Environmentally Responsible Behavior and the Application of ...

Environmentally Responsible Behavior and the Application of Leave No Trace

Beyond the Backcountry

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education and Human Services

of Ohio University

in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Science

Janene M. Giuseffi

March 2011

© 2011 Janene M. Giuseffi. All Rights Reserved.

2

This thesis titled

Environmentally Responsible Behavior and the Application of Leave No Trace Beyond

the Backcountry

by

JANENE M. GIUSEFFI

has been approved for

the Department of Recreation and Sport Pedagogy

and The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education and Human Services

of Ohio University by

________________________________________

Bruce Martin

Assistant Professor of Recreation and Sport Pedagogy

_____________________________________________

Renée A. Middleton

Dean, The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education and Human Services

3

ABSTRACT

GIUSEFFI, JANENE M., M.S., March 2011, Recreation and Sport Sciences

Environmentally Responsible Behavior and the Application of Leave No Trace Beyond

the Backcountry (117 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Bruce Martin

This study serves as a pilot study in the development of the Environmentally

Responsible Behavior (ERB) Predictor Scale. Additionally, it examines the application of

the Leave No Trace concept in everyday environmental behavior and the program’s

ability to transcend its backcountry focus. The sample included a treatment group of

those with three varying levels of Leave No Trace training and a control group of college

students with no previous Leave No Trace training. The scale was shown to be internally

reliable, though results of Exploratory Factor Analysis led to recommendations to revise

some items for future administration. Multiple statistic analyses reveal a moderate

correlation between intentions and level of Leave No Trace training, and give a direction

to further investigate the application of Leave No Trace to every day environmental

behavior. As such, this study serves as a platform for myriad new avenues of research on

this timely area of discourse.

Approved:

____________________________________________________________________

Bruce Martin

Assistant Professor of Recreation and Sport Pedagogy

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ 3

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 8

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 9

Background of the Study ................................................................................................ 9

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................... 12

Introduction................................................................................................................... 12

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) .............................................................................. 12

Environmentally Responsible Behavior (ERB) ............................................................ 20

Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics (LNT)....................................................... 25

Research Questions....................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 32

Introduction................................................................................................................... 32

Site & Sample ............................................................................................................... 32

Variable Description ..................................................................................................... 32

Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 33

Data Collection Procedures........................................................................................... 35

Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................. 35

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS.................................................................................................. 38

Introduction................................................................................................................... 38

Participant Demographics............................................................................................. 38

5

Reliability Analysis....................................................................................................... 43

Exploratory Factor Analysis ......................................................................................... 51

Mean ERB Predictor Scale Scores and ANOVA Results............................................. 56

Intentions....................................................................................................................... 69

Linear Regression ......................................................................................................... 71

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................. 86

Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 86

Limitations .................................................................................................................... 92

Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................ 95

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 98

APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR PREDICTOR

SCALE SURVEY........................................................................................................... 107

APPENDIX B: LEAVE NO TRACE LETTER OF SUPPORT .................................... 116

APPENDIX C: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL FORM .............. 117

6

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Reliability Analysis for All Respondents …….……………………….…….... 45

Table 2: Reliability Analysis for Those With Leave No Trace Training …...….……… 47

Table 3: Reliability Analysis for Those With No Leave No Trace Training ………….. 49

Table 4: Eigenvalues for ERB Predictor Scale Items ……………………………….…. 52

Table 5: Pattern Matrix ……………………………………………………………….... 54

Table 6: Factor Correlation Matrix ……………………………………………….……. 55

Table 7: ANOVA Results for Total ERB Predictor Scale Score …………………….… 58

Table 8: ANOVA Results for Behavioral Belief ERB Predictor Scale Score ……….… 59

Table 9: ANOVA Results for Behavioral Attitude ERB Predictor Scale Score ……..… 60

Table 10: ANOVA Results for Normative Belief ERB Predictor Scale Score ……...… 62

Table 11: ANOVA Results for Subjective Norm ERB Predictor Scale Score ………… 63

Table 12: ANOVA Results for Self-Efficacy ERB Predictor Scale Score ……….….… 66

Table 13: ANOVA Results for Controllability ERB Predictor Scale Score …………… 67

Table 14: Behavioral Inventory Responses ……………………………………………. 70

Table 15: Nested Model Correlations ………………………………………………….. 74

Table 16: Intentions Regression ……………………………………………………….. 78

Table 17: Intentions Regression (Leave No Trace Training) …………….……………. 79

Table 18: Intentions Regression (No Leave No Trace Training) ……………………… 80

Table 19: Control Attributes Regression ………………………………...…………….. 83

Table 20: Control Attributes (Leave No Trace Training) ……………………..……..… 84

7

Page

Table 21: Control Attributes (No Leave No Trace Training) ………………….………. 85

8

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Theory of Planned Behavior…………………………………………………..13

Figure 2: Respondent Age ……………………………………………………………... 39

Figure 3: Respondent Sex: ……………………………………………………………... 40

Figure 4: Respondent Education Level ………………………………………………… 42

Figure 5: Mean ERB Predictor Scale Scores by Level of Leave No Trace …………..... 56

Figure 6: Mean Behavioral Belief Scores by Leave No Trace Level ………...…..……. 61

Figure 7: Mean Normative Belief Scores by Leave No Trace Level …...…………...… 64

9

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

In the mid 20th century, it came to the attention of the U.S. Forest Service and

National Park Service that their public lands were experiencing increasingly detrimental

impacts from the millions of visitors who came to the parks to experience and reconnect

with nature. It became clear that the nation’s public lands were being “loved to death”

(Nash, 1967), and the ecosystems protected “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people”

were hanging in the balance, in serious danger of collapse. In the convening 60 years,

great strides have been made to restore and protect all parks from being used

irresponsibly. The fundamental work of the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics is

to educate and encourage responsible backcountry etiquette and behavior. Its seven

principles serve as handrails on the map of ecologically friendly behavior for the trails,

rivers, lakes, and peaks of the United States.

As attention turns from parks to the greater world, this same issue is abundantly

apparent. Talk of environmental crisis is not new. Authors, scientists, and ecologists have

been warning the public of ecological problems since the late 19th century. A host of

environmental issues from littering to oil scarcity to global climate change have plagued

news and politics for decades, yet scientists and laymen alike agree that these tremendous

challenges persist. “We work hard to ‘leave no trace’ on the trail. Isn’t it about time we

give the same attention to the larger world?” (Van Horn, 2009). While Leave No Trace

owes much of its success to its well-defined goal, the underlying ethics and values of its

curriculum provide a useful framework for Environmentally Responsible Behavior in

10

everyday life. Environmentally Responsible Behavior (ERB) is a specific term referring

to “any action, individual or group, directed toward remediation of environmental

issues/problems" (Sivek & Hungerford, 1990). The question persists: Can Leave No

Trace apply to ethical day-to-day environmental behavior, just as it does to backcountry

behavior?

Significance of the Study

The extension of Leave No Trace outdoor ethics to everyday life is a topic of

interest in current research. Simon’s and Alagona’s (2009) Beyond Leave No Trace

model proposes a new curriculum that encompasses a broader spectrum of ERB,

incorporating day-to-day ERB with ethical backcountry use. While Leave No Trace

recognizes the application of their curriculum beyond backcountry recreational use, it is

also explicit in stating that they do not intend to alter their curriculum in any way, owing

much of their success to the narrow focus of their current seven principles (Personal

Conversation, Ben Lawhon, February 3, 2010). Along these lines, this study attempted to

neither encourage nor discourage the alteration of the current curriculum; instead, it

assessed the influence of the current curriculum on daily ERB in addition to its celebrated

ability to influence responsible recreational use.

Research has identified and discussed antecedents to ERB (Bamberg & Moser,

2007; Caltabiano & Caltabiano, 1995; De Young, 2000; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera,

1986; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Hwang et al, 2001; Iwata, 2001; Mobley, Vagias, &

DeWard, 2010; Oskamp, 2002; Sivek & Hungerford, 1991). While knowledge is

imparted through environmental education, it has been noted that mere knowledge does

11

not translate well into behavior (Bamberg & Moser, 2007; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). While

many other scales have been produced to quantify or measures ERB (Smith-Sebasto &

D’Acosta, 1995; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999), this study applied Theory of Planned

Behavior (TPB) to the model of ERB put forth by Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera (1986),

serving as a pilot for the development of the Environmentally Responsible Behavior

Predictor Scale (ERBP Scale). This study therefore focused on assessing behavioral

beliefs and attitudes; normative beliefs and subjective norms; control beliefs and

Perceived Behavioral Control; and intentions and likelihood of behaving in

environmentally responsible ways. Additionally, it attempted to answer questions related

to the application of Leave No Trace to everyday environmental behavior using the

ERBP Scale.

12

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The primary objective of Chapter 2 is to clearly define concepts related to the

environmental behavior and Leave No Trace programming. Chapter 2 addresses the

following: the Theory of Planned Behavior, and the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor

Ethics.

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is a well-known model applied in various

fields to understand and predict behavior; its predecessor, The Theory of Reasoned

Action (TRA), posits that an individual’s behavioral intention is the function of attitudes

and beliefs (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Miller 2005). In other words, a behavior is the sum

of an individual’s own beliefs about the behavior and the opinion of those in the

individual’s social circle, resulting in higher motivation, or intention to act. In TRA,

behavioral intention is the direct precursor to behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Both

TRA and TPB have previously been used to explain health related behaviors such as

dieting and exercise (Baer, 1966) and voting behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen &

Fishbein, 1980; Gotch & Hall, 2004).

TRA assumes that behavior is completely under volitional control. TPB is a

response to criticism that TRA does not account for circumstantial events or factors that

prevent action (Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen, 1991). The addition of Perceived Behavioral Control

accounts for situations in which there is some other factor intervening when intention

makes behavior seem likely, but actual behavior does not develop, i.e. when behavior is

13

outside of volitional control (Ajzen, 1991, Ajzen, 2002). As seen in Figure 2, TPB

addresses behavior in terms of beliefs, attitudes, and intention and posits that behavior is

influenced by three types of beliefs & attitudes: behavioral, normative, and control, and

additionally intention (Ajzen, 1985).

Figure 1. Theory of Planned Behavior. Reproduced from Ajzen, 1991.

Belief is defined by Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) as the likelihood of a relationship

existing between the object of the belief and another value, concept, or attribute. These

beliefs form the basis from which attitude toward the behavior in question develops,

therefore an individual’s attitude can be measured by assessing their beliefs toward a

given concept (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Descriptive beliefs are those that are directly

observable, such as the belief that the grass is green or the sky is blue (Fishbein & Ajzen,

1975). While beliefs are held toward directly observable relationships, individuals also

develop beliefs about unobservable relationships, such as a peer’s personality traits.

These beliefs are known as inferential beliefs, and develop from previously known

14

relationships (e.g., a person crying is sad or a person laughing is happy) or a formal

coding system (e.g., Matt is older than Mark who is older than Mike, therefore Mike is

younger than Matt) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Bruner, 1957). Additionally, people form

beliefs based on outside sources of information such as television, magazines, books,

music, friends, co-workers, etc. Whether a person accepts information from outside

sources as their own belief involves a number of different factors, including those dealing

with the source of information, e.g., dependability, trustworthiness, expertise, race,

gender, etc; the message itself, e.g., order of arguments, type of appeal; or the audience,

e.g., ease of persuasion, intelligence, personality, and self esteem (Fishbein & Ajzen,

1975).

While belief describes a person’s thoughts on the relationship between an object

and its attributes, attitude represents a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion about

this relationship and is synonymous with attribute evaluation. As beliefs are formed, so

too are attitudes (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and in most circumstances, attitudes are

mediated by a few salient beliefs; they are typically neutral at first and then change upon

assimilation of new information. Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) give the example of a person’s

attitude toward a stranger. Upon initial meeting, the individual’s attitude may be neutral.

New information that this unknown person is a member of the Republican Party forms a

positive attitude towards the stranger, since the person is also a Republican. Subsequent

information shifts the attitude either positively or negatively depending on the person’s

beliefs (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). It follows that an individual’s attitude toward a given

object is not constant; rather, it fluctuates throughout life, ebbing and flowing in time

15

with an individual’s changing belief system. Some beliefs & attitudes hold relatively

steady throughout life, while others fluctuate greatly (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Given

this fluidity, attitude can be succinctly described as a “function of salient beliefs at a

given point in time” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

As stated before, TPB posits that behavior is influenced by three types of beliefs &

attitudes: behavioral, normative, and control. Behavioral elements include the beliefs

about the likely outcome of a behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes. Normative

beliefs include both beliefs about social normative expectations of others and motivation

to comply with these beliefs. Control beliefs and attitudes address factors that facilitate or

preclude action and the perceived power of these attitudes and beliefs. The last element is

intention, or the subjective probability of performing a behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Behavioral Beliefs & Attitudes

The first component of TPB speaks to beliefs and attitudes correlated with specific

behaviors. Behavioral beliefs are those that an individual holds about the consequences

of a given behavior. These beliefs address the subjective probability that a behavior will

produce a desired outcome, and can be closely linked to an individual’s general

knowledge of environmental issues, knowledge and skill in action strategies, and control

beliefs and Perceived Behavioral Control (Ajzen, 1991). Attitudes then stem from these

beliefs and can be either positive or negative; however both a positive attitude toward a

behavior and the belief that the behavior will produce the desire outcome must be

present. For example, if one believes that conserving natural resources is effective in

minimizing negative environmental impacts and that minimizing negative impacts is

16

desirable, they will have a positive attitude towards behaviors that do so. However, if one

believes that turning off lights or using compact fluorescent light bulbs is ineffective at

conserving energy, they will not engage in these behaviors, even though they hold a

positive attitude towards environmental responsibility. Similarly, one might hold a

negative attitude towards environmentally responsibility because they do not feel capable

of producing a desired outcome through their behavior and therefore become frustrated

by attempts to do so, eventually ceasing the behavior altogether. This phenomenon will

be discussed in more detail with regard to Perceived Behavioral Control and

controllability.

Normative Beliefs & Attitudes

This component of TPB assesses beliefs and their corresponding attitudes of an

individual toward perceived pressures from various referent groups, including peers,

mentors, family members, or society at large (Ajzen 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

Normative beliefs are the perceptions an individual has of a behavior, and is influenced

by the opinion of others significant in the life of the individual. The subjective norm is an

individual’s perception of pressure from referent groups to perform or not perform a

given behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Several factors may sway a subject’s end behavior, such as

the referent’s level of influence in the eyes of the subject; the referent’s opinion; size of

referent group; and the threat of repercussions of engaging in a behavior that defies the

opinions of the referent (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The strength of association with the

subjective norm depends both on the individual and the situation; for example, for a

subject whose social group includes peers who hold positive attitudes toward

17

environmentalism, pressure to conform to certain behaviors viewed as environmentally

responsible, such as refraining from littering, will be much higher than pressure coming

from a group with ambivalent or negative attitudes toward the environment.

Control Beliefs & Attitudes

Control beliefs consist of beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or

impede performance of the behavior and the perceived power of these factors. In TPB,

the addition of Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) to the Theory of Reasoned Action

accounts for times when people have good intentions, but translating intentions into

behavior is thwarted because they lack confidence or feel they lack control over the

behavior (Ajzen, 1985). To the extent that it is an accurate reflection of actual behavioral

control, PBC combined with intent can be used to predict behavior (Ajzen, 1980). The

notion of PBC originates from Bandura’s Self Efficacy Theory in the field of social

psychology and can be thought of in two parts: perceived self efficacy and controllability,

which is very similar to the Locus of Control element in ERB(Ajzen, 2002; Hines,

Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986). An individual’s personal estimation of their ability in a

given situation, or perceived self-efficacy, holds a strong influence on behavior; it

represents an individual’s confidence in their ability to perform that behavior and to

produce a desired outcome (Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980).

Self-efficacy is considered the most important antecedent for behavioral change,

and in its application to physical activity, mental health, and exercise, it has contributed

to the explanation of relationships between beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior

(Bandura, et al., 1980). Individuals with high self-efficacy believe they are capable of

18

producing positive results; it follows that those with high self-efficacy with regard to

either general or specific behaviors are more likely to engage in those behaviors,

anticipating success. Conversely, individuals with low self-efficacy in a behavior are

more likely to avoid situations involving the behavior, thereby circumventing

opportunities to gain mastery of the behavior (Bandura, 1997, Bandura, et al., 1980).

Similarly, those with a high degree of controllability (internal LOC) believe that their

actions have the potential to affect change or influence events; those who possess low

controllability (external LOC) feel that events are not within their control and are

unlikely to participate in the behavior in question (Ajzen, 2002; Hines et al, 1986).

As stated before, one’s behavioral beliefs and attitudes are closely tied to self-

efficacy; in the example given earlier, an individual may develop negative attitude toward

a given behavior due to repeated failures in producing the desired outcome (Ajzen, 1991;

Ajzen, 2002; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This leads to feelings of frustration, low self-

efficacy with regard to that behavior, and the cessation of the behavior. The subject feels

incapable of performing the behavior adequately, perhaps due to circumstance outside of

their control, and no longer engages in the behavior.

Intention

The final element of TPB is intention, which is assumed to be the immediate

antecedent of behavior. Intention is defined as the subjective probability or readiness to

perform a given behavior, and can be predicted by combining behavior, normative and

control beliefs and attitudes, each associated with a weighted value specific to the subject

and correlated behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Intention is the

19

amalgamation of four separate elements: the behavior, the target object at which it is

directed, the situation in which the behavior is to be performed, and the time in which it

is to be completed (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Each of these elements lies at

a separate point along a continuum of specificity, from extremely specific to very

general. For example, one might intend to purchase an Energy Star refrigerator to replace

a less efficient one by the end of the year; this intention has moderately specific behavior,

target, situation and time. Alternatively, one might merely intend to be more conscious

about energy consumption; this intention has no reference to specific behavior, target,

situation, or time. Ultimately, it is important to recognize that behavioral intention is not

tantamount to behavior, but rather serves as an indicator of the likelihood of engaging in

a given behavior.

The study of the reliability of both TRA and TPB in predicting nature-related or

Environmentally Responsible Behaviors has resulted in a few observations. Gotch and

Hall (2004) used TRA to understand nature-related behaviors in children. They assert that

environmental education programs assume that by influencing beliefs, they can change

the behaviors of heir young participants in pro-environment ways, and found tentative

support for the TRA approach in accounting for nature-related behaviors in children

(Gotch & Hall, 2004). However, the extent to which programs can influence attitudes in

terms of magnitude & longevity remains uncertain. While the importance of attitude in

TRA seems to best predict behavior in children and adolescents, TPB is thought to more

accurately describe adult behaviors where Perceived Behavioral Control is of more

importance (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992; Netemeyer, Burton, & Johnston, 1991).

20

Furthermore, it seems that TPB shows better correspondence between intention and

behavior in more difficult or complex behaviors than easier behaviors under complete

volitional control; this is due mostly to the PBC component that is notably absent in TRA

(Madden, et al., 1992; Netemeyer, et al., 1991).

Environmentally Responsible Behavior (ERB)

Environmentally Responsible Behavior (ERB) is a specific term describing “any

action, individual or group, directed toward remediation of environmental

issues/problems" (Sivek & Hungerford, 1990). ERB is characterized by a combination of

self interest and concern for other people, species, or ecosystems (Bamberg & Moser,

2007). It includes both general actions (talking with others about environmental issues;

encouraging family and friends to behave in environmentally responsible ways) and

specific actions (recycling; purchasing environmentally friendly & sustainable goods;

conservation of energy by turning off lights and using alternate sources of energy, such as

solar, hydro, or wind energy; and reduction in fossil fuel dependence by utilizing

alternative means of transportation) (Cottrell, 2003; Thogerson, 2007; Vaske and Kobrin,

2007).

Encouraging ERB is the fundamental goal of the discipline of environmental

education (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986); as such, research has focused on the

precursors of environmentally responsible behaviors in order to successfully cultivate

desired behaviors through environmental education programming. By influencing values,

attitudes, and behaviors of individuals in positive ways, environmental education

ultimately seeks to minimize negative environmental impacts (Hines, Hungerford, &

21

Tomera, 1986). In fact, according to Matre “Environmental education that just educates

people about the environment without asking them to make changes in their own lives is

not environmental education – it’s natural science” (1990, p. 27). Generally speaking,

however, the effectiveness of environmental education in influencing behavior is of some

debate, and depends on a number of variables, including the setting, duration, affective

components, and practical implications. Overall, researchers suggest that longer programs

tend to influence behavior more strongly than short programs, and that practical field-

based programs have a more positive effect than similar classroom components (Bogner,

1998; Daniels and Marion 2005; Metzger & McEwen, 1999; Zelezny, 1999, Zint,

Kraemer, Northway, & Lim 2002.)

In a meta-analysis of research in environmental education up to that point, Hines,

Hungerford, & Tomera (1986) proposed a model of ERB that addresses both cognitive

and affective variables. The key components of the Hines model include general

knowledge of environmental issues, knowledge in action strategies, skill in action

strategies, attitudes, locus of control, and intention to act.

Cognitive Variables

Knowledge of environmental issues as well as knowledge of and skill in

environmental action strategies are considered cognitive variables, meaning that they

describe an individual’s awareness levels of the issues at hand (Hines et al., 1986).

Hungerford and Volk (1990) further identified three variable levels: entry-level

(knowledge of a general concept); ownership level (in-depth knowledge); and

empowerment level (knowledge about action skills and strategies) that can be used to

22

further describe the relationship of variables in influencing and predicting

environmentally responsible behavior. Knowledge is considered an entry-level variable,

in that it is not a strong predictor of behavior itself, but serves as a prerequisite to other

variables, allowing an individual to develop necessary precursors such as personal

investment and acquisition of action skills that result in intention to act in

environmentally responsible ways (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986; Hungerford &

Volk, 1990).

Studies have found that general knowledge of environmental issues had a much

smaller effect on environmentally responsible behavior than knowledge of action skills

(Hwang, et al., 2000; Siemer & Knuth, 2001) A study of the “Hooked on Fishing-Not on

Drugs” (HOF-NOD) program for 6th to 8th graders found that fully implemented

programs stimulated interest in fishing, increased fishing participation, and developed

general entry-level knowledge (Hwang, et al., 2000; Siemer & Knuth, 2001). The results

of such studies suggest that in order to stimulate environmentally responsible behavior,

environmental educators must seek to instill knowledge beyond the entry-level to

ownership- and empowerment-level knowledge that contributes to the development of

personal investment in the issues (Siemer & Knuth, 2001; Hines et al., 1986). The

traditional assumption is that increased knowledge of environmental issues leads to ERB

(Hungerford & Volk, 1990); however, most research has turned up little support for this

assumption. While knowledge is prerequisite to other attributes that result in making

choices with the environment in mind, knowledge itself does not directly lead to those

behaviors.

23

Affective Variables

Affective or psychosocial variables are those that contend with feelings or

emotions associated with an object or concept, and include attitude, locus of control, and

intention to act. While cognitive variables provide a working knowledge of how to

behave in an environmentally responsible manner, affective variables provide the

necessary aspiration, or lack thereof, to apply knowledge and action skills.

According to Newhouse (1990), attitude is considered one of the most powerful

variables contributing to ERB and a more positive attitude toward the environment is a

strong precursor to ERB (Bamberg & Moser, 2007; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera,

1986). Attitude is defined as either positive or negative feelings regarding environment.

Attitude can also be further demarcated into attitudes toward ecological and

environmental concepts in general, or attitudes toward taking environmental actions, such

as recycling or conserving water for example Favorable attitudes toward action were

found to have a stronger correlation with environmentally responsible behavior than

favorable attitudes toward general environmental concepts (Hines et al., 1986).

In 1978, Dunlap and Van Liere proposed the New Environmental Paradigm

(NEP). This new theory differed from previous hypotheses of attitudinal behavior in that

it is an eco- or biocentric paradigm, describing humans as innately wanting to help

nature, and as a part of nature rather than outside of it. The NEP uses a series of 12

questions that evaluate an individual’s attitudes about the environment. A score of 12 on

the NEP questionnaire indicates that a person entirely rejects the NEP and has an

unfavorable attitude toward the environment. A score of 48 indicates that a person wholly

24

accepts the NEP, and has a favorable attitude toward the environment. While the NEP

served as a novel tool for assessing attitudes on the environment in the late 70s and early

80s, researchers now question the validity of the measurement, citing increased

knowledge and awareness of the environment as reasons to re-evaluate the questions

posed (Bechtel, 1997; Thogerson, 2007).

Locus of control (LOC) is another important affective antecedent to ERB. Locus

of control is “an individual’s belief in whether or not he or she has the ability to bring

about change through his/her behavior” (Hwang, et al., 2000). Those individuals with

high perceived external locus of control view events as outside of their control, rather

than outside factors like God, luck, chance, or other intervening factors determine the

course of events more so than the individual (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986;

Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Those with a high degree of internal locus of control, on the

other hand, believe that their own actions exert influence over occurrences and result in

changes in the course of events (Sia, et al., 1985; Sivek & Hungerford, 1988). Individuals

with an external locus of control are unlikely to participate in activities promoting ERB

because they do not foresee their actions causing change, and therefore see taking action

as a fruitless endeavor. It follows that individuals or groups with an internal locus of

control are much more likely to act in responsible ways because they see their actions as

having the potential to create worthwhile change (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986;

Sivek & Hungerford, 1988).

An individual’s intent to act, or willingness to act upon a specified behavior, is the

strongest predictor of ERB, the direct antecedent to behavior (Ajzen, 1980; Ajzen, 2002)

25

and stems from a variety of cognitive and affective variables (Hines et al., 1986).

Research shows that a substantial correlation exists between intention and environmental

behavior, as shown by a Bayesian meta-analysis of studies on environmental action

(Schwenk & Moser, 2008). Locus of control is a strong predictor for intent to act, and

had substantial direct effects on attitude, which in turn affects intent to act. Therefore, it

can be said that by creating or encouraging internal locus of control, one can increase

intent to act in environmentally responsible ways (Hwang, et al., 2000).

Both Hines et al. (1986) and Bamberg & Moser (2007) purport that knowledge is a

prerequisite to environmental attitude and environmental sensitivity, which are direct

precursors to intention. However, while general knowledge is not a direct antecedent, it

does indirectly influence responsible environmental behavior. Hwang’s research (Hwang,

et al., 2000) suggests that knowledge of action skills affects locus of control more greatly

than general knowledge. Furthermore, both ability and desire to act are necessary for

ERB; while knowledge of action skills and strategies show that the ability is present in an

individual, intent to act represents the presence of desire (Hines et al., 1986; Hwang et al.,

2000).

Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics (LNT)

As automobile travel became more available in the mid 20th century, tourism to

National Parks and Forests boomed, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake (Lewis,

2007). Joseph Saks claimed, “the most serious problem of parks is that they risk being

loved to death” (Foresta, 1985). Seeing the destruction of its forests, the US Forest

Service (USFS) began incorporating the essence of “leave no trace” in its educational

26

displays and interpretive programs since the early1960s (Marion & Reid, 2001). By the

1980s, the Forest Service was implementing “No-Trace” programs extolling a new

wilderness ethic and educating visitors about how to minimize their impact on public

lands; the success of these programs then spurred collaboration with other federal land

agencies like the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service (Leave No

Trace History, n.d., ¶ 1). Early preservation efforts were aimed largely at visitor impact

problems themselves, rather than informing and educating users who underestimated or

failed to recognize the damage they were inflicting (Marion & Reid, 2001).

The failure of these early regulations in preserving wilderness led to the creation of

educational efforts to inform wilderness users (Marion & Reid, 2001). In 1990, the USFS

commissioned The National Outdoor Leadership School, NOLS, to create an educational

program promoting the leave no trace wilderness ethic (Marion & Reid 2007). NOLS

developed a curriculum for teaching Leave No Trace in all aspects of wilderness travel

and in varying environments, including alpine tundra, deserts, coastal waterways, and

caves (Marion & Reid, 2001). This curriculum was based largely on experiential models

from Hampton and Cole’s 1988 book, Soft Paths.

In 1991, NOLS and USFS signed a Memorandum of Understanding to formally

recognize their partnership (Marion & Reid, 2001); the Leave No Trace Center for

Outdoor Ethics was finally incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational agency in

1994, and is now considered the foremost in international curriculum as well as an ethical

framework (Marion & Reid, 2001). The Leave No Trace curriculum consists of seven

principles as follows:

27

1. Plan Ahead and Prepare: Become familiar with the area of intended travel,

including regulations, group limits, terrain, expected weather, and potential

hazards;

2. Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces: Avoid erosion and other damaging

impacts by treading and camping on areas of greatest resiliency;

3. Dispose of Waste Properly: Mitigate impacts of various human wastes by

employing appropriate methods of disposal;

4. Leave What You Find: Enjoy cultural, natural, and/or historic artifacts in a

way that preserves them for others to enjoy;

5. Minimize Campfire Impacts: Fires not only mar landscapes, but can

drastically change the ecology of large areas - employ proper, safe fire

building techniques through the use of fire rings or other containment

methods or refrain from fire use altogether.

6. Respect Wildlife: Wildlife should be kept so; this requires that humans do not

disrupt their normal and natural routines and habits by maintaining safe

distances and refraining from providing unnatural sources of food to wildlife.

7. Be Considerate of Other Visitors: Wilderness is a shared resource. Being

mindful of one’s physical and psychological impact greatly reduces conflict

in the backcountry. (Leave No Trace Programs, n.d., ¶2).

Based on these seven principles, Leave No Trace offers various outreach programs

as well as several levels of training (Leave No Trace Training, n.d., ¶2). The Traveling

Trainer program consists of teams of professional outdoor educators who spend one year

28

on the road, leading workshops, facilitating school programs, and providing public

displays and discussions on Leave No Trace. The Teen and Promoting Environmental

Awareness in Kids (PEAK) programs target youth and provide teachers and educators

with valuable resources to further interest and knowledge in Leave No Trace and related

issues. The training courses offered by Leave No Trace operate at three tiers. In Tier 1,

the 5-day experiential Master Educator course prepares professionals to become

comprehensive experts on all things Leave No Trace. In turn, they instruct the 2-day

Trainer courses designed for guides, agency employees, and other outdoor professionals

providing information to the public as part of Tier 2. In Tier 3, graduates of Trainer

courses can then facilitate Awareness Workshops, which vary in length from 30 minutes

to one full day, and are intended to introduce and educate the general public on the

principles of Leave No Trace (Leave No Trace Training, n.d., ¶1).

With concern to the efficacy of environmental education programs in general,

longer programs with a field-based component tend to result in the most measurable

changes in environmentally responsible behaviors. In 2005, Daniels and Marion

conducted a study investigating the efficacy of Leave No Trace 2-day Trainer courses. In

assessing knowledge, ethics, behavior and outreach, they demonstrated that the Trainer

courses were indeed effective in promoting short and long term ERB in terms of

backcountry use. Measures of environmental knowledge and ethics showed great

improvement immediately upon completion, followed by a small drop upon follow-up,

for an overall significant net increase. Ethics also experienced a statistically significant

increase, and 91% of respondents reported that they planned to teach Leave No Trace

29

concepts in the future. In terms of correlation among these 4 items, no significant

correlation was found between knowledge and behavior, while a significant correlation

was found between ethics and behavior, suggesting that ethical appeals may be more

crucial in promoting ERB, an idea in line with Hines’ previously stated model of ERB.

The Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics focuses on “the responsible

enjoyment and active stewardship of the outdoors by all people, worldwide” (Leave No

Trace About Us, n.d., ¶1). Beyond responsible recreational use, Leave No Trace

recognizes the need for sustainability and environmental responsibility in all areas of life.

In their stated Sustainability Ethos, Leave No Trace “acknowledge(s) the need for ethical

and sustainable practices that transcend our organizational mission, which become

inherent parts of the way we manage our organization and our daily lives” (Leave No

Trace Sustainability Ethos, n.d. ¶1). Furthermore, Leave No Trace also acknowledges the

applicability of the Leave No Trace concept to more sweeping environmentally

responsible behaviors, and provides resources on recycling, home energy conservation,

carbon offsets, individual environmental footprint audits, renewable energy, sustainable

travel, alternative transportation, water conservation, waste reduction, and eating local

and organic foods among others (Leave No Trace Sustainability Ethos, n.d., ¶3).

Some in the outdoor recreation and education field are calling for this wider

approach to be incorporated into the Leave No Trace curriculum. Simon & Alagona

(2009) propose a “Beyond Leave No Trace” model, in which the Leave No Trace

curriculum is revamped to address what the researchers view as shortcomings of the

Leave No Trace curriculum. Rather than replacing the current 7 principles, Simon and

30

Alagona supplement them in order to incorporate a more holistic practice of

environmental awareness and ethic.

“Beyond Leave No Trace focuses on choices and activities that transcend the

boundaries of wilderness areas, and that connect recreation to the global chains of

production and consumption that make the contemporary American wilderness

experience possible” (Simon and Alagona, 2009).

The proposed 7 principles of Beyond Leave No Trace are as follows:

1. Educate yourself and others about the places you visit

2. Purchase only the equipment and clothing you need

3. Take care of the equipment and clothing you have

4. Make conscientious food, equipment, and clothing consumption choices

5. Minimize waste production

6. Reduce energy consumption

7. Get involved by conserving and restoring the places you visit

(Simon & Alagona, 2009)

This new set of principles may address the fundamental ethical system to which

Daniel and Marion refer in their study. According to Ben Lawhon, Leave No Trace’s

education director, here the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics is explicit in its

intention to remain true to its current curriculum and focus on recreational impacts

(Personal Communication, February 3, 2010). This study will in no way address this

debate, but rather questions the applicability of the current Leave No Trace curriculum to

daily life as an unintended benefit of the program.

31

Research Questions

By applying Ajzen’s TPB to the model of ERB put forth by Hines, Hungerford, &

Tomera (1986), this study served as a pilot for the development of the Environmentally

Responsible Behavior Predictor Scale (ERBP Scale) and focused on assessing behavioral

attitudes and beliefs and their evaluations; normative attitudes and beliefs; control

attitudes and beliefs; and behavioral intentions and likelihood of behaving in

environmentally responsible ways. Additionally, the researcher attempted to answer the

following questions related to the application of Leave No Trace backcountry programs

to everyday life.

1. Is the ERB Predictor Scale a reliable instrument?

2. Do higher levels of Leave No Trace training correspond with higher ERB

scores?

3. To what extent do Leave No Trace Principles apply to environmentally

responsible decision making in everyday life?

4. Do those with higher levels of Leave No Trace training also exhibit higher

Perceived Behavioral Control with regard to everyday environmental

behavior?

32

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Chapter 3 explains the methodology of the study including scale development,

research design, sample, data collection procedures, data analysis procedures, and

limitations.

Site & Sample

A sample of Leave No Trace participants of varying levels served as a treatment

group for this study in addition to a sample of Ohio University students, which was used

as a control group who do not necessarily have any pre-disposed environmental attitudes

or beliefs and have had no Leave No Trace training. Leave No Trace Awareness

Workshop participants, Leave No Trace Trainer participants, and Leave No Trace Master

Educator participants were chosen at random by the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor

Ethics; approximately 10,500 individuals were contacted. Of these 10,500, 629 responded

for a response rate of 5.9%. Of these 629 responses, 554 were valid, representing 5.2% of

the population that was contacted. Responses that did not give their level of Leave No

Trace training were not included in the study.

Variable Description

This study addresses a variety of important variables. The independent variable is

level of Leave No Trace training: none, Awareness Workshop, Trainer, or Master

Educator. Dependent variables measured are behavioral beliefs and attitudes, normative

beliefs and attitudes, control beliefs and attitudes, and intentions.

33

Instrumentation

The instrument in this study was influenced by both the Hines et al. (1986) model

of ERB and Ajzen’s TPB (Ajzen, 1991; Hines et al., 1986). Key variables in the scale are

Behavioral attributes, Normative attributes, Control attributes, and intention, each

measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =

somewhat disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree, 6 = strongly agree), as well as an

inventory of Environmentally Responsible Behaviors. As previously stated in Chapter 2,

ERB is defined as any behavior that conserves resources and/or mitigates negative

environmental impacts.

Scale Development

In developing the ERB scale, this study followed the basic steps of scale

development as outlined in Worthington & Whittaker 2006, as listed:

1. Determine what the scale intends to measure.

2. Generate items.

3. Determine the format of the items.

4. Have the scale reviewed by experts.

5. Consider including validation items.

6. Administer the scale to a sample.

7. Evaluate the items based on the data returned.

8. Optimize scale length.

The scale intends to measure attitudes and beliefs about environmental behavior,

as well as intention, based on TPB (Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen, 1991). Each survey item was

34

carefully chosen and worded to clearly reflect the construct of interest. The end goal for

each item is to be concise, clear, and distinct (Anastasi, 1988; DeVellis, 2003), with

every attempt made in the initial drafting of the survey to do just that.

The instrument was devised based on previous TPB scales and in accordance with

TPB theory and consists of 7 sections, the first of which obtains informed consent.

Sections 2 through 4 measure beliefs and attitudes. Rather than directly measuring

attitude, beliefs and their evaluations (attitudes) are evaluated separately to calculate

attitude in accordance with the conceptualization of TPB. A statement of belief will be

tempered with a behavioral evaluation (attitude) statement to discern a subject’s attitude

toward ERB in general. Section 2 of the survey addresses the participant’s behavioral

beliefs and attitudes. Section 3 speaks to normative beliefs and attitudes. Section 4 speaks

to control beliefs and attitudes. In this section, PBC is measured based on questions

addressing both self-efficacy and Locus of Control/controllability. Section 5 speaks to

intention by asking the participant to check all behaviors that they intend to participate in

within the next 6 months. Section 6 includes questions related to the applicability of

Leave No Trace to ERB in daily life. Ohio University students did not answer this

section, only Leave No Trace participants. Finally, section 7 gathers demographic data

including sex, age, city & state of residence, level of Leave No Trace training, Leave No

Trace course location, and highest level of education achieved. Refer to Appendix A for a

document of the survey, and see http://www.survey monkey.com/s/X7HK85T for an on-

line version.

35

The survey was then reviewed by the thesis research committee as well as staff

members of Leave No Trace and revised accordingly before implementation. Chapters 4

and 5 discuss the evaluation of the items and recommendations for future

implementation.

Data Collection Procedures

Data were collected via on-line survey administered using Survey Monkey. In

collaboration with Leave No Trace Education Director, Ben Lawhon, the survey was e-

mailed through Leave No Trace to 10,000 Awareness Workshop, Trainer, and Master

Educator participants in the database. This was done to avoid oversaturation of

communication by Leave No Trace and to ensure anonymity of the respondents. Leave

No Trace reserved the right to review the survey before implementation. Invitations to the

survey were also made available to 500 undergraduate students in a number of

classrooms at Ohio University, representing the control group for the study.

Data Analysis Procedures

The two-part nature of this study necessitated the separate treatments of two sets

of data. All data was entered into SPSS 17.0 for Windows. Demographic variables were

included for possible future research, and each item of the scale was evaluated using

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to determine the factors underlying each construct.

There is much debate over the differences between the many different types of factor

analysis and data reduction methods. While Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with

varimax (orthogonal) rotation is both the simplest and most popular method, it was not

36

particularly well-suited to this study; PCA is a method of data reduction, not technically

EFA, and an orthogonal rotation is intended for factors that are thought not to be related.

Common-Factors Analysis (FA) was more in line with the theoretical basis of this

study, and was thus used as the extraction method in order to understand underlying

factors that could possibly account for shared variance (Costello & Osborne, 2005;

Gorsuch, 1983; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Thompson, 2004; Worthington & Whittaker,

2006). This extraction method seeks the least number of factors that account for the

common variance of variables. Additionally, an oblique rotation, direct oblimin, the

results of which are slightly more difficult to interpret, was used instead of the orthogonal

varimax rotation, as this rotation allows and accounts for factors that may be correlated,

as is thought to be the case in the scale (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell,

2001). Due to the nature of EFA, the results are tentative rather than confirmatory.

However, future analysis of the data that repeats EFA or employs Confirmatory Factor

Analysis (CFA) can provide increasingly concrete results as the scale continues to be

refined. In addition to EFA, reliability of each item was calculated to reveal internal

consistency, and recommendations for the following version of the scale are made.

ANOVA comparison of ERB Predictor Scale scores was made between all four

groups in order to address Leave No Trace research questions. Linear regression was

used to examine the relationship between level of Leave No Trace training and ERB

Predictor Scale scores and intentions and to elucidate the amount of variation between

groups that can be explained by level of Leave No Trace training. Additionally,

37

descriptive statistics characterizing age, sex, and education level provided summary of

demographic variables. Significance was set at .05 for all statistical analyses.

38

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Introduction

Chapter 4 presents the results of this study. Survey response rate, descriptive

statistics for demographics, scale reliability, results of Exploratory Factor Analysis,

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the ERB Predictor Scale as a whole, ANOVA of

behavioral attributes, normative beliefs and subjective norm, and self-efficacy and

controllability are provided, as is linear regression. Open-ended qualitative responses are

also addressed briefly.

Participant Demographics

While demographic information was collected, only basic descriptive statistics on

age, sex, and highest education level attained were executed for the purposes of this

research. The data collected in this study may potentially be put to use in future tests

regarding demographic variables and their relationship to environmental behavior or

Leave No Trace training.

Age. 213 respondents, 38.4% of valid respondents, were aged 20-29, a number that

was likely influenced by the baseline group of Ohio University students. 109 respondents

(17.4%) were 50-59; 72 respondents (13.0%) were 40-49; 59 respondents (10.6%) were

10-19; 54 (9.7%) were 30-39; 40 respondents (7.2%) were 60-69; and 3 respondents

(.5%) were 70-79. 4 respondents, or .7%, did not respond.

Among those with Leave No Trace training, 107 respondents ( 29.1%) were 50-59;

88 respondents (23.9%) were 20-29; 71 respondents (19.2%) were 40-49;54 respondents

(14.7%) were 30-39; 38 respondents (10.3%) were 60-69; 4 respondents (1%) were 10-

39

19; 3 respondents (<1%)were 70-79; and 3 respondents (<1%) gave no response.

Among those with no Leave No Trace training, there was considerably less

variation in age. 125 respondents (67%) were 20-29; 55 respondents (30%) were 10-19; 2

respondents (<1%) were 50-59; 2 respondents (<1%) were 60-69); and 1 respondent

(<1%) gave no response.

Figure 2. Respondent Ages. All respondents, n = 554; Leave No Trace training, n = 368;

No Leave No Trace Training, n = 186.

Sex. Out of a total of 554 respondents, 303, or 54.6% of the sample, identified

themselves as male, while 246 respondents (44.3%) identified female, 5 respondents

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

All

LNT Training

No LNT Training

40

(.9%) identified with another sex, and 1 (.2%) respondent did not respond.

Among those with Leave No Trace training, 142 (38.6%) were female; 222

respondents (60.3%) were male; 3 respondents (<1%) identified as another sex; and 1

respondent (<1%) gave no response.

Among those with no Leave No Trace Training, 104 (55.9%) were female; 80

respondents (43.0%) were male; and 2 (<1%) identified with another sex.

Figure 3. Respondent sex. All respondents, n = 554; Leave No Trace training, n = 368;

No Leave No Trace Training, n = 186.

Education. 210 respondents (37.8%) reported that they have finished some college;

similar to the high frequency of 20-29 year-olds, this number is also likely due to the

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

Female Male Other No Response

All

LNT Training

No LNT Training

41

baseline university students. 150 respondents (27.0%) have completed a Bachelors

degree. 104 respondents hold a Masters degree (18.7%). 41 respondents (7.4%) hold an

Associates degree. 21 (3.8%) respondents had completed a doctoral degree. 18

respondents (3.2%) had completed high school. 8 respondents (1.4%) have completed

other education, and 1 (.2%) respondent has completed some high school.

Among those with Leave No Trace training, 134 respondents (36.4%) have a

Bachelors degree; 103 respondents (27.0%) have a Masters degree; 59 respondents

(16.0%) have completed some college; 37 respondents (10.1%) have an Associates

degree; 20 respondents (5.4%) have a Doctoral degree; 8 respondents (2.2%) have

completed some other type education; 4 respondents (1%) have a high school degree or

the equivalent; and 1 respondent (<1%) has completed some high school.

Again, education among those with no Leave No Trace training was considerably

more homogenous. 151 respondents (81%) have completed some college; 15 respondents

(8.1%) have a Bachelors degree; 14 respondents (7.5%) have a high school diploma or

equivalent; 4 respondents have an Associates degree (1%); 1 respondent (<1%)has a

Masters degree; and 1 respondent has a doctoral degree (<1%).

42

Figure 4. Respondent Education Level. All respondents, n = 554; Leave No Trace

training, n = 368; No Leave No Trace Training, n = 186.

Level of Leave No Trace training. Participants identified their level of Leave No

Trace Training as follows (see Figure 3): 186 (33.6%) had no Leave No Trace training;

180 (32.5%) had completed the Trainer course; 165 (29.8%) had completed the Master

Educator course, and 23 (4.2%) had taken a Leave No Trace Awareness workshop.

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

Som

e H

S

HS/

GED

Som

e C

olle

ge

Ass

ocia

tes

Bac

helo

rs

Mas

ters

Doc

tora

l

Oth

er

All

LNT Training

No LNT Training

43

Figure 5. Respondent level of Leave No Trace. All respondents, n = 554.

Reliability Analysis

In this 18-item inventory, respondents were asked to rate their beliefs and attitude

about the given statement on a 6-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha for each item of he

scale were over .820; research suggests that a Cronbach’s alpha of .8 is considered good

(Cortina, 1993; Cronbach, 1951; Zinbarg, Yovel, Revelle & McDonald, 2006). Analysis

of the indices of each sub-domain, behavioral (BQ1-6), normative (NQ1-6), and control

attributes (CQ1-6) indicated that the scale is internally consistent and seems to measure

intended latent constructs. While this is not significant enough to warrant deletion from

the scale entirely, it does suggest that items within this sub-scale should be monitored in

future implementations of the scale and evaluated accordingly.

When comparing reliability analyses for the two separate sets of data, those with

Leave No Trace training and those without. Cronbach’s alpha was very similar, only

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

No Training Workshop Trainer Master Educator

44

slightly lower than the alphas calculated for the whole sample. This is to be expected, as

the sample size is reduced by separating the control group from the treatment group, but

even alphas calculated on the smaller groups were all above .8

45

Table 1

Reliability Analyses of Environmentally Responsible Behavior Predictor Scale (ERB Predictor Scale)

Component Item Total Correlation

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Cronbach’s Alpha

Behavioral Attributes .844

BQ1: Conserving resources and reducing negative environmental impacts is important.

.636 .854

BQ2: Using alternative transportation helps to conserve resources and minimize negative impacts on the environment.

.543 .854

BQ3: Responsible environmental behavior is not important. .455 .855

BQ4: Reducing waste contributes to minimizing environmental problems. .587 .853

BQ5: Using fewer resources puts less of a strain on the environment. .568 .853

BQ6: The environment is of high priority in my day-to-day behavior. .640 .851

Normative Attributes .853

NQ1: What my friends think is important to me. .213 .860

NQ2: Minimizing environmental impacts is important to my family. .572 .852

NQ3: Turning off unused lights is not something that those around me do or thinks is

important.

.356 .856

46

Table 1 (continued)

NQ4: Resource conservation is important to my friends. .536 .854

NQ5: My family’s opinions are not important to me. .305 .858

NQ6: I put emphasis on what my circle of friends and family believe. .180 .861

Control Attributes .848

CQ1: I have the ability to make responsible environmental decisions. .593 .855

CQ2: I am knowledgeable about environmental impacts and how to mitigate them. .578 .854

CQ3: Stopping environmental degradation is out of my hands. .556 .852

CQ4: I don’t think I know enough about environmental issues to reduce my resource use effectively.

.517 .853

CQ5: My environmental behavior contributes to fixing environmental problems. .626 .852

CQ6: It is not within my power to reduce the amount of natural resources used. .539 .852

47

Table 2

Reliability Analysis for Those With Leave No Trace Training


Alpha if Item

Deleted

Cronbach’s Alpha


BQ1: Conserving resources and reducing negative environmental impacts is important. .476 .836


.457 .834









important.

.401 .833

48

Table 2 (continued)









.430 .834



49

Table 3

Reliability Analysis for Those With No Leave No Trace Training


Alpha if Item

Deleted

Cronbach’s Alpha


BQ1: Conserving resources and reducing negative environmental impacts is important.

.670 .837


.623 .838









important.

.137 .850

50

Table 3 (continued)









.398 .842



51

Exploratory Factor Analysis

EFA is, generally speaking, a process subject to much interpretation by the

researcher. While it does not provide results that are absolute or entirely concrete, it

allows the researcher to explore the underlying structure of a phenomenon. Tests for

sufficiency indicated that this data set was appropriate for factor analysis. A large Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin value (KMO = .876) and highly significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p <

.001) indicated “that the patterns of correlation should yield distinct & reliable factors”

(Field, 2005). KMO values over .5 are acceptable (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Tabachnik

& Fidell, 2001), and according to Hutcheson and Sofroniou (1999), a KMO value above

.8 is considered very good.

In accordance with Kaiser’s criterion, all factors with Eigenvalues over 1 were

retained. These 5 factors, before rotation, explained 63.34% of the variance within the

scale (see Table 3). Following best practices for EFA (Costello & Osborne, 2005), these

5 factors were then organized into a pattern matrix, with values under .32 suppressed and

listed in order of greatest to least for ease of interpretation (see Table 4). From this

pattern matrix, all values over .32 are accepted (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

52

Table 4

Eigenvalues for ERB Predictor Scale Items

Initial Eigenvalues Sums of Squared Loadings

Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance

1 5.743 31.905 31.905 5.263 29.239

2 1.871 10.394 42.299 1.403 7.796

3 1.397 7.760 50.059 .894 4.966

4 1.352 7.513 57.572 .837 4.651

5 1.038 5.767 63.339 .453 2.518

6 .853 4.742 68.081

7 .723 4.018 72.099

8 .679 3.770 75.868

9 .630 3.500 79.368

10 .563 3.130 82.498

11 .488 2.713 85.211

12 .444 2.468 87.678

13 .436 2.420 90.098

14 .406 2.258 92.355

15 .399 2.215 94.571

16 .360 1.999 96.570

17 .337 1.872 98.443

18 .280 1.557 100.000

53

Only one item cross-loaded on Factors 1 and 3 (BQ6: “the environment is of high

priority in my day-to-day behavior”), and two items did not load over .32 on any factor

(CQ4: “I don’t think I know enough about environmental issues to reduce my resource

use effectively” and CQ1: “I have the ability to make responsible environmental

decisions”). Each factor had at least 2 items loading on it, with Factors 1 and 3 loaded 5

items. Generally, factors that load 3 to 5 items are considered stable, while those loading

less than 3 are not (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Each item was compared to the other items that loaded on the same factor and

patterns were established at the researcher’s discretion as follows:

• Factor 1: Attitude Toward the Environment

• Factor 2: The Influence of Significant Others

• Factor 3: Certainty that Behavior is Effective

• Factor 4: Opinions of Others are Not Important

• Factor 5: Locus of Control

Factor 1, Attitude Toward the Environment accounted for 29% of the variance, but it is

worth noting that items are not necessarily loading on factors in the way one might

predict based on the underlying theory of the scale. For example, one would expect NQ1,

NQ5, and NQ6 to load on the same factor, as they all address normative belief. However,

NQ1 and NQ 6 both loaded on Factor 2 (The Influence of Significant Others), NQ5

loaded on Factor 4 (Opinions of Others are Not Important). This indicates that, perhaps,

items are not measuring the intended constructs, however, this is not the intent of EFA.

54

Table 5

Pattern Matrix

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

NQ4 .625

BQ6 .525 -.367

CQ2 .511

NQ2 .473

NQ6 .738

NQ1 .683

BQ5 -.857

BQ4 -.708

BQ1 -.663

BQ2 -.574

CQ1

BQ3 .532

NQ5 .456

NQ3 .323

CQ3 -.826

CQ6 -.704

CQ5 -.492

CQ4

55

When comparing correlation between the most stable factors, factors 1, 3, and 5

all exhibited correlation coefficients of at least .41. This suggests that all factors are

moderately correlated, either positively or negatively, while factors 2 and 4 are only

slightly correlated.

Table 6

Factor Correlation Matrix

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

1 1.000 .042 -.412 .137 -.426

2 .042 1.000 -.123 .064 .068

3 -.412 -.123 1.000 -.182 .420

4 .137 .064 -.182 1.000 -.297

5 -.426 .068 .420 -.297 1.000

Factor analysis extracted five initial factors. Upon closer examination of the

pattern matrix produced by oblimin rotation, factors 1, 3 and 5 all loaded over three

items, and thus were considered to be stable. Each of the items making up this matrix

loaded at least .32 on only one factor. The two items that didn’t load on any factor and

the item that cross-loaded on two factors are questions that warrant further investigation.

These should be reworked before the next implementation of the survey in the hopes that

they can contribute more strongly to the scale.

56

Mean ERB Predictor Scale Scores and ANOVA Results

Mean ERB Predictor Scale Scores. The ERB Predictor Scale score was calculated

by adding the values for each item. Scores can range from 18 to 108. A score of 18 would

imply that the individual in question is extremely unlikely to engage in environmentally

responsible behavior, while a score of 108 would indicate an individual that is highly

likely to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors. The mean ERB Predictor

Scale scores were 80.5 for respondents with No Leave No Trace Training, 89.3 for those

who had taken a Leave No Trace Workshop, 89.1 for those who had completed a Leave

No Trace Trainer course, and 90.7 for those who had completed a Master Educator

course (see Figure 4).

Figure 5. Mean ERB Predictor Scale Scores by level of Leave No Trace Training. No

Leave No Trace Training = 80.5 (n = 186); Leave No Trace Workshop = 89.3 (n = 23);

Leave No Trace Trainer = 89.1 (n = 180); Leave No Trace Master Educator = 90.7 (n =

165).

74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92

No LNT Training LNT Workshop LNT Trainer LNT Master Educator

57

ANOVA Results. ANOVA results show a p value of .000, indicating significant

differences in ERB Predictor Scale scores between those with no Leave No Trace

training and all other levels of training; however, there was no statistically significant

difference among workshop participants, Trainers, and Master Educators in terms of

overall ERB Predictor Scale scores (see Table 6). However, when ANOVA was

conducted on each section separately, interesting and more detailed relationships were

illuminated.

58

Table 7

ANOVA Results for Total ERB Predictor Scale Scores

LNT Training (I) LNT Training (J) Mean Diff. (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Workshop -8.79360* 1.93818 .000

Trainer -8.55036* .91683 .000

No LNT Training

Master Educator -10.14985* .93777 .000

No LNT Training 8.79360* 1.93818 .000

Trainer .24324 1.94173 .999

LNT Workshop

Master Educator -1.35626 1.95170 .899

No LNT Training 8.55036* .91683 .000

Workshop -.24324 1.94173 .999

LNT Trainer

Master Educator -1.59949 .94509 .329

No LNT Training 10.14985* .93777 .000

Workshop 1.35626 1.95170 .899

LNT Master Educator

Trainer 1.59949 .94509 .329

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Behavioral Attributes. Results for behavioral beliefs and behavioral attitudes were

similar in terms of statistically significant differences in scores (see Tables 7 and 8);

scores between those with no Leave No Trace training were significantly different than

all levels of training, however the different levels show no significant difference.

59

Table 8

ANOVA Results of Behavioral Belief Scores

LNT Level (I) LNT Level (J) Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Workshop -1.81346* .50317 .002

Trainer -1.27796* .23802 .000

No Training

Master Educator -1.22190* .24346 .000

No Training 1.81346* .50317 .002

Trainer .53551 .50410 .713

Workshop

Master Educator .59157 .50669 .648

No Training 1.27796* .23802 .000

Workshop -.53551 .50410 .713

Trainer


No Training 1.22190* .24346 .000

Workshop -.59157 .50669 .648

Master Educator

Trainer -.05606 .24536 .996


60

Table 9

ANOVA Results of Behavioral Attitude Scores


Workshop -2.21038* .42655 .000

Trainer -2.35072* .20177 .000

No Training

Master Educator -2.31183* .20638 .000

No Training 2.21038* .42655 .000

Trainer -.14034 .42733 .988

Workshop

Master Educator -.10145 .42952 .995

No Training 2.35072* .20177 .000

Workshop .14034 .42733 .988

Trainer


No Training 2.31183* .20638 .000

Workshop .10145 .42952 .995

Master Educator

Trainer -.03889 .20799 .998


61

Figure 6. Mean Behavior Belief ERB Predictor Scale Scores by Leave No Trace Level.

(No Leave No Trace Training = 14.84; Leave No Trace Workshop = 16.65; Leave No

Trace Trainer = 16.1; Leave No Trace Master Educator = 16.06)

* Scores calculated by adding each item score for BQ2, BQ4, and BQ5. The highest

possible score is 18.

Normative Attributes. When comparing results of normative belief questions,

statistically significant differences in score among groups was observed between those

with no Leave No Trace training and Trainers and Master Educators, but not between

those with no training and workshop participants. Also, there was no significant

difference in score between workshop participants, Trainers and Master Educators. In

terms of subjective norm scores, there was a significant difference in scores between

workshop participants and those with no training, but not between the varying levels of

Leave No Trace training (see Tables 9 and 10).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


62

Table 10

ANOVA Results of Normative Belief Scores


Workshop .48060 .51264 .785

Trainer .72939* .24250 .015

No Training

Master Educator .66979* .24803 .036

No Training -.48060 .51264 .785

Trainer .24879 .51358 .963

Workshop


No Training -.72939* .24250 .015

Workshop -.24879 .51358 .963

Trainer


No Training -.66979* .24803 .036

Workshop -.18920 .51621 .983

Master Educator

Trainer .05960 .24997 .995


Table 11

ANOVA Results of Subjective Norm Scores

63


Workshop -1.93291* .52705 .002

Trainer -1.86649* .24931 .000

No Training

Master Educator -2.62356* .25501 .000

No Training 1.93291* .52705 .002

Trainer .06643 .52802 .999

Workshop


No Training 1.86649* .24931 .000

Workshop -.06643 .52802 .999

Trainer

Master Educator -.75707* .25700 .018

No Training 2.62356* .25501 .000

Workshop .69065 .53073 .562

Master Educator

Trainer .75707* .25700 .018


Those with no training exhibited the highest mean score of normative beliefs,

while Master Educators held the highest mean score for subjective norm. See Figure 5 for

more detailed information. This interesting trend will be discussed in further detail in

Chapter 5.

64

Figure 7. Mean Normative Belief ERB Predictor Scale Scores by Leave No Trace Level.

(No Leave No Trace Training = 13.78; Leave No Trace Workshop = 13.30; Leave No

Trace Trainer = 13.05; Leave No Trace Master Educator = 13.12)

* Scores calculated by adding each item score for NQ1, NQ5, and NQ6. The highest

possible score is 18.

Control Attributes. The only statistically significant difference among Trainers

and Master Educators was found in self-efficacy scores. There was still a significant

difference in scores between those with no training and all levels of training, but there

was no significant difference in score between workshop participants and Master

Educators. Furthermore, the only significant difference in controllability scores was

found between those with no training and Trainers or Master Educators, but not between

those with no training and workshop participants. See Tables 11 and 12 for more detailed

information. Master Educators exhibited the highest scores overall in terms of both self-

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


65

efficacy and controllability (16.06 and 14.81). Those with no training exhibited lowest

scores in terms of both self-efficacy and controllability (13.66 and 12.54). This

significant difference in self-efficacy scores between Trainers and Master Educators is

interesting, especially in that it is the only significant difference that was found between

Trainer and Master Educator scores.

66

Table 12

ANOVA Results of Self-Efficacy Scores


Workshop -2.08322* .42617 .000

Trainer -1.81631* .20159 .000

No Training

Master Educator -2.40469* .20620 .000

No Training 2.08322* .42617 .000

Trainer .26691 .42695 .924

Workshop


No Training 1.81631* .20159 .000

Workshop -.26691 .42695 .924

Trainer

Master Educator -.58838* .20781 .025

No Training 2.40469* .20620 .000

Workshop .32148 .42914 .877

Master Educator

Trainer .58838* .20781 .025


67

Table 13

ANOVA Results of Controllability Scores


Workshop -1.23422 .56129 .125

Trainer -1.96828* .26551 .000

No Training

Master Educator -2.25767* .27157 .000

No Training 1.23422 .56129 .125

Trainer -.73406 .56232 .560

Workshop

Master Educator -1.02345 .56520 .269

No Training 1.96828* .26551 .000

Workshop .73406 .56232 .560

Trainer


No Training 2.25767* .27157 .000

Workshop 1.02345 .56520 .269

Master Educator

Trainer .28939 .27369 .716


Results of ANOVA analyses indicate that although the difference in score

between those with no Leave No Trace training and all three levels of Leave No Trace

trainings was statistically significant, the differences in score among the various levels

was not significant. It was expected that there would be no significant difference between

68

Trainer and Master Educator scores, but there would be a statistically significant

difference between workshop participants and Trainers and/or Master Educators. Due to

the in-depth nature of Trainer and Master Educator courses and the corresponding

mastery involved, one would expect little to no difference in the scores of the two groups.

Even though there was no significant difference associated with varying levels of

training, there was a significant difference in the overall scores of those with Leave No

Trace training and those without, with Leave No Trace participants exhibiting higher

ERB Predictor Scale scores as predicted.

When each construct was measured separately, more interesting patterns emerged.

The most interesting trend occurred in normative belief scores. This score was the only

one measured in which those with Leave No Trace training exhibited lower scores than

those with no training at all. The questions included in this attribute were:

• NQ1: What my friends think is important to me.

• NQ5: My family’s opinions are not important to me.

• NQ6: I put emphasis on what my circle of friends and family believe.

This construct measures the strength of influence of peers on individual beliefs as

opposed the actual belief an individual possesses. The subjective norm measures the

positive or negative attitude toward a given behavior; these scores showed that those with

some level of Leave No Trace training exhibit a more positive attitude toward

environmental behavior as prescribed by their peers or significant others. While this is to

be expected, since theoretically, those who engage in training like Leave No Trace are in

closer contact with those who also exhibit environmentally responsible behavior, it is

69

curious that these same groups claim to put less emphasis on the beliefs of those around

them.

Intentions

Section 5 of the survey asked respondents to mark each behavior they intend to do

in the next 6 months. While this list was by no means exhaustive, it contained both

general and specific behaviors, as well as some that are available to nearly all the general

public and others that are only possible for a select few. The number of behaviors marked

by respondents was tabulated and used to represent intentions. See Table 19 for a

breakdown of inventory responses.

Interestingly, the number of behaviors marked by each group actually decreased

with each step up in training, as was indicated by the correlations in Table 13. Those with

no Leave No Trace training marked a mean of 16 behaviors; workshop participants

marked 12 behaviors; Trainers marked a mean of 10 behaviors, and Master Educators

marked mean of 9 behaviors. This is not what one would expect to see, however, there

are two possible explanations. One is that this reflects a more realistic vision of intended

behaviors as Leave No Trace training increases. Another is that there was some confusion

on whether the respondents were to mark all behaviors they intend to do, or only new

behaviors they intend to do. From comments the researcher received, most respondents

who expressed this confusion were either Trainers or Master Educators, although this fact

is purely anecdotal.

70

Table 14

Behavioral Inventory Results

Answer Options Response

Count Response Percent

Recycle 554 99.80%

Turn water off when not in use 549 98.90%

Reduce 535 96.40%

Reuse 535 96.40%

Buy less, or only what you need 485 87.50%

Buy local food & products 462 83.20%

Buy reusable instead of disposable 460 82.90%

Bike, walk, or carpool 434 78.20%

Talk to others about the environment 416 74.90%

Set thermostat or purchase programmable thermostat to reduce energy use 384 69.10%

Buy used instead of new 368 66.30%

Use CFLs or other energy saving devices 366 65.90%

Avoid using pesticides on my landscaping/garden 336 60.50%

Buy organic food & products 314 56.60%

Vote for environmentally friendly politicians 313 56.40%

71

Table 14 (continued)

Compost 307 55.30%

Volunteer for environmental causes 301 54.20%

Use a water-saving showerhead/low flow toilet 284 51.20%

Use non-petroleum derived, non-toxic cleaning substances 269 48.50%

Read environmentally themed books 258 46.50%

Air-dry my laundry 241 43.40%

Landscape yard to provide/increase wildlife habitat 231 41.60%

Donate to environmental causes 226 40.70%

Take an environmentally themed class/training program/certification 190 34.20%

Write to my congressmen about environmental issues 109 20.00%

Use a rainwater collection barrel 110 19.80%

Other 65 11.70%

Use solar panels, wind turbine, or other alternative energy source 59 10.60%

Linear Regression

Linear regression was conducted to determine the relationship between ERB

Predictor Scale scores and Leave No Trace Training. First, correlations were calculated to

determine what correlation exists (Table 13). Pearson’s correlation (r =.433; p value =

.000) indicated a moderate positive relationship between level of Leave No Trace training

72

and ERBP Score. Furthermore, the B coefficient of 3.453 compared to the standard error

of .306 indicates that Leave No Trace training explains 10 times the variability than the

standard error. The equation established by coefficient B and its constant is: ERB

Predictor Scale Score = 77.76 +3.45(Level of Leave No Trace). According to confidence

intervals of 95%, one can expect the ERB Predictor Scale Score to increase by 2.85 to

4.05 points with each level of Leave No Trace training.

This simple linear regression analysis showed that there is a moderate positive

correlation between ERB Predictor Scale Score and level of Leave No Trace training. In

fact, according to the coefficient of determination (r2 = .188), 18.8% of the variation in

ERB Predictor Scale scores can be attributed to varying levels of Leave No Trace

training. With 95% confidence, one can expect the ERB Predictor Scale Score to increase

by 2.85 to 4.05 points with each level of Leave No Trace training. This indicates that

there are certainly other factors at play, however Leave No Trace does have an impact on

scores, and presumably the likelihood that someone will engage in Environmentally

responsible behaviors. Analyzing separate data of those who are newer to the Leave No

Trace programs or who have just been introduced to the concepts of Leave No Trace may

reveal a higher correlation.

Using nested models, further regressions illuminated the role that Leave No Trace

and other factors play in an individual’s intentions, as tabulated from the behavior

inventory in Section 5 of the survey. In the first set of nested models, level of Leave No

Trace is included in Model 2 (see Tables 15 and 16). The following nested models did

not use varying levels of Leave No Trace, only whether the respondent had participated

73

in any level of Leave No Trace or not (see Tables 17, 18, 19 and 20). Thus, in Table 14

below, “LNT Training” indicates those who have completed any level of Leave No Trace

training.

These correlations indicate that level of Leave No Trace training has strong

positive correlations with age and education (r = .448 and r = .614 respectively), a weak

positive correlation with sex (r =.161), and strong negative correlation with intentions (r

= -.505). This implies that as levels of Leave No Trace increase, participants are likely to

be older and have higher levels of education, are slightly more likely to be male, and are

less likely to express environmentally responsible intentions, as previously mentioned.

74

Table 15

Nested Model Correlations

Intentions LNT Training

ERBP Score

Age Sex

Pearson Correlation 1 -.505** -.577** -.284** -.008

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .857

Intentions

N 553 552 553 552 548

Pearson Correlation -.505** 1 .448** .614** .161**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

LNT Training

N 552 554 554 553 549

Pearson Correlation -.577** .448** 1 .303** -.057

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .180

ERBP Score

N

553 554 555 554 550

Pearson Correlation -.284** .614** .303** 1 .225**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

Age

N 552 553 554 554 549

Pearson Correlation -.008 .161** -.057 .225** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .857 .000 .180 .000

Sex

N 548 549 550 549 550

75

Table 15 (continued)

Pearson Correlation -.193** .319** .145** .177** .070

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .000 .103

Education

N 552 553 554 553 549

Pearson Correlation -.568** .416** .838** .259** -.064

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .133

Behavioral Attributes

N 553 554 555 554 550

Pearson Correlation -.282** .189** .729** .103* -.012

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .015 .788

Normative Attributes

N 553 554 555 554 550

Pearson Correlation -.522** .453** .830** .352** -.059

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .170

Control Attributes

N 553 554 555 554 550

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

In the first nested model regression, run on both data sets combined, the

dependent variable was intentions. Model 1 consisted of Leave No Trace training, and

Model 2 consisted of age, sex, and education. Models 3, 4, and 5 consist of normative

attributes, behavioral attributes, and control attributes respectively. Results showed that

76

level of Leave No Trace training accounts for just over 25% of variation in intentions.

Furthermore, a large coefficient (B = -5.876) compared to the standard error (SE = .428)

reiterates that level of Leave No Trace has a strong negative relationship with intentions,

explaining over ten times the variability in the sample than random chance or error.

Nested regression models were also run on the two data sets separately: those

with Leave No Trace training and those without. For tables 16 and 17, the dependent

variable is intentions, where Model 1 consists of age, sex, and education and Models 2, 3

and 4 consist of normative attributes, behavioral attributes, and control attributes

respectively. When comparing the two, it seems that demographic variables account for

1% of the variability in Leave No Trace participants, but 5% of those with no training.

Overall, these 4 models account for almost 25% of variation in intentions among Leave

No Trace participants, and almost 23% of variation in those with no training. It seems

that in the case of those with Leave No Trace training, demographic variables like age,

sex, and education and normative attributes do less to explain variation than in those with

no training at all. It also seems that behavioral beliefs and attitudes explain a great deal in

the intentions of Leave No Trace participants.

Leave No Trace training is highly significant, even taking into account all other

demographic variables and various attributes. In fact, when looking at those with training

and those without combined, Leave No Trace training is the only demographic variable

that is significant in predicting intentions, although the relationship between the two is

negative. When the two data sets are examined separately, age, sex, and education still do

77

not significantly predict intentions, although they do explain more variation in intentions

in those with no training than those with any level of Leave No Trace training.

Normative attributes, in all sets of regression models, are initially significant in

predicting intentions. However, this significance disappears once behavioral and control

beliefs are accounted for. Behavioral and control beliefs are both significant in predicting

intentions and are negatively associated, indicating that higher behavioral and control

attribute scores correlate with lower levels of intentions. Normative attributes are also

negatively associated, except in those with Leave No Trace training as examined

separately, and only when behavioral and control attributes are included. This supports

the idea that for those with Leave No Trace training, normative beliefs play a much

smaller role in their behavioral intentions overall.

However the absence of significance associated with normative attributes across

all 3 nested models suggests that normative attributes play a smaller role overall than

both behavioral and control attributes. In other words, the opinions of friends and family

are not as important in an individual’s behavioral intentions as behavioral and control

attributes. Of course, normative attributes can also affect behavioral beliefs and attitudes,

and because all of these constructs are self-reported, the level of self-awareness an

individual possesses about how their peers truly affect their behavior and associated

beliefs and attitudes is difficult, if not impossible, to separate and assess.

78

Table 16

Intentions Regression

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Variable

Intercept 16.124*** 14.852*** 21.130*** 32.313*** 34.782***

LNT Training -5.876*** -6.244*** -5.832*** -4.273*** -3.802***

Age .164 .151 .169 .252

Sex .838 .753 .217 .010

Education -.069 -.075 -.053 -.054

Normative Attrib. .242*** -.058 -.013

Behavioral Attrib. -.518*** -.415***

Control Attrib. -.247***

R2 25.6% 27.2% 29.9% 40.1% 42.3%

Adjusted R2 .254 .266 .292 .401 .415

n = 554 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

79

Table 17

Intentions Regression (Leave No Trace Training)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variable

Intercept 8.774*** 14.152*** 30.158*** 33.211***

Age .263 .244 .192 .288

Sex .486 .514 .048 -.100

Education -.045 -.048 -.028 .030

Normative Attrib. -.239*** -.043 .016

Behavioral Attrib. -.607*** -.499***

Control Attrib. -.275***

R2 1.1% 4.6% 21.0% 24.5%

Adjusted R2 .003 .037 .199 .232

n = 368 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

80

Table 18

Intentions Regression (No Leave No Trace Training)


Variable

Intercept 16.314*** 23.540*** 31.465*** 33.749***

Age -.351 -.273 .110 .114

Sex 1.763 1.436 .756 .458

Education -.666 -.823 -.791 -.721

Normative Attrib. -.255 -.080 -.058

Behavioral Attrib. -.414*** -.319**

Control Attrib. -.207

R2 5.0% 9.0% 20.5% 22.7%

Adjusted R2 .033 .069 .183 .201

n = 168 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Nested models were also used to determine the strength of the relationship

between control attributes, or perceived behavioral control, in all respondents, Leave No

Trace participants, and those with no training. In the case of all respondents, Model 1 was

Leave No Trace training and Model 2 was age, sex, and education. Models 3 and 4 were

normative attributes, and behavioral attributes respectively. Regression results indicated

that just over 20% of the variability in control attributes can be explained by level of

81

Leave No Trace. Additionally, the results showed a very high coefficient (B = 4.149)

compared to the standard error (SE = .347), indicating that level of Leave No Trace

training accounts for over 10 times the variation in the sample as standard error. This

high percentage and B coefficient shows that Leave No Trace training does indeed affect

an individual’s Perceived Behavioral Control, and to quite a large extent.

Again, nested regressions were run on the those with any level of Leave No

Trace training and those without training separately. For tables 19 and 20, the dependent

variable is control attributes, where Model 1 consists of age, sex, and education and

Models 2 and 3 consist of normative attributes and behavioral attributes respectively. In

Leave No Trace participants, age, sex, and education only accounted for slightly over 2%

of the variation in control attributes, while those same variables explain 10% of variation

in those with no training. Furthermore, all 3 models, demographics, normative attributes,

and behavioral attributes, accounted for over 24% of variation in Leave No Trace

participants, and just over 35% for those without Leave No Trace training.

When predicting perceived behavioral control (PBC), or control attributes, Leave

No Trace training, age, and sex were significant. Leave No Trace training and age were

positively correlated, indicating that increases in all also meant increases in level of

perceived behavioral control. Similarly, higher scores on normative and belief attributes

sections generally meant higher perceived behavioral control, and significantly so.

Conversely, sex was negatively correlated, indicating that females, coded as 1, exhibited

higher levels of perceived behavioral control than males, coded as 2.

82

Although education was not a significant predictor in any of the regression models, it is

noteworthy that it had a negative association with perceived behavioral control overall, in

that higher levels of education meant lower perceived behavioral control scores. This

held true for the entire data set (both those with training and those without), and for those

with Leave No Trace training separately, but not for those with no training, for whom

higher education levels meant higher perceived behavioral control.

When the data sets were analyzed separately, sex became an important predictor.

In those with Leave No Training, females still exhibited higher levels of perceived

behavioral control, although sex was not a significant predictor. However, in those with

no training at all, sex was a significant predictor, with females continuing to exhibit

higher levels of perceived behavioral control.

83

Table 19

Control Attributes Regression


Variable

Intercept 26.204 27.570 19.108 10.101

LNT Training 4.149** 3.725** 3.178** 1.759**

Age .333** .352*** .387**

Sex -1.384*** 1.282*** -1.087***

Education .007 -.014 -.004

Normative Attrib. .329*** .180***

Belief Attrib. .417***

R2 20.5% 24.4% 32.5% 43.3%

Adjusted R2 .204 .239 .319 .427

n = 554 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

84

Table 20

Control Attributes Regression (Leave No Trace Participants)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable

Intercept 30.551*** 21.611*** 11.587***

Age .290 .317** .350*

Sex -.797 -.856 -.555

Education .001 -.014 -.008

Normative Attributes .335*** .210***

Behavioral Attributes .391***

R2 2.1% 13.8% 24.7%

Adjusted R2 .013 .123 .237

N = 368 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

85

Table 21

Control Attributes Regression (No Leave No Trace Training)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable

Intercept 28.367*** 19.891*** 11.108***

Age .534 .447 .006

Sex -2.588*** -2.201*** -1.459**

Education .188 .372 .340

Normative Attributes .298*** .105

Behavioral Attributes .460***

R2 10.1% 17.1% 35.2%

Adjusted R2 .086 .153 .334

n = 168 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Overall, it seems that Leave No Trace accounts for a fairly large part of variation

within the data collected. While the relationship between intentions and Leave No Trace

is curious, it is still clear that a relationship does exist between Leave No Trace training

and intentions as well as ERB Predictor score and Perceived Behavioral Control.

86

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Leave No Trace curriculum is focused solely on conveying information

related to reducing the impact of backcountry recreation. While the limited scope of this

curriculum has certainly contributed to the spread and success of the Leave No Trace

message, the question of the program’s ability to transcend the backcountry is of great

interest. It stands to be reiterated that the intent of this study was in no way to encourage

Leave No Trace to alter its curriculum or focus in any way, or suggest changes, but rather

to evaluate the current program or idea of Leave No Trace as it exists. The notion of

expanding the current curriculum to address everyday behaviors is of great interest in

research and dialogue, and certainly will be of great debate in the years to come.

Discussion

1. Is the ERB Predictor Scale a reliable tool?

Reliability analysis of the scale by each sub-domain revealed a Cronbach’s alpha

of .719, an acceptable measure of internal reliability. Deletion of either the behavioral

attribute or normative attribute section would bring Cronbach’s alpha down to about .54

and .59 respectively, while deletion of control attributes would raise the Cronbach’s alpha

by .17. While this is not enough to consider dropping the section altogether, it does

indicate that perhaps this section deserves a second look before the scale is implemented

again. This is supported by EFA results, which indicated that two control attribute items,

both designed to address self-efficacy, did not load on any of the five factors extracted

and rotated.

87

Factor analysis further indicates that the scale seems to address each of the 3 sub-

domains fairly well, as the three strongest factors extracted represent each of the three

sub-domains (behavioral, normative, and control attributes). However, this analysis also

provided some room for improvement. While it seems that the scale measures

controllability and behavioral belief effectively, with all items loaded onto one stable

factor, it scale does not seem to address self-efficacy, as indicated by those items not

loading onto any factors. These items (BQ6, CQ1, and CQ4) are ones that should perhaps

be reevaluated before the scale is implemented again.

Based on the results of reliability and factor analysis, the scale seems to be

moderately reliable, and with the suggested changes, implementation, and further

revision, this reliability can be improved even further.

2. Do higher levels of Leave No Trace training correspond with higher ERB

scores?

Results of ANOVA analyses indicate that although the difference in score

between those with no Leave No Trace training and all three levels of Leave No Trace

trainings was statistically significant, the differences in score among the various levels

was not. It was expected that there would be no significant difference between Trainer

and Master Educator scores, but there would be a statistically significant difference

between workshop participants and Trainers or Master Educators. This may be due to the

low response rate of workshop participants; additionally, those workshop who did

respond are likely those who had the most invested in the program or who got the most

88

out of it, so scores could be slightly inflated from this group. Due to the in-depth nature

of Trainer and Master Educator courses and the corresponding mastery involved, one

would expect little to no difference in the scores of the two groups. Even though there

was no significant difference associated with varying levels of training, there was a

significant difference in the overall scores of those with Leave No Trace training and

those without, with Leave No Trace participants exhibiting higher ERB Predictor Scale

scores as predicted.

When each construct was measured separately, more interesting patterns emerged.

The most interesting trend occurred in normative belief scores. This score was the only

one measured in which those with Leave No Trace training exhibited lower scores than

those with no Leave No Trace training. At first glance it is curious that Trainers and

Master Educators seem to put less emphasis on the beliefs of those around them,

however, they also tend to be the oldest and most educated groups; therefore, it can be

surmised that their beliefs and attitudes are already well-conceptualized, and the opinions

of others will have a smaller effect on their own beliefs and attitudes. In this case, the

effect of age and education level is clearly at play, in addition to Leave No Trace training.

Behavioral beliefs, defined as those an individual holds with regard to the

consequences of a given behavior and the probability that a given behavior can affect

change, were significantly higher in workshop participants than those with no training.

This is to be expected, as, in accordance with the Hines et al. (1986) model of ERB,

increased knowledge of environmental issues can affect beliefs, although it does not

necessarily increase intention. However, it is also interesting to note that although the

89

differences in mean scores for Trainers and Master Educators were not necessarily

statistically significant, they were actually lower than the mean score of workshop

participants. This could be attributed, again, to the low turnout of workshop participants

and the likelihood that those who did respond are those who gained the most out of the

experience. It could also be picking up on another interesting phenomenon. Because

environmental issues are extremely complex and exceedingly large, more knowledge can

sometimes lead to a drop in an individual’s feeling that a given behavior is effective. This

is not to be confused with an individual’s feeling that they themselves are capable of

change, but rather that the behavior itself is ineffective, not that they themselves are

incapable. For example, recycling is arguably one of the most common environmental

behaviors. Certainly it is much better the recycle a plastic bottle or aluminum can than to

throw it away, however, as one learns more about the process of recycling, it becomes

apparent that recycling has it limits and may not be as effective as one had originally

thought. While this new knowledge may not stop an individual from recycling, it could

have an impact on their belief that it is an effective way to reduce resource use.

Linear regression analysis showed that level of Leave No Trace training

accounted for a rather large amount of the variability in ERB Predictor Scale scores. This

indicates that there are certainly other factors at play, but also that Leave No Trace may

indeed have a measurable impact on ERB. More detailed regressions indicated that there

was also a relationship between taking any Leave No Trace course and both intentions

and control attributes (see Research Question 3 below).

90

3. To what extent do Leave No Trace Principles apply to environmentally

responsible decision making in everyday life?

While ANOVA results showed that there were statistically significant differences

between those with training and those without in terms of ERB Predictor Scores, linear

regression uncovered a negative correlation between Leave No Trace training and

behavioral intentions; this, however, is a curious outcome, possibly due either to

confusion about the survey or indicative of a sense of realism on the part of older, more

educated Trainers and Master Educators, or a sense of inflated intentions and naïveté on

the part of those with no training, who happen to be younger and less educated. At this

time, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of the relationship between Leave No Trace

training and everyday behavior. Further clarification of the scale and survey will be able

to elucidate this relationship and determine how to control for the sense of realism or

naïveté in the sample.

4. Do those with higher levels of Leave No Trace training also exhibit higher

Perceived Behavioral Control with regard to everyday environmental behavior?

ANOVA results of the total ERB Predictor Scale score did not indicate significant

differences over all among varying levels of Leave No Trace training. However, the only

statistically significant difference between Trainers (mean score =15.47) and Master

Educator (mean score = 16.06) scores occurred in self-efficacy. This, perhaps, is due to

the more in-depth nature of the 5-day field-based Master Educator course, although it

could also be indicative of a generally older, more educated, and more experienced

population. However, there was no significant difference in scores between workshop

91

participants and Master Educators, with the workshop participants exhibiting a higher

mean score than the Trainer group. This could also be attributed to the poor response rate

of workshop participants.

Regression results indicated that Leave No Trace programs explained over 20%

of the variation in control attributes among all respondents independently of age, sex, and

education, and had a moderately strong correlation. This supports the ANOVA results

that indicated that higher levels of Leave No Trace training do indeed result in higher

feelings of self-efficacy with regard to environmental behavior. Additionally, Leave No

Trace was a significant predictor in Perceived Behavioral Control when accounting for

other demographic variables and attributes. Interestingly, however, increasing levels of

education in those with Leave No Trace training resulted in lower feelings of perceived

behavioral control; this, again, could be touching on an element of realism in

environmental behavior that increases with more knowledge of general environmental

issues.

In summary, this study showed moderate to strong correlations between Leave No

Trace training of any level and ERB Predictor Scores, Intentions, and self-efficacy. While

it did not capture significant difference between levels of Leave No Trace outside of self-

efficacy, it did show that Leave No Trace programs have the potential to affect change in

everyday behavior in addition to backcountry behavior. Although the data collected on

intentions in this study were not entirely helpful or useful in answering to what extent

Leave No Trace applies to everyday life, it is clear that a relationship exists, and future

research can clarify the survey in order to capture a more clear picture on whether this

92

was anomaly, or whether age, education, and Leave No Trace training instill a sense of

realism in an individual’s perception of behavioral intentions. Regardless, this study

affirms that there is indeed a relationship between Leave No Trace principles and

everyday environmental behavior.

Limitations

The primary intent of this study is to serve as a pilot study for the

Environmentally Responsible Behavior Predictor Scale (ERB Predictor Scale); as such,

the actual scores reported by the four groups may not be statistically reliable. However,

the researcher still holds that the information gained about Leave No Trace will add to

the literature and provide a good base for further study in this line of research. In the

future, pre/post/follow-up studies using the ERB Predictor Scale could provide a clearer

picture of the factors at play in Leave No Trace programming and elucidate confounding

factors. Limitations for this study are:

1. Only Ohio University students in those classrooms chosen were able to

participate.

2. Researchers were not present at the time of administering to field questions or

provide instruction; however, the primary investigator was be available via e-

mail to answer potential questions.

3. Survey fatigue could have affect responses.

4. All behavior beliefs, attitudes, and intentions were self-reported.

5. The response rate for Leave No Trace workshop participants was very low.

6. Confusion in the intentions sections of the survey may have led to misleading

93

data.

7. Because many participants have registered for the Leave No Trace training of

their own volition, the scores reported may not necessarily reflect the training

itself in isolation, but other compounding variables in the individuals’ lives.

Nested regression models helped to reduce this to a certain extent, but

certainly not fully.

Because the primary intent of this study was to serve as a pilot study for the

Environmentally Responsible Behavior Predictor Scale, the actual scores reported by the

four groups may not be statistically reliable; with this in mind, the researcher still holds

that the information gained about Leave No Trace will provide a good base for further

study in this line of research. Additionally, the results cannot answer questions related to

the impact of Leave No Trace training on everyday environmental behavior. Use of

Exploratory Factor Analysis, by its very nature, did not provide confirmatory results.

EFA results are notoriously subject to heavy interpretation by the researcher, especially

those obtained by Principal Axis Factoring. Because of this, these results are exploratory

only, however they did help to elucidate the underlying factors of the survey items, as

previously discussed. Further studies using various types of extraction and rotation or

Confirmatory Factor Analysis can further describe the factors involved in Leave No

Trace and every day environmental behavior.

The lack of response on the part of Awareness workshop participants and the

small sample size of the group made it difficult to accurately compare it to the other

groups. This response was a surprise to the researcher, who had expected the smallest

94

turn-out from Master Educators; generally speaking, Master Educators comprise the

smallest group overall of those with Leave No Trace training, with only 2500 worldwide.

However, Master Educators represented almost 30% of the sample. Additionally, all

respondents with no Leave No Trace training were students at Ohio University; a more

diverse baseline group will assist in providing a more thorough and representative picture

in the future.

The behavioral inventory in Section 7 of the survey also raised some concern.

There seemed to be some confusion as to whether the section intended for the

respondents to mark all behaviors in which they intend to engage, or only new behaviors

they plan to add to their current behaviors; this could explain why intentions seem to

decrease with increasing level of Leave No Trace training. The list provided is by no

means comprehensive, as listing every environmentally responsible behavior is difficult,

if not impossible. Furthermore, some behaviors that are deemed “responsible” by one

individual may not be considered “responsible” according to another individual’s

environmental beliefs.

Additionally, the behavioral inventory portion of the survey requested a self-

report of the respondents’ behaviors, which, in accordance with TPB, does not

necessarily equate to actual behavior. In order to gain a clearer picture of changes in

behavior, a follow up study in conjunction with a pre-course study could be beneficial;

additionally, long-term behavior logs, much like food or waste logs, could allow for more

detailed analysis pre- and post- Leave No Trace course, as well as follow-up.

95

Recommendations for Future Research

While this study did not necessarily provide a full answer with regard to the

applicability of Leave No Trace to everyday life, it provides a solid starting point from

which future research can choose from many opportunities to follow. Multiple

possibilities can be explored in order to elucidate the factors and variables at play in the

relationship between Leave No Trace principles and daily life. Further administrations of

the survey to a wider variety of individuals will also assist in refining the scale itself and

eliminating redundancy within the tool, and clarification of the intentions section should

clear up confusion, allowing a more clear story of the relationship between Leave No

Trace training and behavioral intentions to surface.

In order to replicate the study to further elucidate factors involved in the

application of Leave No Trace to everyday behavior, three items (BQ1, CQ4, CQ6) will

be revised. Also, the intentions section will be revised to include scalar responses rather

than a yes-no dichotomy. This will provide a more complete continuum of behavior for

each activity listed and a better spectrum of environmental behavioral intentions.

Respondents will be asked to mark how frequently they intend to engage in the listed

behaviors in the next 6 months, where 1 = Never, 2 = Very Rarely, 3 = Rarely, 4 =

Occasionally, 5 = Frequently, and 6 = Very Frequently. The revised survey will be

administered to the general population at Ohio University, to catch any glaring issues

before being administered again to Leave No Trace participants.

A summary of the findings of this study will be sent to Leave No Trace and with

their permission, the next study will move forward. Another important factor to address is

96

the response rate of workshop participants. Seeking the advice of Leave No Trace on this

is key, and with their suggestions, hopefully this response can be increased. A question

regarding the duration of the workshop will be included for these participants; because

the format for workshops is not as consistent from course to course, as it is with Trainer

and Master Educator training, this will provide a more detailed picture of Leave No Trace

workshops and their ability to affect behavioral change. Of course, the quality of

instruction also varies from course to course, across all levels of training, but cannot be

controlled for and should not pose significant issues.

Once the internal and external reliability of the scale is stable, the researcher

hopes that the scale can be administered to each level of training before, after, and 6

months following their course, in order to more precisely capture the effect of Leave No

Trace on their everyday behavior. Additionally, the effect of Leave No Trace can be

difficult to extrapolate out of individuals who have been involved in outdoor recreation

for many years and have been attuned to environmental issues. For this reason, another

demographic variable will be included to ascertain the years of outdoor recreation

experience a respondent possesses. By comparing the effect of a Leave No Trace on new

outdoor recreationalists and veteran outdoorsmen and women, this next study can provide

a clear picture on who is most affected by Leave No Trace programs.

An entire set of qualitative data on the applicability of Leave No Trace principles

was obtained through this study that was not analyzed. As an ongoing project, this data

will be analyzed to gain insight on what principles may be most applicable to everyday

behavior, and to gain an overall picture on how Leave No Trace participants have used

97

their Leave No Trace education to increase other behaviors, if at all. Once this data is

analyzed, and missing factors and further questions are identified, the researcher will

proceed with other qualitative methods accordingly.

Another interesting avenue for future study involves a closer look at the

curriculum of each level of Leave No Trace training. Analysis of these curricula and their

specific learning outcomes, objectives, teaching methods, and philosophical

underpinnings could shed light on what aspects of daily life the programs are most likely

to influence behavior, both in the backcountry and every day life.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl &

J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11- 39).

Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the

theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Baer, D.J., Smoking attitude, behavior, and beliefs of college males. Journal of Social

Psychology. 68: 65-78.

Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A

new meta-analysis and psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental

behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27. 14-25.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-212.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the

generality of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Theory and Research, 4, 39-66.

99

Bechtel, R.B. (1997). Environment & Behavior: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications, 107-127.

Boerschig, S. & DeYoung, R. (1993). Evaluation of selected recycling curricula.

Educating the green citizen. The Journal of Environmental Education, 24(3). 17-

22.

Bogner, F.X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-

term variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental

Education, 29(4), 17-29.

Bruner, J.S., (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64, 123-152.

Caltabiano, N. J., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1995). Assessing environmentally responsible

behaviour. Psychological Reports, 76(3), 1080.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and

applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98- 104.

Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis:

Four recommendations for getting the most out of your analysis. Practical

Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.

Cottrell, S. P. (2003). Influence of sociodemograhics and environmental attitudes on

general responsible environmental behavior among recreational

boaters. Environment & Behavior, 35(3), 347.

100

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

Daniels, M.L., & Marion, J.L. (2005). Communicating Leave No Trace ethics and

practices: Efficacy of two-day trainer courses. Journal and Park and Recreation

Administration, (23)4. 1-19.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

De Young, R. (2000). Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible

behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 509-526.

Dunlap, R.E., & Van Liere, K.D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm.” Journal of

Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An

introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Foresta, R.A. (1985). America's National Parks and Their Keepers. Washington:

Resources for the Future.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

101

Gotch, C. & Hall, T., (2004). Understanding nature-related behaviors among children

through a Theory of Reasoned Action approach. Environmental Education

Research: 10(2). 157-177.

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of

research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Environmental Education, 18(2),1.

Hungerford, H.R., & Volk, T.L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through

environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.

Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory

statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Hwang, Y.H., Kim, S. & Jeng, J. (2000). Examining the causal relationships among

selected antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. The Journal of

Environmental Education, 31(4), 19-25.

Iwata, O. (2001). Attitudinal determinants of environmentally responsible behavior.

Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 29(2), 183.

Leave No Trace About Us. (n.d.). Mission Statement. Retrieved on October 12, 2009

from http://www.lnt.org/aboutUs/index.php

Leave No Trace About Us. (n.d.). Sustainability Ethos. Retrieved on October 12, 2009

102

from http://www.lnt.org/aboutUs/sustainability.php

Leave No Trace Programs (n.d.). Principles. Retrieved on October 12, 2009 from

http://www.lnt.org/programs/principles.php

Leave No Trace Training. (n.d.). Training. Retrieved on October 12, 2009 from

http://www.lnt.org/training/index.php

Ledesma, R.D. & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the Number of Factors to Retain

in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out Parallel Analysis.

Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12(2).

Lewis, M. (2007). American wilderness: A new history. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. 6-10, 35-51.

Madden, T.J., Ellen P.S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the Theory of Planned

Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned

Action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 3-9.

Marion, J. L., & Reid, S. E. (2001). Development of the United States Leave No Trace

programme: A historical perspective. In: Usher, M.B. (ed.), Enjoyment and

Understanding of the Natural Heritage. Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh: The

Stationery Office Ltd., Scotland. 81-92.

Marion, J.L., & Reid, S.E. (2007). Minimizing visitor impacts to protected areas: The

efficacy of low impact education programmes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,

103

15(1).

Martin, B., Cashel, C., Wagstaff, M., & Breunig, M. (2006). Outdoor leadership: Theory

and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Matre, S. (1990). Earth education: A new beginning. Greenville, WV: Institute for Earth

Education. 317 pp.

Metzger, T., & McEwen, D. (1999). Measurement of environmental sensitivity. The

Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 38-39.

Mobley, C., Vagias, W. M., & DeWard, S. L. (2010). Exploring additional determinants

of environmentally responsible behavior: The influence of environmental

literature and environmental attitudes. Environment & Behavior, 42(4), 420-447.

Nash, R. (1967) Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S., & Johnston, M. (1991). A comparison of two models for the

prediction of violitional and goal-directed behaviors: a confirmatory analysis

approach, Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 87-100.

Newhouse, N. (1990) Implication of attitude and behavior research for environmental

conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26-32.

Oskamp, S. (2002). Environmentally responsible behavior: Teaching and promoting it

effectively. Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy, 2(1), 173-182.

Priest, S. & Gass, M. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

104

Schwenk, G. & Moser, G. (2008). Intention & behavior: a Bayesian meta-analysis with

focus on the Ajzen-Fishbein model in the field of environmental behavior. Qual

Quant, 43, 743-755.

Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N., (1985). Selected predictors of

responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. Journal of Environmental

Education, 17(2), 31.

Siemer, W. F., & Knuth, B. A. (2001). Effects of fishing education programs on

antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental

Education, 32(4), 23.

Simon, G.L., & Alagona, P.S. (2009). Beyond Leave No Trace. Ethics, Place &

Environment, 12(1), 17-34.

Sivek, D. J., & Hungerford, H. (1989) Predictors of responsible behavior in three

Wisconsin conservation organizations. The Journal of Environmental Education,

17(2), 31-40.

Smith-Sebasto, N., & D'Acosta, A. (1995). Designing a likert-type scale to predict

environmentally responsible behavior in undergraduate students: A multistep

process. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 14.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Tarrant, M. A., & Green, G.T. (1999). Outdoor recreation and the predictive validity of

105

environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 21, 17-30.

Thøgersen, J. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended

taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 247-261.

Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding

concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Van Horn, P. (2009). Towards true sustainability: Overcoming the effects of

consumerism in the outdoor field, part III. Journal of the Wilderness Education

Association, 21.

Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1999). A value-attitude-behavior model predicting

wildland preservations voting intentions. Society & Natural Resources, 12(6),

523.

Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible

behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16.

Worthington, R.L., & Whittaker, T.A. (2006). Scale development research: A content

analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist,

34. 806-838.

Zelezny, L.C. (1999). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A

meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 5-14.

106

Zinbarg, R., Yovel, I., Revelle, W. & McDonald, R. (2006). Estimating generalizability

to a universe of indicators that all have an attribute in common: A comparison of

estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 121-144.

Zint, M., Kraemer, A., Northway, H., & Lim, M. (2002). Evaluation of the Chesapeake

Bay Foundation’s conservation education programs. Conservation Biology, 16,

641-649.

APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR

PREDICTOR SCALE SURVEY

Section 1: Informed Consent

Ohio University Consent Form

Title of Research: Environmentally Responsible Behavior and Leave No Trace

Researchers: Janene Giuseffi, Graduate Student; Dr. Bruce Martin, Assistant Professor.

You are being asked to participate in research. For you to be able to decide whether you

want to participate in this project, you should understand what the project is about, as

well as the possible risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision. This

process is known as informed consent. This form describes the purpose, procedures,

possible benefits, and risks. It also explains how your personal information will be used

and protected. Once you have read this form and your questions about the study are

answered, you may continue on to complete the survey. This will allow your participation

in this study.

Explanation of Study:

This study is being done because environmentally responsible behavior is still not well

understood, and the ability to predict and explain behavior that reduces environmental

impacts can help to educate the public more appropriately on how their behavior can help

to restore and protect the environment.

108

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to answer an on-line survey. The questions

will address various aspects of your every-day environmental behavior, and any Leave

No Trace training you may have taken. If you have not taken any Leave No Trace

courses, you can answer all other questions, and simply skip Section 6, moving straight

on to Section 7.

Your participation in the study will last approximately 20-40 minutes.

Risks and Discomforts:

No risks or discomforts are anticipated.

Benefits:

This study will enrich previous research on environmental behavior and contribute new

information that could help organizations, educators, and others to improve their

programs. You may not benefit, personally by participating in this study.

Confidentiality and Records:

Your study information will be kept confidential and you will not be asked for any

identifying information such as name or contact information.

Additionally, while every effort will be made to keep your study-related information

109

confidential, there may be circumstances where this information must be shared with:

• Federal agencies, for example the Office of Human Research Protections, whose

responsibility is to protect human subjects in research;

• Representatives of Ohio University (OU), including the Institutional Review Board, a

committee that oversees the research at OU

Contact Information:

If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact Janene Giuseffi

([email protected]) or Bruce Martin ([email protected]).

If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact

Jo Ellen Sherow, Director of Research Compliance, Ohio University, (740)593-0664.

Section 1: Informed Consent

By clicking the button below marked "Yes, I agree to participate in this study" you are

agreeing that:

• you have read this consent form (or it has been read to you) and have been given the

opportunity to ask questions and have them answered

• you have been informed of potential risks and they have been explained to your

satisfaction.

• you understand Ohio University has no funds set aside for any injuries you might

receive as a result of participating in this study

110

• you are 18 years of age or older

• your participation in this research is completely voluntary

• you may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop participating in the study,

there will be no penalty to you and you will not lose any benefits to which you are

otherwise entitled.

Section 2: Behavioral Attributes

Mark the response that most accurately reflects you.

(1 = Strongly Disagree, 6 = Strongly Agree)

1. Conserving resources and reducing negative environmental impacts is important.

2. Using alternative transportation helps to conserve resources and minimize negative

impacts on the environment.

3. Responsible environmental behavior is not important.

4. Reducing waste contributes to minimizing environmental problems.

5. Using fewer resources puts less of a strain on the environment.

6. The environment is of high priority in my day-to-day behavior.

Section 3: Normative Attributes



1. What my friends think is important to me.

111

2. Minimizing environmental impacts is important to my family.

3. Turning off unused lights is not something that those around me do or thinks is

important.

4. Resource conservation is important to my friends.

5. My family’s opinions are not important to me.

6. I put emphasis on what my circle of friends and family believe.

Section 4: Control Attributes



1. I have the ability to make responsible environmental decisions.

2. I am knowledgeable about environmental impacts and how to mitigate them.

3. Stopping environmental degradation is out of my hands.

4. I don’t think I know enough about environmental issues to reduce my resource use

effectively.

5. My environmental behavior contributes to fixing environmental problems.

6. It is not within my power to reduce the amount of natural resources used.

Section 5: Intentions

Indicate behaviors that you intend to pursue in the next year. Mark all that apply.

I intend to…

Reduce

112

Reuse

Recycle

Compost

Use CFLs or other energy saving devices

Use solar panels, wind turbine, or other alternative energy sources

Set thermostat or purchase programmable thermostat to reduce energy use

Air-dry my laundry

Turn water off when not in use

Use a rainwater collection barrel

Use a water-saving showerhead/low flow toilet or other water saving technique

Purchase non-petroleum derived, non-toxic cleaning substances

Bike, walk, or carpool

Buy used instead of new

Buy reusable instead of disposable

Avoid using pesticides on my landscaping/garden

Landscape yard to provide/increase wildlife habitat

Buy less, or only what you need

Buy local food & products

Buy organic food & products

Take an environmentally themed class/training program/certification

Read environmentally themed books

Talk to others about the environment

113

Volunteer for environmental causes

Donate to environmental causes

Vote for environmentally friendly politicians

Write to your congressmen about environmental issues

Other

Section 6: Leave No Trace

Answer the following questions to the best as thoroughly as possible.

1. Do you feel that the Leave No Trace principles can be applied to environmentally

responsible behaviors in your everyday life? Explain.

2. Which of the 7 principles do you feel most directly apply to everyday living and

why?

3. Have you noticed an increase in everyday environmental behaviors since

completing your Leave No Trace training? Please elaborate.

4. Do you feel more confident in your knowledge of environmental issues after your

Leave No Trace course?

114

5. Do you feel more capable of acting in ways that reduce negative environmental

impacts and conserve resources, not only in the wilderness, but in everyday life as

well?

6. Do you intend to engage in other behaviors in the future based on your Leave No

Trace experience?

7. Did your Leave No Trace experience inspire you to learn more about

environmental issues not related to recreation impacts?

Section 7: Demographic Information

1. Gender:

• Man

• Woman

• Other

2. Age:

• 10 – 19

• 20 – 29

• 30 – 39

• 40 – 49

• 50 – 59

115

• 60 or above

3. City/State of Residence:

4. Level of Leave No Trace Training:

• None

• Awareness Workshop

• Leave No Trace Trainer

• Leave No Trace Master Educator

5. Leave No Trace Course Location:

6. Highest Level of Education Completed:

• Some High School

• High School Diploma or Equivalent

• Some College

• Associate or Bachelor Degree

• Some Graduate School

• Graduate Degree

116

APPENDIX B: LEAVE NO TRACE LETTER OF SUPPORT

117

APPENDIX C: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL FORM

Environmentally Responsible Behavior and the Application of ...

Documents

Transcript of Environmentally Responsible Behavior and the Application of ...