Wildlife-Related Recreation, Meaning, and Environmental Concern

259

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6:259–276, 2001Copyright © 2001 Taylor & Francis1087-1209 /01 $12.00 + .00

This paper was made possible by funding from the North Central Research Station of the USDAForest Service; joint venture agreement 23-97-35-RJVA.

Address correspondence to Alan D. Bright, Department of Natural Resource Recreation & Tour-ism, Colorado State University, Forestry Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523. E-mail:[email protected]

Wildlife-Related Recreation, Meaning,and Environmental Concern

ALAN D. BRIGHT

Colorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado, USA

ROB PORTER

Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale, Illionois, USA

It has been suggested that participating in outdoor recreation exposes peopleto environmental degradation and increases their concern about such deg-radation on a broader scale. However, research has not supported a strongconnection between outdoor recreation participation and environmentalconcern. Focusing on wildlife-related recreation, we hypothesized that themeaning of an activity to an individual would mediate the relationship be-tween participation and environmental concern. A mail-back survey of hunt-ing and fishing license holders in Washington (n = 602) was used. Usingstructural modeling, we compared a model of a direct relationship betweenwildlife-related recreation participation and environmental concern with twomodels where the meaning of wildlife-related recreation fully and partiallymediated the participation/environmental concern relationship. Full media-tion was supported for bow hunting, fly-fishing, and wildlife and nature view-ing, and partial mediation was supported for artificial lure and bait fishing.No mediation occurred for firearm hunting. Given the questionable fit ofmost models tested, the actual relationship between recreation participa-tion and environmental concern may be more complex than previous re-search has suggested. Continued research on the role of activity meaning ininfluencing the participation/concern relationship, while also exploring therole of other personal and social factors, should be conducted.

Keywords Environmental concern, mediation, wildlife-related recreationmeaning, wildlife-related recreation participation

260 A. D. Bright and R. Porter

Introduction

A factor that may influence a person’s concern for the environment is participa-tion in outdoor recreation. Participating in outdoor recreation exposes people tospecific instances of environmental degradation where they recreate and increasestheir concern about such degradation on a broader scale. Although this appearsintuitive, research has been mixed. Dunlap and Heffernan (1975) assessed theenvironmental concern of participants in consumptive and nonconsumptive ac-tivities and found a stronger association between environmental concern andnonconsumptive activities than consumptive activities. Jackson (1986) found thatoutdoor recreationists who engaged in appreciative recreational activities hadhigher proenvironmental attitudes than did those who chose consumptive activi-ties. However, none of the correlations reported were particularly large. Jacksondid find that recreation participation was related more strongly to attitudes towardprotection of the resources necessary for engaging in the activity than generalenvironmental attitudes, concluding that people chose activities that were consis-tent with their attitude toward those resources. Theodori, Luloff, and Willits (1998)found a positive relationship between proenvironmental behavior and outdoorrecreation activity, even when controlling for demographic characteristics. Theyfound, however, that appreciative users did not exhibit more proenvironmentalbehavior than consumptive users.

Other research has found little connection between participation in outdoorrecreation and environmental concern (Geisler, Martinson, & Wilkening, 1977;Van Liere & Noe, 1981). Pinhey and Grimes (1979) noted that although partici-pants in outdoor recreation activities exhibited slightly more concern than non-participants, they failed to support the notion that participants in nonconsumptive/appreciative outdoor activities were more concerned for the environment thanparticipants in consumptive activities.

Two factors explain the ambiguous results of research on the connectionbetween outdoor recreation participation and environmental concern. First, thedistinction between appreciative and consumptive behaviors may be inappropri-ate as many activities contain behaviors relating to both spheres of activity (Geisleret al., 1977), making an appreciative-consumptive typology inadequate for under-standing environmental concern (Theodori et al., 1988). Second, previous studiesfocused on a direct relationship between activity participation and environmentalconcern without considering what that activity means to individuals. Researchthat has examined the nature of outdoor recreation has evolved from analyzingthe activities that individuals engage in to examining the underlying meaningsthose activities hold for people, often operationalized as the experiences that peopleseek from outdoor recreation participation. Given that the same activity may meansomething different for two individuals, it is reasonable to suspect that differ-ences in meaning may explain the ambiguous findings regarding the direct rela-tionship between outdoor recreation and environmental attitudes. Geisler et al.(1977) concluded, “that it may be individual characteristics rather than recre-

261Participation, Meaning, and Environmental Concern

ational habits which account for most of the environmental concern . . . ” (p. 247).Van Liere and Noe (1981) postulated that social factors arising from specializa-tion in an activity lead a user from consumptive to appreciative behavior and“give an activity meaning” (p. 513, emphasis added).

Study Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was not to replicate previous research that examined thestrength of the relationship between outdoor recreation participation and environ-mental concern. Rather, focusing on wildlife-related recreation, we examined theextent to which the meaning of a recreation activity provides a better explanationor prediction of environmental concern than participation. We hypothesized thatthe direct relationship between wildlife-related recreation participation and envi-ronmental concern will be completely mediated by the meaning of the recreationto an individual.

MethodsQuestionnaire Administration and Sampling

A mail-back questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 1,000 applicants for1998 hunting and fishing licenses in the state of Washington, selected from recordsheld at the Washington Department of Fish and Game. After 10 days, a reminderpostcard was sent to nonrespondents, followed 10 days later by a second ques-tionnaire mailing. Of the 1,000 questionnaires mailed, 72 were undeliverable and602 were completed and returned (64.9% return rate). Phone contact of 30nonrespondents found no significant difference in participation in wildlife-relatedrecreation between respondents and nonrespondents.

Questionnaire Development

The questionnaire measured participation in wildlife-related outdoor recreationactivities that were important to respondents, the meaning of those activities tothe individual, and environmental concern.

Wildlife-Related Recreation Participation. Respondents indicated whetherthey had participated in each of 12 wildlife-related recreation activities at leastonce within the past 3 years using a binary scale (0 = didn’t participate, 1 = par-ticipated). Respondents then indicated the activities (up to 3) that were most im-portant to them. After identifying the wildlife-related recreation activities mostimportant to them, respondents’ indicated their experience history by estimatinghow long (in years) they had been participating in each important activity andhow often (times per year).

Wildlife-Related Recreation Meaning. Wildlife-related recreation meaningwas operationalized as experience preferences. Respondents were asked to think


about the important recreation activities already identified and indicate how im-portant each of 45 recreation experiences was to them when participating in thoseactivities. Selection of the items was based on the meta-analysis conducted byManfredo, Driver, and Tarrant (1996). A 5-point unipolar importance scale wasused for each item.

Environmental Concern. The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP; Dunlap, VanLiere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000) was used as a single-factor measure of environmen-tal concern. Respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreedwith 15 NEP items using a 7-point Likert scale. Individual items of the NEP werecoded such that high scores on the latent variable represented a biocentric focusof environmental concern, and low scores represented an anthropocentric focus.

Analyses

Developing Study Indices. Past studies have shown that subjectively group-ing wildlife-related recreation activities based on the consumptive/nonconsumptivedichotomy is too broad to allow for differentiation in behavior between the twotypes, and may be conceptually inappropriate (Geisler, Martinson, & Wilkening,1977; Pinhey & Grimes, 1979; Van Liere & Noe, 1981). Therefore, prior to ad-dressing the study objectives, the principal component method of factor analysisand Varimax rotation was applied to responses related to participation in the 12wildlife-related recreation activities. This was done to identify a smaller numberof activity categories and to determine if categories other than the consumptive/nonconsumptive dichotomy were appropriate within the sample. Respondents werethen placed into these activity categories based on the activities they identified asmost important to them. For example, if rifle hunting for small game was identi-fied by the individual as one of the three most important activities to them, theyreceived a score of “1” for the firearm hunting category. If not, they received ascore of “0”. Depending on his or her report of important activities, an individualcould receive a score of “1” for one to three activity categories. To compute recre-ation participation, responses to the two experience history questions were stan-dardized and the mean of the two items was calculated. The mean was multipliedby the dichotomous (0 or 1) participation variable, creating a wildlife-related rec-reation participation factor that varied according to an individual’s reported expe-rience in that activity category.

The internal consistency of the items making up the experience preferencedomains (Manfredo et al., 1996) was examined using Cronbach’s alpha for do-mains with three or more items and Pearson’s correlation for domains with onlytwo items. Respondents’ score on each domain was the mean of the items makingup that domain and represented the various aspects of meaning that the activityheld for the participant. Confirmatory factor analysis of the NEP tested a single-factor environmental concern model.


Hypothesis Testing. Mediation analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986) was con-ducted to examine the extent to which the meaning of wildlife-related recreationmediates the direct relationship between participation and environmental con-cern. Structural equation analysis using Amos 3.6 (Arbuckle, 1997) tested formediation by examining three conditions (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The first condi-tion is that a direct relationship exists between the predictor variable (wildlife-related recreation participation) and the criterion variable (environmental con-cern). The second condition is that a direct relationship exists between the predictorvariable and the mediating variable (wildlife-related recreation meaning). Theseconditions were analyzed using a direct-effects model positing a direct relation-ship between the predictor variable and both the criterion and mediating variablesbut constraints in the relationship between the mediator and criterion to zero. Inthe third condition, removing the constraints between the mediator and the crite-rion variable results in the direct effect of the predictor on the criterion falling tozero (full mediation model). Comparing the direct effects and full mediation modelsusing the change in chi-square statistics indicates if the full mediation model fitsbetter than the direct effects model. It is possible that allowing the mediatingvariables to effect the criterion variable may not completely mediate the relation-ship between the predictor and the criterion. A partial mediation model, positinga direct relationship between the predictor and both the mediator and criterion,while allowing the mediator to effect the criterion at the same time, was comparedto the best of the direct effects and full mediation models to determine if onlypartial mediation occurred. Figure 1 presents the three models that describe therelationships among the three latent variables of interest in this study.

Results

Developing Study Indices

Table 1 shows results of factor analyses for wildlife-related recreation participa-tion. Five factors were revealed: Firearm Hunting, Bow Hunting, Fly-Fishing ,Artificial Lure and Bait Fishing, and Wildlife and Nature Viewing.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the NEP scale (Table 2) and a measure ofinternal consistency supported the single factor solution (c2/df = 4.191; GFI =.917; Cronbach’s a = .83). Therefore, a single-factor solution describing a con-tinuum from a biocentric focus of the environment to an anthropocentric focuswas appropriate.

Table 3 presents the internal consistency, mean, and standard deviation ofitems in the experience preference domains. All domains with greater than threeitems, including Achievement/Stimulation , Autonomy/Leadership , Learning, andEscape Personal/Social Pressure had adequate internal consistency withCronbach’s alphas > .747. All 2-item indices were deemed to have adequate cor-relation between the two items, with r > .627.


FIGURE 1 Direct effects, full mediation, and partial mediation models used toexamine the mediation effects of meaning on the recreation participation/envi-ronmental concern relationship.

Identifying Potential Mediators

Prior to hypothesis testing, partial correlations between experience preferencedomains (recreation meaning) and participation in wildlife-related recreation wereconducted. Experience domains significantly correlated with a recreation activitycategory were considered potential mediators of recreation activity/environmen-tal concern relationships and used in hypothesis testing. Firearm Hunting wascorrelated with Achievement/Stimulation, Autonomy/Leadership, Equipment, Fam-ily Togetherness, Similar People, Nostalgia, and Teaching/Leading Others. BowHunting was correlated with Achievement/Stimulation, Autonomy/Leadership ,Equipment, Learning, and Teaching/Leading Others. Fly-Fishing was significantly


related to Equipment, Enjoying Nature, and Teaching/Leading Others. ArtificialLure and Bait Fishing was significantly related to Family Togetherness and Simi-lar People. Finally, Wildlife and Nature Viewing was significantly related to En-joying Nature and Physical Fitness.

Hypothesis Testing

Table 5 presents the comparison of the direct effects, full mediation, and partialmediation models for the wildlife-related recreation activities. The study hypoth-esis predicted that the direct relationship between wildlife-related recreation par-ticipation and environmental concern would be completely mediated by wildlife-related recreation meaning. In terms of the structural analysis, this suggests thatthe data would best fit the full mediation model for each wildlife-related recre-ation activity. Figure 2 presents path coefficients for the models that representedthe best fit of data for each activity.

Firearm Hunting. For firearm hunting, the data fit the full mediation modelsignificantly better than the direct effects model (DX2 = 37.30; p < .005). How-ever, data fit the partial mediation model significantly better than the full media-tion model (DX2 = 14.29; p < .005). Because the meaning of firearm hunting didnot fully mediate the participation/ environmental concern relationship, the hy-pothesis was rejected for this activity. According to the partial mediation model,

TABLE 1 Factor Analysis of Wildlife-Related Activities

Wildlife-related outdoor recreation factor

Artificial Wildlifelure and

Firearm Bow Fly and bait natureOutdoor recreation activity hunting hunting fishing fishing viewing

Rifle hunting–large game .848 .044 –.013 –.061 –.009Rifle hunting–small game .824 .063 –.017 –.012 .003Hunting birds–fowl .752 .085 .142 .003 .047Bow hunting–large game .135 .830 .023 –.031 –.007Bow hunting–small game .026 .853 –.007 –.033 .029Fly-fishing –.040 –.005 .767 –.278 .179Artificial lure/bait fishing .105 .075 –.076 .720 .164Outdoor photography –.121 .027 .212 –.099 .704Auto sightseeing –.057 –.115 –.126 .086 .665Wildlife viewing .217 .152 .009 .084 .686

Note: Principle component extraction with Varimax rotation was used.Underlined items represent activity loading strongest on the factor.


hunting for achievement/stimulation, using one’s equipment, and nostalgia werepositively related to a biocentric focus of environmental concern (Figure 2). How-ever, participating in this activity for autonomy/leadership and being with similarpeople was related to an anthropocentric perception of the environment. Partici-pation in firearm hunting was related to an anthropocentric view of the environ-ment. Fit indices (GFI < .900; c2/df > 5.00) suggested that none of the models forfirearm hunting represented a strong fit of the data (Table 5).

TABLE 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis on New Ecological Paradigm

Standardized regressionweights

New ecological paradigm item Environmental concern

Despite our special abilities, humans are still subjectto the laws of nature. .559

Humans are severely abusing the environment. .661If things continue on their present course, we will

soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. .632Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. .609The balance of nature is delicate and easily upset. .632The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room

for resources. .573We are approaching the limit of the number of people

that the earth can support. .423When humans interfere with nature, it often produces

disastrous consequences. .503Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the

earth unlivable. .401Humans have the right to modify the natural environment

to suit their needs.1 .538Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.1 .413Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature

works to be able to control it.1 .499The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the

impacts of modern industrial nations.1 .613The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learned

how to develop them.1 .405The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has

been greatly exaggerated.1 .7091 These items were reverse-coded to insure that high scores on the latent variable repre-sent a biocentric view of the environment, whereas lower scores represent an anthropo-centric view. Confirmatory analysis (using Amos 3.6) found the single factor structure tobe a good fit of the data (X2/df = 4.19; GFI = .917; Cronbach’s a = .83).


TABLE 3 Internal Consistency of Experience Preference Domains

Experience preference domain/item Internal consistency1 Mean2 SD

Achievement/Stimulation a = .792Gaining a sense of self-confidence 3.38 1.24Showing others I can do it 2.07 1.18Developing skills and abilities 3.50 1.17Testing skills and abilities 3.07 1.21Telling others about the trip 2.51 1.04Experiencing excitement 3.49 1.15

Autonomy/Leadership a = .790Feeling independent 3.63 1.19Free to make my own choices 3.91 1.15Being in control of things 3.64 1.16

Risk-Taking r = .862Taking chances 1.63 1.06Taking risks 1.64 1.03

Equipment r = .714Talking to others about my equipment 1.91 1.05Using my equipment 3.07 1.20

Family Togetherness r = .772Doing something with my family 4.05 1.10Bringing my family closer together 4.00 1.15

Similar People r = .769Being with friends 3.72 1.05Being with others who enjoy the same 3.64 1.07

things I doNew People r = .655

Being with and observing other people 2.54 1.21using the area

Meeting new people 2.55 1.13Learning a = .747

Learning about things that are in the area 3.76 0.97Experiencing new things 3.61 1.03Learning about nature 3.58 1.05

Enjoy Nature r = .699Viewing the scenic beauty 4.28 0.83Enjoying the smells and sounds of nature 3.94 0.99

Introspection r = .627Thinking about who I am 3.01 1.32Growing spiritually 3.21 1.33


Bow Hunting. Data fit the full mediation model significantly better for bowhunting than the direct effects model (DX2 = 57.68; p < .005). Also, the partialmediation model was not a significant improvement over the full mediation model(DX2 = 2.38; p = .203). Because the full mediation model was superior to thedirect effects model, and the partial model was not superior to the full mediationmodel, the study hypothesis was supported for the bow-hunting category. Thestrongest predictor of environmental concern by bow hunters was the extent towhich they participated for learning experiences, which was positively related toa biocentric view. Participation for achievement/stimulation and autonomy/lead-ership were related to an anthropocentric view of the environment (Figure 2).Similar to firearm hunting, fit indices suggested that the data was not an accept-able fit (GFI < .90, c2/df > 5.0) of any of the models (Table 5).

Nostalgia r = .714Thinking about good times I have had 3.37 1.14

in the pastBringing back pleasant memories 3.66 1.05

Physical Fitness r = .788Getting exercise 3.67 1.06Keeping physically fit 3.63 1.06

Physical Rest r = .774Resting physically 3.22 1.22Relaxing physically 3.39 1.11

Escape Personal/Social Pressures a = .829Getting away from other people 3.14 1.25Getting away from the demands of life 3.64 1.19Experiencing tranquility 3.55 1.17Experiencing the open space 3.83 1.02Getting away from the noise back home 3.50 1.31

Social Security r = .722Being near considerate people 3.27 1.21Being with respectful people 3.49 1.20

Risk Reduction r = .643Being with others if I need them 2.88 1.17Being sure of what will happen to me 2.79 1.26

1For indices with 3 or more items, internal consistency was computed using Cronbach’salpha. For indices with 2 items, Pearson’s correlation was computed.2 The scale for these items was 1 = “not at all important,” 2 = “slightly important,” 3 =“moderately important,” 4 = “very important,” 5 = “extremely important.”

TABLE 3 Continued

Experience preference domain/item Internal consistency1 Mean2 SD


Fly Fishing. For fly-fishing, data fit the full mediation model significantlybetter than the direct effects model (DX2 = 43.49; p < .005). The partial mediationmodel was not an improvement over the full mediation model (DX2 = 0.00; p =.999). Therefore, the study hypothesis was supported for fly-fishing. The fullmediation model showed that enjoying nature in this activity was positively re-lated to a biocentric view of the environment as was, to a much lesser degree,using one’s equipment (Figure 2). Teaching/leading others showed a small rela-tionship with an anthropocentric view. Fit indices showed a much more favorablefit of all three models than for firearm and bow-hunting with GFI indices near.900 and c2/df < 5.0 (table 5).

Artificial Lure and Bait Fishing. Neither the full mediation model (DX2 =5.22; p = .656) nor the partial mediation model (DX2 = 5.27; p = .521) was a betterfit of the data than the direct effects model. Thus, the study hypothesis was not

TABLE 4 Partial Correlations between Wildlife-Related Recreation Categoryand Experience Preferences

Wildlife-related outdoor recreation category

Artificial Wildlifelure and and

Experience Firearm Bow Fly- bait naturepreference domain hunting hunting fishing fishing viewing

Achievement/stimulation .103* .145* .059 –.027 .012Autonomy/leadership .112* .099* .069 .039 –.006Risk taking –.007 .035 .025 -.039 –.029Equipment .098* .139* .110* .014 .037Family togetherness .099* –.017 .065 .105* –.006Similar people .096* .010 –.045 .125* .007New people .028 .020 .008 –.071 –.032Learning –.029 .098* .053 –.042 .038Enjoy nature –.039 .051 .102* –.067 .090*Introspection –.083 .054 .028 .072 .057Nostalgia .094* .055 .060 .012 .048Physical fitness .040 .010 .027 –.032 .093*Physical rest –.015 –.046 –.022 .031 –.024Escape personal pressure –.071 .007 –.057 –.075 –.011Escape physical pressures –.053 .072 –.008 –.065 –.001Social security .006 .024 .060 –.012 .046Risk reduction .018 .059 .008 .061 –.021Teaching-leading others .107* .104* .148* .016 .004

* Partial correlations were statistically significant at p < .05.

270

TA

BL

E 5

Com

pari

son

of M

edia

tion

Mod

els

Mod

el c

ompa

riso

ns (

Dc2 ;

p)

Goo

dnes

s of

fit

Wil

dlif

e-re

late

d ac

tivit

yC

ompa

riso

n 11

Com

pari

son

22G

FIR

MR

dfc2

c2 / d

f

Fire

arm

Hun

ting

Mod

els

37.3

0; p

< .0

0514

.29;

p <

.005

Dir

ect e

ffec

ts.7

34.1

9523

714

81.9

16.

25Fu

ll m

edia

tion

.741

.194

224

1443

.61

6.45

Part

ial m

edia

tion

.742

.192

223

1429

.32

6.41

Bow

Hun

ting

57.6

8; p

< .0

052.

38; p

= .2

03D

irec

t eff

ects

.751

.203

194

1337

.54

6.90

Full

med

iati

on.7

59.2

0118

512

79.8

66.

92Pa

rtia

l med

iatio

n.7

60.2

0118

412

77.4

86.

94Fl

y-F

ishi

ng43

.49;

p <

.005

0.00

; p =

.999

Dir

ect e

ffec

ts.8

57.2

0615

569

0.65

4.45

Full

med

iati

on.8

64.2

0115

064

7.16

4.31

Part

ial m

edia

tion

.864

.201

149

647.

164.

34A

rtif

icia

l Lur

e an

d B

ait F

ishi

ng5.

22; p

= .6

565.

27; p

= .5

21D

irec

t eff

ects

.881

.209

138

527.

043.

85Fu

ll m

edia

tion

.882

.209

134

521.

823.

89Pa

rtia

l med

iatio

n.8

82.2

0913

352

1.77

3.93

Wil

dlif

e an

d N

atur

e V

iew

ing

32.2

1; p

< .0

050.

02; p

= .9

50D

irec

t eff

ects

.868

.216

137

600.

524.

38Fu

ll m

edia

tion

.874

.209

134

568.

294.

24Pa

rtia

l med

iatio

n.8

74.2

0913

356

8.27

4.27

1 Com

pari

son

1 w

as a

com

pari

son

of th

e di

rect

eff

ects

mod

el a

nd t

he f

ull m

edia

tion

mod

el. T

he c

hang

e in

c2 r

epre

sent

s th

e di

rect

eff

ects

c2

min

us th

e fu

ll m

edia

tion

c2 .

2 Com

pari

son

2 w

as a

com

pari

son

of th

e pa

rtia

l med

iati

on m

odel

and

the

mod

el f

ound

to b

e su

peri

or in

com

pari

son

1. F

or fi

rear

m h

unti

ng, b

ow h

unti

ng, f

ly-f

ishi

ng, a

nd w

ildl

ife

and

natu

re v

iew

ing

this

repr

esen

ted

a co

mpa

riso

n of

the

full

med

iati

on w

ith

the

part

ial m

edia

tion

mod

els.

For

art

ific

ial l

ure

and

bait

fish

ing,

this

was

a c

ompa

riso

n of

the

dire

ct e

ffec

ts a

ndpa

rtia

l med

iati

on m

odel

s. T

he c

hang

e in

c2 r

epre

sent

s th

e di

rect

eff

ects

or

full

med

iati

on c

2 min

us th

e pa

rtia

l med

iati

on c

2 .


supported for artificial lure and bait fishing. According to the direct effects model,participation in artificial lure and bait fishing was related to an anthropocentricview of the environment (Figure 2). Similar to fly-fishing, GFI and c2/df statisticssuggested data that approached acceptable fit of all three models (Table 5).

Wildlife and Nature Viewing. Data fit the full mediation model significantlybetter than the direct effects model (DX2 = 32.21; p < .005). The partial mediation

FIGURE 2 Best fit models of the relationships among wildlife-related recre-ation participation, meaning, and environmental concern. (continued on next page)


model was not a significant improvement over the full mediation model (DX2 =0.02; p = .950). The study hypothesis was supported for wildlife and nature view-ing. Enjoying wildlife and nature viewing was positively related to a biocentricview of environmental concern (Figure 2). Data approached acceptable fit for allthree structural models (Table 5).

Discussion

Previous research has suggested a relationship between participation in outdoorrecreation and environmental concern (Dunlap & Heffernan, 1975; Geisler et al.,

FIGURE 2 (Continued) Best fit models of the relationships among wildlife-re-lated recreation participation, meaning, and environmental concern.


1977; Jackson, 1987; Pinhey & Grimes, 1979; Theodori et al., 1998). This con-nection has not been strong, suggesting additional factors be considered tostrengthen our understanding of the relationship. This study supported the notionthat the meaning of wildlife-related recreation is more predictive of environmen-tal concern than measures of participation.

Model Comparison

For three of the five recreation activity categories (bow hunting, fly-fishing, andwildlife and nature viewing), full mediation of the relationship between activityparticipation and environmental concern was supported. This supported our no-tion that rather than focusing on what activities an individual participates in whentrying to identify their level of environmental concern, the meaning of that activ-ity is a superior predictor of perceptions of environmental concern. Also, for theseactivities, the partial mediation model was not a better fit than the more parsimo-nious full mediation model, suggesting that for bow hunting, fly-fishing, and wild-life and nature viewing, considering direct measures of participation is not help-ful in explaining a biocentric/anthropocentric view of the environment.

For firearm hunting, a mediating model was superior to considering onlyparticipation; however, knowledge of participation level in the activity still pro-vided information about a biocentric/anthropocentric view of the environment.More specifically, participation in firearm hunting was directly related to an an-thropocentric view of the environment, controlling for several dimensions of ac-tivity meaning.

Results of artificial lure and bait fishing supported the traditional view thatparticipation in an activity was the most direct predictor of environmental con-cern, being related to an anthropocentric view of the environment. However, therelatively small direct relationship between participation in this activity and envi-ronmental concern supported previous research that suggested this relationshipwas not particularly strong.

The Effects of Meaning on Environmental Concern

In addition to examining the direct effects, full mediation, and partial mediationmodels for best fit, it is instructive to examine what meaning factors were directlyconnected with a particular view of the environment. Participating in wildlife-related recreation for experiences such as being with family and/or similar peopleis consistent with an anthropocentric view of the environment. Participating inactivities in order to be able to make decisions and guide/teach others appears tobe connected to an anthropocentric view of the environment as well. Closer ex-amination of these meaning domains suggests a social or interactive componentto meaning, where the enjoyment of the outdoors is a means to a broader end ofbeing with and responsible for other people one might be recreating with. On theother hand, recreating for the purposes of learning about and enjoying nature,


experiencing new things, and using equipment were primarily connected to abiocentric view of the environment. These motivations might be viewed as “self”-related factors that are more closely aligned with the requirements of and aspectsof the natural environment in which the activity takes place. In fact, Jackson (1986)suggested that a person’s perception or concern for the natural environment mightbe most closely connected to the type of resource in which a favorite activitytakes place.

Whereas most meaning factors were directly related to a view of the envi-ronment regardless of the activity they were connected to, this was not the casefor all recreation meaning domains. The connection between achievement/stimu-lation with environmental concern depended on the activity one is engaged in.For firearm hunters, participation for the purpose of achievement and stimulationwas connected to a biocentric view of the environment. On the other hand, thesame motivation for, or meaning of, bow hunting was connected to an anthropo-centric view of the environment.

Conclusion

General support for the mediation models (with the exception of firearm hunting)suggests that one can derive more information about an individual’s environmen-tal concern from what wildlife-recreation activities mean to him or her, than justthat they participate in an activity. For example, people who engage in fly-fishingto teach others about the sport may hold quite different environmental attitudesthan someone who fly-fishes primarily to enjoy nature.

An important question raised by this study is “what is the real relationshipbetween outdoor recreation and environmental concern?” Although this studyprovides interesting insight into what connection may exist between wildlife-re-lated recreation and environmental concern, the results placed doubt on the ten-ability of models that are limited to use of recreation patterns as predictors ofenvironmental concern. Although the full mediation models were better fits thanthe direct effects models, the data did not fit the theoretical models well. All mod-els for firearm and bow hunting had a c2/df statistic greater than 5.0, the highestthreshold for acceptable models provided in the literature (Arbuckle, 1997; Byrne,1989; Carmines & McIver, 1981; Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, & Summers, 1977).In addition, none of the goodness-of-fit indices reached was high enough to sug-gest good model fits (GFI > .90). In addition to the doubtful fit of the models, thecoefficients measuring the strength of the relationship between participation,meaning, and environmental concern were moderate at best, and often quite weak.

That the theoretical models were questionable fits of the data emphasizes thenotion that factors beyond an individual’s leisure repertoire impact their environ-mental concern. Perhaps concern for the health of areas specific to outdoor recre-ation would be better connected with participation in outdoor recreation than gen-eral environmental concern. Jackson (1986) proposed this when he suggested that


participation in an outdoor activity was connected with a concern for the resourceon which that activity depends. However, that some models were acceptable fitsof the data given the study parameters lends credence to some type of significantoutdoor recreation connection with environmental concern.

A second question raised by this study is “what is meant by the meaning ofwildlife-related recreation activities?” We used recreation experience preferencesas the sole measure of that meaning. It is reasonable to suspect that many otherfactors might be construed as components of recreation meaning. For example,one’s socialization into the activity, connection to a specific resource, social normsrelated to partners in an outdoor activity, among others, may shed additional lighton the meaning and the connection between one’s outdoor recreation repertoireand concern for the environment in which that repertoire is based.

In conclusion, much work is needed to better understand the relationshipbetween participation in outdoor recreation and environmental concern. One keyissue not addressed by this study is the direction of causality between outdoorrecreation participation and meaning and environmental concern. Whether par-ticipation in and meaning of outdoor recreation contributes to the development ofan environmental ethic or whether possession of an environmental ethic drives aninterest in recreating outdoors is a question requiring more complex experimentaldesigns. It is likely that support for both directions would be found.

Note

1. Researchers have recommended several levels of the c2/df statistic as indicatingacceptable fit of a model to the data. Wheaton, Muthen, Alwin, and Summers (1977)suggested a ratio of 5 or lower as beginning to be acceptable, whereas others suggestmaximum values of 2 or 3 should be expected for acceptable fit (Byrne, 1989; Carmines& McIver, 1981).

References

Arbuckle, J. R. (1997). Amos Users’ Guide Version 3.6. Chicago: SmallWaters Corp.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for con-firmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. InG. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Dunlap, R. E., & Heffernan, R. B. (1975). Outdoor recreation and environmental con-cern: An empirical examination. Rural Sociology, 40, 18–30.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorse-ment of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Is-sues, 56(3), 425–442.


Geisler, C. C., Martinson, O. B., & Wilkening, E. A. (1977). Outdoor recreation andenvironmental concern: A restudy. Rural Sociology, 42, 241–249.

Jackson, E. L. (1986). Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment.Leisure Studies, 5, 1–23.

Jackson, E. L. (1987). Outdoor recreation participation and views on resource develop-ment and preservation. Leisure Sciences, 9, 235–250.

Manfredo, M., Driver, B., & Tarrant, M. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation: A meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research,28(3), 188–213.

Pinhey, T. K., & Grimes, M. D. (1979). Outdoor recreation and environmental concern: Areexamination of the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Leisure Sciences, 2, 1–11.

Theodori, G. L., Luloff, A. E., & Willits, F. K. (1998). The association of outdoor recre-ation and environmental concern: Re-examining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. RuralSociology, 63, 94–108.

Van Liere, K. D., & Noe, F. P. (1981). Outdoor recreation and environmental attitudes:Further examination of the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociology, 46(3), 505–513.

Wheaton, B. A., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliabilityand stability in panel models. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1977(pp. 84–136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wildlife-Related Recreation, Meaning, and Environmental Concern

Documents

Transcript of Wildlife-Related Recreation, Meaning, and Environmental Concern