scales are reported in the Appendix. A final sec-tion of the questionnaire contained open-ended questions and measures ofsociodemographic and residential variables. Data on the open-ended ques-tions are not presented in this article.

ANALYSES

A factor analysis (principal component analysis) was performed andCronbach’s α was computed to assess the dimensionality and internal consis-tency of each scale. Then, average scores were computed for each variableand used in a multiple regression to test the hypotheses.

RESULTS

DIMENSIONALITY AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE SCALES

Principal component analyses showed a one-factor structure for the gen-eral environmental concern, attitudes toward parks in general, and supportfor the Geominerarian Park scales. Cronbach’s α were .47, .86, and .91,respectively. The low α for the general environmental concern scale could beowing to the limited number of items used. This result could suggest eventu-ally dropping this measure from further analyses. Nonetheless, we decided tokeep it in the analyses, although results concerning this variable should betaken with greater caution.

Two correlated factors emerged for the regional identity scale (r = .43),confirming a previous study (Carrus, 2002). The first factor, explaining30.2% of the variance, grouped items expressing the need for a higherregional administrative autonomy. It was labeled need for regional political


empowerment; Cronbach’s α was .78. The second factor, explaining 11.2%of the variance, grouped items concerning pride for one’s regional cultureand the need to preserve regional traditions. It was labeled regional pride;Cronbach’s α was .64.

TEST OF HYPOTHESES

A multiple regression was performed considering the sociodemographicvariables (age, gender, and place of residence), general environmental con-cern, regional empowerment, regional pride, and attitudes toward parks ingeneral as predictors and support for the Geominerarian Park as criterion.The regression model accounted for the 25% of the variance in the criterion(R2 = .25; F[7, 281] = 13.7; p < .001). Standardized coefficients with associ-ated p values are shown in Table 1.

As expected, attitudes toward parks in general positively predicts supportfor the Geominerarian Park. Also, regional pride positively predicts supportfor the Geominerarian Park, independently of the attitude measures. Con-versely, no effects were detected for age, gender, place of residence, generalenvironmental concern, and regional empowerment. Two further regressionswere also run separately for rural and urban residents to check whether placeof residence interacted with the other predictors, but the results did notchange.

To summarize, the results seem to confirm our hypotheses regarding therole of regional identity in predicting support for specific natural protectedareas, independently of proenvironmental attitudes. This effect seems toemerge in particular for the dimension of regional identity concerning


TABLE 1Multiple Regression Predicting Support for the Specific Geominerarian Park

Criterion: Supportfor the Specific Park

Predictor β p

Age –.05 .nsGender –.04 .nsPlace of residence –.07 .nsGeneral environmental concern .05 .nsRegional empowerment –.05 .nsRegional pride .14 .011Attitudes toward natural protected areas in general .46 .001

NOTE: R 2 = .25; F(7, 281) = 13.7; p < .001. Gender was coded 1 = males and 2 = females. Place ofresidence was coded 1 = rural residents and 2 = urban residents.

participants’pride and need for preserving their own regional culture and tra-ditions. This is, in fact, the only significant predictor of support for the spe-cific park, apart from attitudes toward parks.

Some problems might however be noted in these results. For example, thenull effect found for general environmental concern could be owing to thelow internal consistency of this measure. Alternatively, the relation betweengeneral environmental concern and support for the specific park could bemediated by attitudes toward natural parks in general. Actually, as it’s longknown through the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)and the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991), general attitudinalmeasures often do a poor job in predicting specific attitudes and behaviors.This occurs also in the environment-behavior domain (Corral-Verdugo,Bechtel, & Fraijo-Sing, 2003; Fransson & Garling, 1999; Staats, 2003).Also, the effect size of regional pride (although significant and in the pre-dicted direction) and the total R2 of the regression model were not very high.A second study was conducted to address these specific issues.

STUDY 2: THE ARCHEOLOGICAL PARK OF GRAVINA IN PUGLIA

GENERAL CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

Study 2 was conducted in the Archeological Park of Gravina in Puglia.The park is located in the Puglia region in Southern Italy. It was set up in 1999by the Municipality of Gravina in Puglia with the aim of preserving a com-plex system of geological and ancient archeological sites dating back to pre-historic times, covering a broad area of the municipal territory. The specificfeatures of this park, as well as the management strategies implemented bythe local authorities during the designation process, are very similar to thoseof the Geominerarian Park of Sardinia. Therefore, it was taken as an appro-priate testing ground for replicating the findings of Study 1.

AIM AND HYPOTHESES

The main aim of Study 2 was to confirm the pattern of results of Study 1but in a different regional context and with different statistical techniques. Afurther aim was that of enhancing the internal consistency of the general envi-ronmental concern measure. The hypotheses were to confirm the results ofStudy 1.


METHOD

PARTICIPANTS AND DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES

A total of 157 respondents took part in the study. Again, the sociodemo-graphic characteristics (gender, age, and educational level) were purposivelybalanced among the participants during the process of data collection. Thestudy involved 84 females (53.5%) and 73 males (46.5%). Age rangedbetween 18 and 79 (M = 39.4, SD = 15.4). Education level was primaryschool for 20 (12.7%) participants, junior high school for 37 (23.6%) partici-pants, senior high school for 71 (45.21%) participants, and universitydegree for 29 (18.5%) participants. With regard to place of residence, 86(54.8%) participants lived in the town of Gravina in Puglia, and 71 (45.2%)participants lived in Altamura, a town with similar characteristics, situatednear the park territories. As in Study 1, data were gathered through a self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire distributed to the participantsby trained interviewers.

VARIABLES, MEASURES, AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Variables and measures were the same as those in Study 1, but this time,general environmental concern was measured through the entire Dunlap andVan Liere’s (1978) NEP Scale (12 items). Also, the content of the items insupport for the specific park scale was adapted to the different context con-sidered for this study. Structural equation modeling with latent variables wasperformed to test the hypotheses (Bollen, 1989). This technique was chosenbecause of the more confirmatory purpose of this second study. To assess thefit of the model, we relied on various indexes besides the classic chi-squaretest. The high sensitivity of χ2 to sample size may, in fact, result in an overes-timation of even small differences between the observed and the predictedmatrix; this can erroneously lead to a rejection of acceptable solutions(Bollen, 1989; Corral-Verdugo, 2002). Therefore, the Root Mean SquareError of Approximation, Non-Normed Fit Index, Standardized Root MeanSquare Residuals, and Comparative Fit Index were considered.

The model was specified based on the results of Study 1. Therefore, thetested model does not include direct effects of general environmental con-cern and regional empowerment on support for the specific park. In a similarvein, the sociodemographic variables were excluded because they were notthe main concern of this article and also to simplify the model. An explor-atory principal component analysis was conducted prior to the model test. Onthe basis of this PCA, three aggregate sets of items were computed and used


as observed indicators separately for each one of the five latent constructsconsidered in the model. This aggregation allowed us to simplify the model,reducing at the same time its measurement error component.

RESULTS

The tested model and the relative results are shown in Figure 1.Results indicate an acceptable fit for the model and confirm the pattern in

Study 1. Results seem to also overcome the main problems in Study 1. Theinternal consistency of the measures, estimated through the structural equa-tion model, was generally higher compared to the Study 1 (respectively ρ =.67 for general environmental concern, ρ = .78 for regional pride, ρ = .77 forregional empowerment, ρ = .82 for attitudes toward parks in general, and ρ =.93 for support for the specific park). Moreover, the model accounts for ahigher proportion (51%) of the variance in the criterion support for the spe-cific park. Again, the strongest predictor of support for the specific park is


nep_1

Environmental concern

nep_2

nep_3

prd_1

prd_2

prd_3

emp_1

emp_2

emp_3

att_1

att_2

att_3

sup_1

sup_3

Attitudes towards parks in

general

Regional empowerment

Regional pride

Support for the specific park

χ2 (86) = 131.7 p = .001; RMSEA = .06; NNFI =.94; SRMR = .08; CFI = .95

N = 141

.35

.30

.69

.60

.86

.70

.83

.68

.78

.59

.52

.42

.64

.92

.90

.90

.87

.68

.79

sup_2

Figure 1: Structural Equation Model Explaining Support for the ArchaeologicalPark of Gravina in Puglia

NOTE: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean SquareError of Approximation;SRNR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals.All parameters are sig-nificant. Nep_1, nep_2, . . . sup_3 are aggregated of items. Missing values were deleted listwise.

positive attitudes toward parks in general. These in turn are predicted by gen-eral environmental concern. Therefore, general environmental concern hasonly an indirect effect on support for the specific park. Consistently with thehypotheses, regional pride directly predicts support for the specific park,independently of the other attitude variables. Regional empowerment,although not directly predicting support for the specific park, is moderatelycorrelated with regional pride.

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

An increasing support for our predictions emerged across the two sequen-tial studies presented in this article, as shown in Table 2.

The findings of our second study seem, in fact, to overcome the mainshortcomings of Study 1. First, a higher internal consistency of the generalenvironmental concern measure was found in Study 2. Second, the propor-tion of explained variance in the criterion was about two times higher forStudy 2 compared to Study 1. Third, a stronger effect was found for our keypredictor (regional pride). On the whole, the results of Study 2 are also moreconvincing when considering the more sophisticated statistical techniqueused.

Taken together, the present findings show that environmental concernpositively predicts attitudes toward parks in general; these in turn predict sup-port for specific parks. This may indicate a mediation effect (Evans &Lepore, 1997) of attitudes toward parks in general on the relation betweenenvironmental concern and support for specific parks. Such a pattern is alsoconsistent with the main social psychological models of attitude-behavior


TABLE 2Overview of Results Across Studies 1 And 2

Criterion: Support forthe Specific Park

StandardizedRegression Coefficients

Predictor Study 1 Study 2

Regional pride .14 .30Attitudes toward natural protected areas in general .46 .64Variance explained (%) 25 51

relations. Classical expectancy-value models, such as the theory of reasonedaction (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,1991), have extensively shown that general attitudinal measures are seldomdirectly predictive of specific behaviors. Empirical evidence for this assump-tion has been provided in the environmental domain as well; general mea-sures of environmental concern are weakly predictive of specific proenviron-mental attitudes and behaviors (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2003; Fransson &Garling, 1999; Staats, 2003).

Furthermore, the present findings are relevant for environment-behaviorstudies in particular as they show the positive role of regional identity in pre-dicting support for specific parks. This effect emerges for that dimension ofregional identity regarding people’s pride for their own regional traditions,history, and culture. Conversely, no effect emerged for a second specificdimension of regional identity regarding people’s desire for political andadministrative autonomy at a local level. It is interesting that the role ofregional pride in predicting support for specific parks is independent ofproenvironmental attitudes. That is, proenvironmental attitudes and regionalidentification are, consistently with our hypotheses, separate predictors ofpeople’s willingness to support specific local parks. Again, these resultscould be analyzed in light of the main social psychological models ofattitude-behavior relations. There is consistent evidence indicating how theinclusion of identity-related variables significantly increases the predictivepower of the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior mod-els (Ajzen, 2000; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). The present findings alsomatch recent theoretical developments and empirical evidence regarding therole of place-related identity in shaping environmentally friendly conducts(Uzzell et al., 2002).

With regard to the more specific domain of support for natural protectedareas, the present results deserve some separate discussion because of theirpossible implications for biodiversity conservation policies. Previousresearch has shown the existence of a negative relation between regional (orlocal) identity and endorsement of specific parks (Bonaiuto et al., 2002;Stoll-Kleeman, 2001). The particular character that the institution of naturalprotected areas may take on in the perception of local residents could explainthis negative relation. Many natural protected areas (e.g., national parks) areinstituted by extralocal authorities responsible for environmental regula-tions. Within such a context, local residents are often likely to oppose specificparks as parks can represent a sort of unwanted external interference in theirdaily exploitation of natural resources (West & Brechin, 1991). Therefore,the higher people’s regional identity, the higher their willingness to act on


behalf of their regional group, the higher their opposition to this kind of pro-tected area. In actual fact, the two parks considered in this article do not fallinto this usual pattern. They contain natural resources that are no longerexploited by local residents for everyday economic purposes. On the con-trary, the resources therein have become part of the regional history and cul-ture. In addition, the public authorities in both cases adopted more inclusiveand participatory management strategies during the institution process.Thus, local residents were gradually brought to appreciate the potential posi-tive outcomes for their region deriving from the institution of the park.Therefore, the higher the people’s regional identity, the higher their supportfor the two protected areas considered.

A specific limitation of the present studies might also be acknowledged.The correlational design does not allow us to draw a conclusion about anycausal relationships among the variables considered. Experimental researchdesigns are needed to address such an issue. Future studies should, for exam-ple, manipulate the salience of participants’ local identity (e.g., using self-definition tasks or priming procedures) and then ask them to evaluate policyscenarios describing different types of protected areas (e.g., dilemma-likeparks vs. dilemma-unlike parks). One should expect an interaction effect inthis case: Opposition to dilemma-like national parks and support fordilemma-unlike national parks might be higher among the participantsassigned to a local identity salient condition compared to participantsassigned to a personal identity salient condition. As a related aspect, a furtherissue to be addressed by future studies is the cross-cultural comparison of thepresent findings. The nature of attitudes toward natural parks could in factvary substantially across different countries, ethnic groups, or other societaland cultural dimensions. Another issue deserving further exploration is themeaning of what is commonly assumed as a selfish choice when applying thesocial dilemma paradigm to the domain of protected areas. Establishing apark could boost the economy of specific territories through increased tour-ism; preserving the park could therefore be assumed as a selfish instead of analtruistic choice for specific categories of people (i.e., those who might profitfrom increased tourism).

The present findings may also have significant practical implications forenvironmental decision makers. Public support for the institution of pro-tected areas is indeed a crucial issue in their agenda. Decision makers in thisfield might pursue flexible strategies for gaining local consensus, accordingto the specific contextual circumstances. As the studies reviewed here show,the relationship between local identity and support for protected areas maybe moderated by key features of the designation process. A park that is not an


intrinsic potential source of social dilemmas for local communities is morelikely to be supported by high local identifiers. Authorities in this case couldaim at boosting people’s local identification. This can be done, for example,by informing the public about the park’s role in preserving local cultures,heritages, traditions, and so forth. Conversely, a park that is an intrinsicpotential source of social dilemmas for local communities is more likely to beopposed by high local identifiers. In this case, authorities should probably tryto dampen people’s local identification. This can be made, for example, byfostering local residents’ sense of belonging to superordinate groups andcategories (e.g., the nation). Indeed, the latter may be a more difficult task.

APPENDIX

Items measuring regional identity, attitudes toward parks in general, and supportfor the specific park (Study 1). For Study 2 the words Archeological Park of Gravinawere used instead of Geominerarian Park in the support for the specific park scale. Aseven-step Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 7 = completelyagree, was used for all the items. R = reverse worded items.

1. Regional IdentityA. Regional pride

I’m proud to be of my region.I feel myself Italian rather than of my region (R).It’s the right thing to keep alive the culture of our region.It’s the right thing that we adopt some traditions of other regions (R).The quality of life in my region is better than in other places.It’s a wrong thing to teach the language of my region in the schools (R).My region has got something special compared with any other place.The traditional culture of my region is too much backward (R).

B. Regional empowermentIt’s a right thing that my region is autonomous.My region is more looked after by the national government rather than by

the regional government (R).For the people of my region, independence is a primary goal.My region would not be able to go on without Italy (R).It’s better to rule us by ourselves than being ruled by Rome.Being an autonomous region does not bring us any advantage (R).The institutions of my region can pursue our interests better than the na-

tional ones.Independence would bring us only troubles (R).


(continued)

2. Attitudes toward parks in generalParks improve people’s quality of life.The environment can be saved also without parks (R).A park provides new employment opportunities to local people.The parks are too artificial (R).Parks help in preserving the environment.For spending a nice day in a park, you have to ask for too many permits (R).It’s a right thing that the government institutes parks.The environment should be kept free from the ties of parks (R).The parks allow people to spend a day outdoors.The parks are only a leg pull for people (R).It’s the right thing to preserve the natural heritage by designating parks.Parks bring to a loss of employment opportunities in the local areas (R).

3. Support for the Geominerarian ParkThe Geominerarian Park will conserve those old mining buildings going to

ruin.The Geominerarian Park does not provide stable employment opportunities

(R).The Geominerarian Park is an incentive for tourism development.There is some hidden exploitation interest behind the Geominerarian Park

(R).The Geominerarian Park will conserve the historical and cultural heritage of

the mine’s work.Public money should be invested in the tourism sector instead of in the

Geominerarian Park (R).The Geominerarian Park will bring new employment opportunities.It’s not useful to institute the Geominerarian Park now that the mines have

been destroyed (R).It’s the right thing to conserve a unique heritage by designating the

Geominerarian Park.Instead of making the Geominerarian Park, they should restart the mines (R).The Geominerarian Park is the only chance of rising again for the local areas.The Geominerarian Park will completely alter the features of the areas in-

volved (R).The Geominerarian Park will become a great tourism attraction for the areas

involved.The Geominerarian Park will not conserve the historical and cultural heritage

of the areas involved (R).The Geominerarian Park will keep alive the millenary culture of the mining

areas.The Geominerarian Park is only a waste of public money (R).


APPENDIX (continued)

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2000). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Alfsen-Norodom, C., & Lane, B. (2002). Global knowledge networking for site specific strate-

gies: The International Conference on Biodiversity and Society. Environmental Science &Policy, 5, 3-8.

Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.Bonaiuto, M., Breakwell, G. M., & Cano, I. (1996). Identity processes and environmental threat:

The effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution. Journal ofCommunity and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 157-175.

Bonaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Martorella, H., & Bonnes, M. (2002). Local identity processes andenvironmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected areas. Journal ofEconomic Psychology, 23, 631-653.

Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental psychology: From spatial physical environ-ment to sustainable development. In R. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of envi-ronmental psychology (pp. 28-54). New York: John Wiley.

Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future chal-lenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745-778.

Capozza, D., & Brown, R. (2000). Social identity processes. London: Sage.Carrus, G. (2002). Atteggiamenti ambientalmente rilevanti e identità di luogo: Il caso delle aree

naturali protette [Environmentally relevant attitudes and place identity: The case of naturalprotected area]). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rome “La Sapienza”.

Carrus, G., & Bonnes, M., (1999). Conflicting meanings of a protected natural area in Italy: Thecase of the Gennargentu National Park. In I. Eisto, T. Hokkanen, M. Ohman, & A. Repola(Eds.), Local involvement and economic dimensions in biosphere reserve activities (pp. 159-166). Helsinki: Academy of Finland.

Corraliza, J. A., Garcia Navarro, J., & Valero, E. (2002). Los parques naturales en Espana:Conservacion y disfrute [Natural parks in Spain: Conservation and use]. Madrid, Spain:Fundacion Alfonso Martin Escudero.

Corral-Verdugo, V. (2002). Structural equation modeling. In R. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.),Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 256-270). New York: John Wiley.

Corral-Verdugo, V., Bechtel, R., & Fraijo-Sing, B. (2003). Environmental beliefs and water con-servation: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 247-257.

Dawes, R., & Messick, D. M. (2000). Social dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 35,111-116.

Devine-Wright, P., & Lyons, E. (1997). Remembering pasts and representing places: The con-struction of national identities in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 33-45.

Dietz, T., Stern, P., & Guagnano, G. A (1998). Social structural and social psychological basis ofenvironmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450-471.

Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environ-mental Education, 9, 10-19.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement ofthe new environmental paradigm: A revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 3, 425-442.


Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: Ingroup identifi-cation as determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 72, 617-626.

Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1997). Moderating and mediating processes in environment-behavior research. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds.), Advances in environment, behav-ior, and design (Vol. 4, pp. 255-285). New York: Plenum.

Fransson, N., & Garling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measure-ment methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369-382.

Gagnon-Thompson, S. C., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudestoward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,

53, 575-604.Kortenkamp, K. M., & Moore, C. F. (2001). Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reason-

ing about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 261-272.

Ros, M., Huici, C., & Gomez, A. (2000). Comparative identity, category salience and intergrouprelations. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes (pp. 81-95). London:Sage.

Simon, B., Kulla, C., & Zobel, M. (1995). On being more than just a part of the whole: Regionalidentity and social distinctiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 325-340.

Staats, H. (2003). Understanding proenvironmental attitudes and behavior: An analysis andreview of research based on the theory of planned behavior. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M.Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological theories for environmental issues (pp. 171-201). Aldershot,UK: Ashgate.

Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34, 561-581.

Stern, P, Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A values-belief-norm theory ofsupport for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6,81-97.

Stoll-Kleeman, S. (2001). Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: A model explainingopposition to protected areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 369-385.

Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behavior: Self-identity,social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225-244.

Twigger-Ross, C., Bonaiuto, M., & Breakwell, G. (2003). Identity theories and environmentalpsychology. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological theories for environ-mental issues (pp. 203-233). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Twigger-Ross, C., & Uzzell, D. (1996). Place and identity process. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 16, 205-220.

Uzzell, D., Pol, E., & Badenas, D. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion, and environmen-tal sustainability. Environment and Behavior, 34, 26-53.

Van Vugt, M. (2002). Central, individual or collective control. Social dilemma strategies for nat-ural resource management. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 783-800.

Van Vugt, M., Snyder, M., Tyler, T., & Biel, A. (Eds.). (2000). Cooperation in modern society:Promoting the welfare of communities, states, and organisations. London: Routledge.

Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental concern in a local context. The significance ofplace attachment. Environment and Behavior, 33, 249-263.

West, P. C., & Brechin, S. R. (1991). Resident peoples and national parks: Social dilemmas andstrategies in international conservation. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.


Williams, K. J. H., & Cary, J. (2002). Landscape preferences, ecological quality and biodiversityprotection. Environment and Behavior, 34, 257-274.

Zube, E. (1991). Environmental psychology, global issues and local landscape research. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 11, 321-334.


Environmental Concern, Regional Identity, and Support for Protected Areas in Italy

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Concern, Regional Identity, and Support for Protected Areas in Italy