Estructuración del modelo de fideicomiso FIBRAS

Since the tri-dimensionality of the EMS has been verified, the average mean response of farmers is computed for each value-based environmental concern and compared between the different groups of respondents.

a. Over the whole sample

Farmers, as a whole, were significantly less concerned about egoistic objects than biospheric and altruistic (Tables 7.1 and 7.2). On the other hand, the difference between altruistic and biospheric concerns was not as marked: respondents tended to show more altruistic concern than biospheric but the difference was only significant at p = 0.067 (Table 7.2).

Table 7. 1 Means, Standard Deviations of farmers’ three value-based environmental concerns, and number of cases on which the means are based. The three scales ranged from 1 (not concerned) to 5 (most highly concerned).

Variables _Mean All Farmers_{S.D. N}

EMS 3.94 0.85 761 Egoistic 3.73 1.16 734 Altruistic 4.10 0.94 757 Biospheric 4.03 0.99 746 Egoistic corrected -0.23 0.66 734 Altruistic corrected 0.15 0.54 757 Biospheric corrected 0.09 0.58 746

Chapter 7: Farmers’ value-based environmental concern towards the environment

Table 7. 2 Paired differences and paired-t tests of the mean responses of farmers to the three value- based environmental concerns.

Variables t df _(2-tailed)Sig.

Biospherica_{- Egoistic}b _{7.669 723 0.000}

Biospheric - Altruisticc _{-1.835 742 0.067}

Egoistic - Altruistic -10.222 730 0.000

a_{: ‘Biospheric’, for biospheric environmental concern mean.}b_{: ‘Egoistic’, for egoistic environmental concern}

mean.c: ‘Altruistic’, for altruistic environmental concern mean. The corrected means were not compared because the results are equivalent to those with raw means as the same value was subtracted from the three environmental concerns means.

b. Comparison between farmers with and without native forest

Farmers with forest and farmers without forest did not exhibit significant differences in their mean responses, corrected or not, on any of the three environmental concerns (Tables 7.3 and 7.4).

Table 7. 3 Means, Standard Deviations of the three value-based environmental concerns of farmers with and without forest, and number of cases on which the means are based. The three scales ranged from 1 (not concerned) to 5 (most highly concerned).

Variables Farmers with Forest Farmers without Forest

Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. N EMS 3.93 0.86 490 3.96 0.85 271 Egoistic 3.72 1.15 475 3.75 1.18 259 Altruistic 4.09 0.94 488 4.11 0.94 269 Biospheric 4.04 1.00 483 4.01 0.96 263 Egoistic corrected -0.23 0.68 475 -0.22 0.63 259 Altruistic corrected 0.15 0.53 488 0.15 0.56 269 Biospheric corrected 0.11 0.60 483 0.05 0.54 263

Chapter 7: Farmers’ value-based environmental concern towards the environment

Table 7. 4 Independent-t tests of the mean responses of environmental concerns between farmers with and without forest with equal variances between the two groups assumed and not assumed.

Variables t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Egoistica1 _{0.252 732 0.801} Altruisticb1 _{0.255 755 0.799} Biosphericc1 _{-0.478 744 0.633} EgoisticCorrd1 _{0.252 732 0.801} AltruisticCorre1 _{0.063 755 0.95} BiosphericCorrf2 _{-1.38 595.215 0.168}

a_{: ‘Egoistic’, for egoistic environmental concern mean.} b_{: ‘Altruistic’, for altruistic environmental concern}

mean. c: ‘Biospheric’, for biospheric environmental concern mean. d: ‘EgoisticCorr’, for egoistic environmental concern corrected mean. e_{: ‘AltruisticCorr’, for altruistic environmental concern corrected}

mean. f: BiosphericCorr’, for biospheric environmental concern corrected mean. 1: Equal variances assumed between the two groups (based on the Levene’s test for equality of variances). 2_{: Equal}

variances not assumed between the two groups (based on the Levene’s test for equality of variances)

c. Comparison between farmers with native forest by choice and with native forest by chance

Farmers with forest by choice and farmers with forest by chance did not hold significantly different average biospheric and altruistic environmental concerns (Tables 7.5 and 7.6). On the other hand, farmers with forest by chance tended to express stronger egoistic environmental concern, although the difference between the two groups was only significant at p = 0.074 (Table 7.6).

Table 7. 5 Mean and Standard Deviations (S.D.) of the three value-based environmental concerns of farmers with native forest by chance (Forest Influence = 0) and farmers with native forest by choice (Forest Influence = 1), and number of cases on which the means are based. The three scales ranged from 1 (not concerned) to 5 (most highly concerned).

Variables _InfluenceForest Mean S.D. N

Egoistic 0₁ 3.689_3.864 1.164_1.106 398₇₀ Altruistic 0₁ 4.057_4.253 0.946_0.901 411₇₀ Biospheric 0₁ 4.007_4.250 1.023_0.910 406₇₀ Egoistic corrected 0₁ -0.234_-0.250 0.675_0.713 398₇₀ Altruistic corrected 0₁ 0.152_0.139 0.547_0.465 411₇₀ Biospheric corrected 0₁ 0.101_0.164 0.615_0.565 406₇₀

Chapter 7: Farmers’ value-based environmental concern towards the environment

Table 7. 6 Independent-t tests of the mean responses of environmental concerns between farmers with native forest by choice and with native forest by chance with equal variances between the two groups assumed and not assumed.

Variables t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Egostica1 _{-1.794 466 0.074} Altruisticb1 _{-0.951 479 0.342} Biosphericc1 _{-1.338 474 0.182} EgoisticCorrd1 _{-1.347 466 0.179} AltruisticCorre1 _{0.86 479 0.39} BiosphericCorrf1 _{0.059 474 0.953}

a_{: ‘Egoistic’, for egoistic environmental concern mean.} b_{: ‘Altruistic’, for altruistic environmental concern}

mean. c_{: ‘Biospheric’, for biospheric environmental concern mean.} d_{: ‘EgoisticCorr’, for egoistic}

environmental concern corrected mean. e_{: ‘AltruisticCorr’, for altruistic environmental concern corrected}

mean. f_{: BiosphericCorr’, for biospheric environmental concern corrected mean.} 1_{: Equal variances}

assumed between the two groups (based on the Levene’s test for equality of variances).

IV. Discussion

In this chapter, Schultz’ Environmental Motives Scale (EMS) was tested on different samples of New Zealand farmers. Biospheric, egoistic and altruistic environmental concerns of farmers with and without native forest as well as with native forest by chance and with native forest by choice were compared.

Schultz tri-dimensional value-based environmental concern scale was validated on the sample of New Zealand farmers. This result was in line with the studies that have examined the measure so far (Schultz 2000; Schultz 2001; Schultz et al. 2004; Schultz et al. 2005; Milfont et al. 2006; Snelgar 2006).

As expected, overall, farmers expressed substantial environmental concern: their mean responses over the three value-based environmental concerns were greater than the medium value of the scale (3). Furthermore, the three concerns were highly correlated with each other. On average, farmers were more concerned about others (altruistic environmental concern) and any living beings (biospheric environmental concern) – with a slight tendency towards altruistic over biospheric environmental concern – than about the consequences environmental problems may have on themselves (egoistic environmental concern). This result partially contradicted findings that farmers or rural dwellers hold stronger anthropocentric values than ecocentric (e.g., Van Liere and Dunlap 1980; Bjerke and Kaltenborn 1999). The present results supported Schultz and colleagues’ (2005) results, which showed that New Zealand university students exhibited on average weaker egoistic environmental concern than

Chapter 7: Farmers’ value-based environmental concern towards the environment

altruistic and biospheric concerns. Therefore, New Zealand farmers may be closer in their value orientations to the New Zealand general population than to the European or North American farming community on which the bulk of the literature is based.

Contrary to expectations, farmers with and without forest did not show different levels of biospheric and anthropocentric (altruistic and egoistic) environmental concerns. Thus, the presence of native forest fragments on the farm did not seem to be associated with a different value system in respondents. On the other hand, comparisons of the mean answers of farmers with forest by choice and farmers with forest by chance (via t-tests of equality of means) suggested that farmers with forest by chance tended to show stronger egoistic environmental concern. However, the MIMIC analysis, which is a more comprehensive technique than the t-test of equality of means, did not reveal any significant differences in value-based environmental concern between the two groups. The facts that (1) farmers with native forest did not display different strengths in environmental concerns compared to farmers without native forest, and (2) neither did farmers with native forest by choice compared to farmers with native forest by chance, suggested that interaction with nature may not impact on the value system of farmers. As values are conceived as high-order, general guiding principles that are assumed not to be highly susceptible to change (Murphy and Zajonc 1993, p. 2; Oskamp 2000, p. 115; Hitlin and Piliavin 2004, p. 361; Dietz et al. 2005, p. 362), it is understandable that somewhat fortuitous encounters with native forest may not influence value to a large extent. However, these encounters with nature may affect more farmers’ attitudes, which are hypothesized to be more flexible than values (Hitlin and Piliavin 2004, p. 361). It would be interesting to see if interactions with nature at an early age and/or the length of interaction as an adult are more likely to affect farmers’ value-based environmental concerns. These issues are explored in later chapters. Finally, the sample of respondents with forest by choice was rather small compared to the sample of respondents with forest by chance, and the analysis of the value-based environmental concerns between the two groups of farmers would gain from a more numerous – hence more representative – sample of farmers who chose to have native forest on their farm.

V. Conclusion

This chapter examined farmers’ responses to the first of the two measures of general attitude towards the natural environment: Schultz’ Environmental Motive Scale. As expected, Schultz’ tri-dimensional model of value-based environmental concerns,

Chapter 7: Farmers’ value-based environmental concern towards the environment

distinguishing egoistic from altruistic from biospheric environmental concerns, was supported in the present sample of New Zealand farmers, whether or not they had native forest on their property. Respondents consistently showed stronger biospheric and altruistic environmental concerns than egoistic. The results suggested that the presence of native forest does not affect the present sample of New Zealand farmers’ value-based environmental concerns, whether or not respondents had chosen to have native forest on their farm. In the next chapter farmers’ response to the second measure of general attitude towards the environment is investigated.