TÉCNICAS E INSTRUMENTOS PARA LA RECOLECCIÓN DE DATOS.

An article by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) was the first to investigate what they termed the new environmental paradigm. Their article explored an apparent shift from the “dominant social paradigm” (DSP) to a new environmental paradigm (NEP). They argued that this new environmental paradigm, which grew from the environmental movement of the 1970s, had spawned an alternative set of beliefs and values (Dunlap & Van-Liere, 1978; Dunlap, Van-Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Roberts & Bacon, 1997). As a result of this, it was suggested that individuals with a higher level of environmental concern would be more likely to engage in ecologically conscious consumer behaviour (Roberts & Bacon, 1997).

The DSP emphasised “beliefs in progress, material abundance and the goodness of growth; faith in the efficacy of science and technology; and a view of nature as

72

something to be subdued” (Dunlap, 2008, p. 5). On the other hand, the NEP presented a new worldview which posited three key facets including: (1) the existence of ecological limits to growth; (2) the importance of maintaining balance in nature; and (3) the rejection of the anthropocentric notion that nature exists primarily for human use (Dunlap, 2008). Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) argued that there was a paradigmatic shift in the orientation of American people towards the environment and that increased public awareness of environmental issues had lead to disillusionment with the conventional way that they viewed and used nature (Roberts & Bacon, 1997).

Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) initially designed a NEP scale based on 12 statements that were presented on a 7-point Likert scale. They began to investigate people’s general position regarding society and the natural environment, with high scores on the NEP scale indicating pro-environmental attitudes in the respondent (Roberts & Bacon, 1997). The items included in the initial 12 item NEP scale are available in Appendix A. Dunlap and Van Liere later developed a 6–item NEP scale for use in a national survey for the Continental group in 1982 which has been used by several researchers since this time (Dunlap et al., 2000). In response to criticisms of the construct of the earlier versions of the of the scale, Dunlap et al. (1992) proposed the revised NEP scale that attempts to balance between pro and anti-NEP statements, as well as to broaden the content of the scale (Kim, Borges, & Chon, 2006). The latest revision of the NEP scale is a 15 item version titled the new ecological paradigm scale (Dunlap, 2008; Dunlap et al., 2000) and it is this scale that will be used in this research for the reasons outlined below. The revised NEP scale was designed specifically to deal with the weaknesses of the original NEP scale, and five major changes were made (Dunlap, 2008):

1. Further focus was put on the ecological domain by incorporating two new facets of an ecological worldview.

2. Because of increased awareness of global problems such as climate change, items dealing with the likelihood of eco-crises were also added.

3. Three items were designed for each of the five facets, and the 15 items were worded so as to produce 8 pro-NEP and 7 anti-NEP items. It was also ensured that none of the facets were measured by items worded only in one direction. 4. Outmoded terminology such as ‘mankind’ was replaced by more egalitarian

73

5. An effort was made to ground the work in social-psychological theory, such as that done by Rokeach (1968) by arguing that the NEP items were measuring primitive beliefs about the relationship between human beings and the environment.

The result according to Dunlap (2008, p. 10) was “a much improved NEP scale that has gained rapid use not only in the United States but internationally as well…”. The revised scale (shown below) has been applied in various ways by numerous researchers and has been used as a measure of environmental concern, environmental values and environmental attitudes (Carmody, 2007; Dunlap, 2008). Much of this research has focused on the environmental concerns of the general public, investigating trends in public opinion and correlations with socio-economic data (P. C. Stern, Dietz, & Guagano, 1995). The items included in the revised 15 item NEP are:

1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support. 2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences. 4. Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unlivable.

5. Humans are severely abusing the environment.

6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. 7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.

8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industries.

9. Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature.

10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.

11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature

13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.

15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. (Dunlap et al., 2000)

74