Rural-Urban Differences in Environmental Concern, Attitudes, and Actions

Abstract

Abstract. Pro-environmental orientation constitutes one of the basic referents of modern culture. However, this pro-environmental orientation of a general nature does not permit us to predict pro-environmental behaviors. In order to explain this incongruence, it is necessary to take into account the sociostructural factors and socialization experiences through which people form their environmental values, attitudes, and behaviors. In this study we compare the values, attitudes, and behaviors of a rural sample and an urban sample, measured by means of three scales: the New Ecological Paradigm Scale, a moral obligation scale specifically designed for this study, and a scale of pro-environmental behavioral intentions. The results indicate high levels of environmental concern and low levels of pro-environmental behavior in both samples. On comparing the two samples it was found that those living in cities assume a larger number of environmental responsibility values but show less pro-environmental orientation when the attitude and behavioral intention scales are used. People living in the rural context present more attitudes of environmental responsibility and greater consistency on expressing behavioral intentions compatible with the protection of the environment.

Identifying tourists with smaller environmental footprints

“…Despite, or maybe because of, the heterogeneity of approaches and conclusions, the studies which empirically profiled ecotourists (Crossley & Lee, 1994;Khan, 2003;Wight, 1996a & b;Blamey & Braithwaite, 1997;Eagles, 1992;Eagles & Cascagnette, 1995;Kretchman & Eagles, 1990;Hvengaard & Dearden, 1998;Kerstetter et al, 2004;Uysal et al, 1994;Weaver & Lawton, 2002) are used as the basis for generating hypotheses about tourists who behave in an environmentally friendly manner. Furthermore, findings from related areas of environmental studies (Berenguer, Corraliza & Martin, 2005;Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999;Kals, Schumacher & Montada, 1999;Carrus, Bonaiuto & Bonnes, 2005;Clark, Kotchen & Moore, 2003) inform hypothesis generation for the present study. These areas include environmental psychology and research into recycling behavior and environmental volunteering.…”

“…Psychological factors include society's environmental values, altruism, and egoistic motives. In their own empirical study Berenguer et al (2005) find that moral obligation displays the strongest association with pro-environmental behavior. This result is in line with the earlier empirical results reported by Kaiser and Shimoda (1999) in relation to moral responsibility and was consequently used as the core construct of investigation by Dolnicar and Leisch (2008a).…”

“…Berenguer, Corraliza and Martin (2005) review prior work into determinants of environmental concern and conclude that determinants can be grouped in socio-demographic and psychological ones. Socio-demographic characteristics that have been shown to be associated with environmental concern include age, ethnic group, place of residence, income, occupation, gender, religion and political ideology.…”

Environmental attitudes associated with large-scale cultural differences, not local environmental conflicts

“…Here, we used the new environmental paradigm (NEP), which is a conceptualized measure of people's environmental attitudes, beliefs and values, to measure people's environmental value orientation (Dunlap et al 2000;Ardahan 2012). Previous studies (Kaltenborn & Bjerke 2002;Rauwald & Moore 2002;Hunter & Rinner 2004;Berenguer et al 2005;Kaltenborn et al 2008;Luo & Deng 2008;Ardahan 2012) and conceptual and psychometric testing (Stern et al 1995;Pierce et al 1997) have shown that high NEP scores are correlated with pro-environmental values (Dunlap et al 2000). Low NEP scores are associated with anthropocentrism, where humans view nature solely as a source of food and water.…”

Selective marketing for environmentally sustainable tourism

“…This precise wording was suggested and used by Berenguer, Corraliza and Martin (2005). The same list of behaviours was presented and the following answer options were available to respondents: Totally obliged, Mildly obliged, Unsure, Rather not obliged, and Not at all obliged.…”