Content uploaded by Marino Bonaiuto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marino Bonaiuto on Oct 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueec20
Download by: [5.170.130.49] Date: 18 August 2017, At: 06:36
Applied Environmental Education & Communication
ISSN: 1533-015X (Print) 1533-0389 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueec20
Evaluating the role of protected natural areas for
environmental education in Italy
Stefano De Dominicis , Marino Bonaiuto, Giuseppe Carrus, Paola Passafaro,
Paola Perucchini & Mirilia Bonnes
To cite this article: Stefano De Dominicis , Marino Bonaiuto, Giuseppe Carrus, Paola Passafaro,
Paola Perucchini & Mirilia Bonnes (2017): Evaluating the role of protected natural areas for
environmental education in Italy, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, DOI:
10.1080/1533015X.2017.1322014
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2017.1322014
Published online: 04 Aug 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 8
View related articles
View Crossmark data
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION
https://doi.org/./X..
Evaluating the role of protected natural areas for
environmental education in Italy
Stefano De Dominicis a,b,c, Marino Bonaiutoa,c, Giuseppe Carrusc,d,
Paola Passafaroa,c, Paola Perucchinic,d, and Mirilia Bonnesa,c
aDepartment of Social and Developmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy;
bDepartment of Business and Management, LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy;
cCIRPA–Interuniversity Research Centre for Environmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome,
Rome, Italy; dDepartment of Education, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy
ABSTRACT
Two quasi-experimental eld studies (N=419; 248) tested the
eects of an outdoor environmental education program based
in local Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) on 3rd-to-6th-grade stu-
dents’ proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Results show
the program increases children’s place attachment, proenviron-
mental attitudes, ethics and self-reported behavior, and their
parents’ proenvironmental attitudes: Young people’s experience
with PNAs enhances their attitudes and behaviors toward envi-
ronmental sustainability. The research addresses the crucial role
of local PNAs in promoting proenvironmental attitudes and
behaviors, highlighting the strategic importance of intervention
procedures and moderators for environmental education activi-
ties applied to specic social-physical contexts.
Evaluating the role of protected natural areas for environmental education
Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) are important means to cope with global biodi-
versity loss, continuity of fragile ecosystems, and future availability of limited natu-
ral resources. Also, PNAs have other potentialities than those strictly connected to
nature conservation: PNAs are means to provide local communities with new oppor-
tunities of social, cultural, and environmental development. The United Nations
Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) strategy promoting
Biosphere Reserves claims for using PNAs as models of sustainable land manage-
ment, researching, monitoring, educating, and training in the sustainability domain
(Bonnes, Carrus, Bonaiuto, Fornara, & Passafaro, 2004; Kruse-Graumann, 1995):
thus, PNAs can be used to promote proenvironmental awareness and sustainable
lifestyles within local communities. Within this domain, EE programs based on local
PNAs can eectively involve local communities in sustainability issues; yet, these
CONTACT Stefano De Dominicis stefano.dedominicis@uniroma.it CIRPA–Centro Interuniversitario di Ricerca
in Psicologia Ambientale, Sapienza University of Rome, Via dei Marsi , , Roma, Italy.
© Taylor & FrancisGroup, LLC
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
2S. DE DOMINICIS ET AL.
programs need to be empirically evaluated in order to systematically assess their
overall eectiveness.
UsingPNAstopromoteproenvironmentalawarenessisaneectivetoolfor
environmental educators. Early EE programs inspired by the Deep Ecology (Naess,
1989;VanMatre,1990)andbytheEnvironmental Literacy perspectives (e.g.,
Disinger&Roth,1992;Orr,1992) theorized that informal activities in natural
environments are very eective in fostering aective connections with nature: in
fact, experiences in nature foster children’s and adults’ proenvironmental values,
attitudes, and behaviors (Bogner, 1998;Chawla&Derr,2012;Farmer&Wott,
1995;DeWhite&Jacobson,1994; Milton, Cleveland & Bennett-Gates, 1995;
Vas k e & Kobr in , 2001), especially when they experience environmental epiphanies
(Vining & Merrick, 2012). Recent results further support this idea, showing the
important role that PNAs play in promoting motivation to enact for nature, for
example, through the promotion of connectedness with nature (Frantz & Mayer,
2014; Lieänder, Fröhlich, Bogner, & Schultz, 2013)whichinturnislinkedto
more positive proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. In other words, PNAs can
successfully be used in EE programs especially because users experience nature
in vivo, with a series of social-psychological advantages and benets in terms of
education and motivation (e.g., Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Lieänder & Bogner,
2014; Lieänder, Fröhlich, Bogner, & Schultz, 2013).
However,despiteallthepositiveapplicationsofEEprograms,theeectiveness
of such programs has not been systematically evaluated: they can be eective
(Rickinson, 2001;Zelezny,1999) or ineective (Leeming, Dwyer, Porter, & Cobern,
1993;Giord,2007), or can even lack of nal assessment (Blumstein & Saylan,
2007). Thus, it is worth to design EE programs with proper pre/post assessment
or treatment/control design (Blumstein & Saylan, 2007) while considering their
complexity (Leeming et. al., 1993;Rickinson,2001;Zelezny,1999): EE programs’
eects can vary according to organizational (e.g., duration, location, structure,
community involvement, etc.; Rickinson, 2001), target (e.g., cognitive aspects such
as knowledge vs. emotional ones such as place attachment—see Altman & Low,
1992 for a review—or environmental concerns; De Dominicis, Fornara, Ganucci
Cancellieri, Twigger-Ross, & Bonaiuto, 2015; Schultz, 2015), or sociodemographic
factors (Dillon et al., 2006;Stern,Powell,&Ardoin,2010). For instance, with
respect to the latter, it is plausible that, given the lack of access to natural areas, users
coming from big cities could be more aected by EE programs developed in PNAs,
for example, thanks to possible epiphanies occurrences (Vining & Merrick, 2012).
Or, with reference to cognitive vs. aective factors to be targeted, it is plausible
that engaging users with emotional experiences (e.g., making them feeling more
connectedtonature)caninturnleadtoagreaterinterestandknowledgeofnature
and environmental issues (Lieänder et al., 2013).
Thus, evaluating an EE program should target several key aspects, such as: the
program’s characteristics and its eect on social-psychological processes, the social-
demographical characteristics of its participants, the physical and geographical fea-
tures of the environment in which the program will take place.
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 3
The GENS–Little Guides Program
This article reports two eld studies assessing a specic EE program called GENS—
Piccole Guide (Little Guides),conceivedtoexploitthepotentialofPNAsasmeans
to promote young students’ environmental awareness, attitudes, and behaviors.
The general GENS program, (9/2001–6/2009), conducted by ARP-Lazio (Regional
Agency for Parks of Lazio) and funded by the Italian Ministry of the Environment
and by Regione Lazio, aimed at: (a) involving local communities in PNAs’ activi-
ties and promoting education toward sustainable development (Cervoni & Chirilli,
2006); (b) creating synergy between schools and parks involving students, teachers,
personnel of the parks and the local community (Bonnes, Bonaiuto, Passafaro, &
Carrus, 2006). The subproject Little Guides was addressed to children encouraged
to become “little-guides” of the PNAs located in their surroundings, with a nal goal
of enhancing students’ knowledge and experience about local PNAs.
The Little Guides program combined school-based activities (led by trained
teachers and park rangers), with excursions in the reserve (led by park rangers).
Outdoor activities introduced children to dierent natural environments and both
traditional school tasks and didactical games were used. Activities were spread over
aschoolyear,duringwhichchildrencreatedillustrativebooksaboutthethemes
encountered,wrotedownsongsandtookpartasactorsinplays.Analparty-
meeting event was organized by ARP-Lazio at the end of each school year with
the aim of gathering together all participants (children, families, teachers, rangers).
During this event children guided their parents through the reserve, showed them
their assignments and materials produced, received their “Little Guides Diploma,”
and wore the distinctive Little Guides t-shirts and caps.
Research overview
Research’s general aim was to assess the eects of Little Guides on its partici-
pants. Two quasi-experimental studies were conducted: Study 1 assessed little-
guides proenvironmental attitudes, environmental ethics and place attachment with
a treatment-control experimental design; Study 2 assessed the same variables of
Study 1, but on dierent participants and using a complete pre-post research design,
involving both children and their parents.
Study 1
Aim and hypotheses
The general aim of Study 1 was to explore the eect of students’ participation in
the program on their proenvironmental attitudes and worldviews. We expected
the program would enhance children’s proenvironmental attitudes, worldviews,
place attachment to local PNAs and general proenvironmental behaviors (Vaske &
Kobrin, 2001) as a consequence of exposure to excursions, discussion of principles
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
4S. DE DOMINICIS ET AL.
of ecology and sustainability (Chawla & Derr, 2012; Collado, Staats, & Corraliza,
2013), and of the empowering process activated by training as a guide (Collado et
al., 2013; Vining & Merrick, 2012). In addition, previous studies have shown how
EE programs’ eects can vary with participant’s place of residence (Dillon et al.,
2006;Sternetal.,2010), such that people with less experience of nature can be more
inuenced by the experience of it. We, therefore, hypothesized that: (H1) children
who participated in the program (compared to those who did not) should show
positive proenvironmental attitudes, behaviors and ethics, and should manifest a
greater attachment to their local protected areas; and that (H2) these eects should
be greater for children living in a large versus small urban context (i.e., place of resi-
dence moderates relationship between participation in the program and considered
psychological factors).
Method
Research design
The aim of Study 1 is to compare proenvironmental attitudes, environmental ethics,
and place attachment of children with dierent experiences of EE (children who
participated in the program vs.children who did not) but with dierent residential
background (large vs. small urban context). Thus, a full factorial between-subjects
2by2researchdesignwassetupassessingmaineectsandinteractionofthetwo
predictors (place of residence and participation in the project).
Participants
Study 1 involved 497 children during the school year 2002/2003 (ntreatment =290;
ncontrol =129). Students (age range: 8 years +4months–12years+4months)
attended the third (122), fourth (229), and fth grade (146) of seven primary schools
in four cities of Lazio region: Rome (90), Formia (208), Fondi (109), and Itri (90).
Procedure
A survey (measuring general proenvironmental attitudes, environmental ethics,
attachment to local PNAs, attachment to city and socialdemographics) was adminis-
tered in classes during school time by trained researchers. Children received general
explanations about the activity and instructions on how to ll the questionnaire. On
thewhole,childrentook30–60mintocompletethequestionnaire(timeincreased
for younger children).
Measures
General Environmental Attitudes (GEA) were measured by the Children’s Attitudes
Toward the Environment Scale for children (8–12 years CATES; Musser & Malkus,
1994): 25 items, Cronbach’s alpha ranged .70 to .85, and test–retest correlation was
.68; each item contained a description of two dierent types of children, typically
varying for their environmental attitudes, feelings, or behavior (e.g., “Some kids like
to leave water running when they brush their teeth, but other kids always turn the
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 5
water o while brushing their teeth”). Environmental ethics measures were built to
seize attitudinal aspects linked to participants’ system of values. A set of nine state-
ments were selected and slightly adapted (to t our young participants) from the
Environmental Ethics Scale (Szagun & Mesenholl, 1993), measuring consideration
for nature, enjoyment of nature, sympathy for nature, and reasons for unacceptabil-
ity of environmental destruction. In order to complete items concerning personal
valuesandworldviewsofpeople–naturerelationship,fourstatementsfromNEP
(New Environmental Paradigm; Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978;Dunlap,VanLiere,
Mertig, & Jones, 2000) were selected and added to the questionnaire. We selected
four items referring to ecological issues not yet addressed by the other instruments
included in the questionnaire. These items were restated according to the format
used for previous scales, as follows: “people have the right to modify the natural
environment to suit their needs,” “people are severely ruining the environment,”
“people were created to rule out over the rest of nature,” “plants and animals have
the same right to exist as human beings.” place attachment was measured to grasp
aects linked to direct experience with places. A set of 7 items was built ad hoc
for this study (adapted for children from Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, &
Ercolani, 1999). These items capture aective (“I like to live in this town/city,”
“I feel bad in my town/city,” “I would like to live in another town/city,” “in my
town/city, I feel like home”), functional (“in my town/city I can do the things I like
most”) and social components (“I feel ok with everybody in my town/city,” “I don’t
like the people of my town/city”) linked to people–places transactions. Four more
items were built to investigate attachment to protected areas of the city/town: “I
am very happy when I go to the natural areas of my town/city,” “in my town/city
there are many natural areas I like,” “I would like to go often in the natural areas
of my town/city,” “in the protected areas of my town/city I can do the things I like
most.”
Data analyses
Scales’ psychometric characteristics were analyzed through Principal Component
Analysis and reliability analysis. Then, H1 and H2 were tested by a set of MAN-
COVA (Multivariate Analysis of Covariance), which tested for main eect of par-
ticipation in the program and its interaction with place of residence on the various
social-psychological factors considered as dependent variables (proenvironmental
attitudes, environmental ethics, place attachment).
Results
Measures showed a single factor structure for the scales CATES, NEP, and Environ-
mental Ethics, explaining respectively 17.6%, 39.3%, 23.7% of the total variance (λ=
3.7, 1.6, 2.1, respectively). As for the place attachment scale, a three factors structure
emerged total variance explained (53%): Factor 1, “attachment to the home city”
(var. expl.: 24.5%; λ=2.7); Factor 2, “attachment to the PNAs of the home city”
(var. expl.: 15.2%; λ=1.7); Factor 3, “place dependence” (var. expl.: 13.7%; λ=1.5).
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
6S. DE DOMINICIS ET AL.
Tab le . Multivariate effects of place of residence and participation in Little Guides on general proen-
vironmental attitudes, attachment to the natural areas of the town/city and place dependence.
Multivariate effects Wilks’λF(d.o.f.) p
Covariates
Gender . . (, ) n.s.
Age . . (, ) <.
Main effects
Residence . . (, ) <.
Participation . . (, ) n.s.
Interaction
Residence X participation . . (, ) <.
Then, responses were aggregated creating means scores of the following variables:
proenvironmental attitude (CATES scale), environmental ethics, proenvironmen-
tal worldview (NEP scale), Attachment to the town/city, Attachment to the natural
areas of the town/city, Place Dependence. Then, mean scores of the scales CATES,
Ethics, and NEP were further aggregated in a GEA. In testing for the hypotheses such
indicator was the dependent variable, together with attachment to the town/city,
attachment to the natural areas of the city and place dependence, in the multivari-
ate analysis of covariance. Results of the MANCOVA (participation by residence on
GEA, attachment to the town/city, attachment to the natural areas of the town/city,
place dependence; covariates: gender, age) are shown in Tab l e 1. Results reveal a sig-
nicant multivariate main eect of place of residence and a signicant interaction
eect (participation by residence) and a signicant covariate eect of age. At the
univariate level, results show a signicant main eect of residence on place depen-
dence, with children living in Rome (vs. Fondi and Itri) characterized by a greater
place dependence, F(1, 231) =1.1, p<.02. Moreover, results show a 2-ways inter-
action residence by participation on GEA, F(1, 231) =6.1, p<.02, and on attach-
ment to the natural areas of the town/city, F(1, 231) =6.98; p<.01: among Roman
children, those who participated in the program expressed a greater GEA, F(1, 78)
=4.3, p<.05, and a greater attachment to natural areas, F(1, 87) =5.2; p<.03.
On the contrary, within the group of children living in Fondi and Itri, no signif-
icant dierences were found between those who participated in the program and
those who did not on GEA, F(1, 170) =.64, p=.42, while a marginally signi-
cant dierence was found on place attachment, with children that participated in
the program expressing greater attachment to local protected areas, F(1, 193) =6.1,
p=.08.
Conclusions
On the whole, results conrm our hypotheses suggesting that Little Guides program
has positive eects on kids’ proenvironmental attitudes and place attachment (H1),
though such eects are moderated by urban area: Eects are greater for children
living in Rome (large urban context) than for children living in the smaller cities for
whom eects do not reach statistical signicance (H2).
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 7
Study 2
Aims and specic hypotheses
The aim of Study 2 (a longitudinal pre-post quasi-experiment) was to assess the
eects of Little Guides program on students who participated in the project and
on their parents (indirectly). Children were assessed on the same variables as in
Study 1. Parents were assessed on indirect eects of the program on their gen-
eral proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors, attitudes toward PNAs and place
attachment. Previous studies showed that EE school programs might exert indirect
eect on environmental attitudes and behaviors of students’ parents (Ballantyne,
Connell, & Fien, 1998; Evans, Gill, & Marchant, 1996; Uzzell, 1999;Vaughan,Gack,
Solorazano & Ray, 2003), especially if the experience is exciting and if students
are encouraged to show their parents the newly acquired skills (Rickinson, 2001).
Hence, we hypothesized that (H3) children who participated in the program should
show greater proenvironmental attitudes, behaviors, ethics and attachment (to
local protected areas), compared to children who did not; and that (H4) in the
posttest, parents of children that participated in the program, should show more
proenvironmental attitudes and proenvironmental behaviors compared with their
proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors in the pretest.
Participants
Study 2 enrolled 248 students (46.8% males; age range: 9 years +4months–13years
+4 months) divided in ntreatment =123 and ncontrol =125, which attended the fourth
(37), fth (52), and seventh grade (159) of three dierent primary schools in Rome
(53), Fondi (104), and Viterbo (87). A total number of 98 parents (Mage =40,7; SDage
=4,5; males =15.3%) participated in the data collection (ntreatment =49 and ncontrol
=43). They were parents of 18, 17, and 57 children attending respectively the fourth,
fth, and sixth grade (20.8% in Rome, 41.4% in Fondi, and 36% in Viterbo).
Measures
Inthechildrensample,measureinstrumentsadoptedwerethesameusedinStudy
1. For the parents’ sample, variables were measured as follows. General proenviron-
mental attitudes (GPA) were measured by two separate scales: the New Ecological
Paradigm scale (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978;Dunlapetal.,2000); and the Ecocen-
trism, Anthropocentrism, and Apathy scale (respectively referred to: valuing nature
for its own sake, valuing nature for material or physical benets it can provide to
human beings, indierence toward environmental issues; Thompson & Barton,
1994), composed by 31 by a 5-point Likert-scale. General proenvironmental behav-
iors were measured by an Italian version of the General Ecological Behavior (GEB)
scale (Kaiser, 1998), assessing frequency of endorsement of 21 dierent behaviors
(21 items, 5-point Likert-scale). Attitudes toward PNA and place attachment were
measured with a 5-point Likert-scale respectively for 12 items (e.g., “parks help
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
8S. DE DOMINICIS ET AL.
Tab le . Reliability of the scales used in Study . Children’s sample.
Cronbach’s α
Pretest Posttest
. CATES (proenvironmental attitude) . .
. Ethics (environmental ethics) . .
. NEP (proenvironmental attitude) . .
. Attachment town/city . .
. Attachment natural areas . .
protecting the environment,” “it is right that the government set up parks,” “parks
institution can cause a loss of job in the designated area”; Bonaiuto, Carrus,
Martorella, & Bonnes, 2002;Carrusetal.,2005), and eight items (e.g., “this is for
metheidealcity,”“mycityisapartofme,”“Iwouldratherliveinanothercity”;
Bonaiuto et al., 1999).
Data analysis
Scales’ psychometric characteristics were analyzed through Principal Component
Analysis. Then, H3 and H4 were tested with a set of multiple regression analysis
repeated both on the pretest and posttest.
Results
Results of preliminary analyses (dimensionality, validity, and reliability) conrm
ndings of Study 1, both in pretest and posttest (Tab l es 2 and 3).
Results of the pretest and posttest Multiple Regression Analyses (Predictors: NEP,
environmental ethics, attachment to the home-city, attachment to the PNA of the
home city, residence; criterion: general proenvironmental attitudes–CATES, and
GEB) on the children sample (H4–Tab l es 4 and 5) show several signicant eects.
Participation in the Little Guide program is a statistically signicant predictor of
proenvironmental attitudes and GEB, at the posttest only. No independent eect of
participation in the program is recorded at the pretest. Partially similar results are
obtained from the Multiple Regression Analyses (Predictors: ecocentrism, anthro-
pocentrism, apathy, NEP, environmental ethics, attachment to the home-city, attach-
ment to the PNA of the home city, residence; criterion: attitudes toward parks, and
Tab le . Reliability of the scales used in Study . Parents’ sample.
Cronbach’s α
Pretest Posttest
Ecocentrism . .
Anthropocentrism . .
Apathy . .
Proenvironmental attitude (NEP) . .
Ecological behavior (GEB) . .
Attitudes toward parks . .
Place attachment . .
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 9
Tab le . Multiple regression analysis of general proenvironmental attitudes (NEP), environmental
ethics, attachment to the home city, attachment to the natural areas of the home city, place of resi-
dence (Rome vs. Viterbo and Fondi) on general proenvironmental attitudes (CATES) at the pretest and
the posttest for the children sample.
Standardized regression coefficients
Criterion: General proenvironmental attitudes (CATES) Pretest Posttest
General proenvironmental attitudes (NEP) .∗∗ n.s.
Environmental ethics .∗∗ .∗∗
Attachment to the home city n.s. n.s
Attachment to the local protected areas .∗.∗∗
Place of residence n.s. n.s.
Participation in GENS–Little Guides n.s. .∗
R². .
Note. ∗p=.. ∗∗p<..
GEB) in the parents sample (H5–Tabl e s 6 and 7). Participation in the program (of
their children) was a statistically signicant predictor of attitudes toward PNA at
the posttest (but not at the pretest). However, no statistically signicant eects were
recorded on parents’ GEB.
Tab le . Multiple regression analysis of general proenvironmental attitudes (NEP), environmental
ethics, attachment to the home-city, attachment to the natural areas of the home city, place of resi-
dence (Rome vs. Viterbo and Fondi) on general proenvironmental behaviors (GEB) at the pretest and
the posttest for the children sample.
Standardized regression coefficients
Criterion: General proenvironmental behaviors (GEB) Pretest Posttest
General proenvironmental attitudes (NEP) n.s. n.s.
Environmental ethics .∗∗ .∗∗
Attachment to the home city n.s. n.s
Attachment to the local protected areas .∗∗ .∗∗
Place of residence . n.s.
Participation in GENS–Little Guides n.s. .∗
R². .
Note. ∗p=.. ∗∗p<..
Tab le . Multiple regression analysis of ecocentrism, anthropocentrism, apathy, general proenviron-
mental attitudes (NEP), environmental ethics, attachment to the home city,attachment to the natural
areas of the home city, place of residence (Rome vs. Viterbo and Fondi) on attitudes toward parks at
the pretest and the posttest for the parents sample.
Standardized regression coefficients
Criterion: Attitudes toward parks Pretest Posttest
Ecocentrism n.s. n.s.
Anthropocentrism n.s. n.s.
Apathy −.∗∗ −.∗∗
General proenvironmental attitudes (NEP) n.s. n.s.
General ecological behavior n.s n.s.
Place attachment −.∗∗ n.s.
Age n.s n.s.
Education n.s n.s.
Participation in GENS–Little Guides n.s. .∗∗
R². .
Note. ∗∗p<..
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
10 S. DE DOMINICIS ET AL.
Tab le . Multiple regression analysis of ecocentrism, anthropocentrism, apathy, general proenviron-
mental attitudes (NEP), environmental ethics, attachment to the home city,attachment to the natural
areas of the home city, place of residence (Rome vs. Viterbo and Fondi) on general proenvironmental
behavior at the pretest and the posttest for the parents sample.
Standardized regression coefficients
Criterion: General ecological behavior (GEB) Pretest Posttest
Ecocentrism n.s. n.s.
Anthropocentrism n.s. n.s.
Apathy n.s. n.s.
General proenvironmental attitudes (NEP) . n.s.
General ecological behavior n.s. n.s.
Place attachment −.∗∗ n.s.
Age −.∗∗ −.∗∗
Education n.s n.s.
Participation in GEN–Little Guides n.s. n.s.
R². .
Note. ∗∗p<..
Conclusion for Study 2
On the whole, Study 2 conrmed that (H3) the participation in the Little Guide
program aects children’s general proenvironmental orientation (proenvironmen-
talattitudesandself-reportedbehavior).Indirecteectswerealsorecorded(H4)on
parents’ attitudes toward natural parks, although no eects were recorded on their
self-reported proenvironmental behavior.
General discussion
The general aim of the two studies presented here was to assess the eects on
school pupils (8–13 years old) of an EE program based on the use of a local PNA
(GENS–Little Guides). The program was addressed to children living in dierent
geographical environments of the same region (large vs. small urban areas) in order
to involve people in the life of the Latium Region’s protected areas, to let them famil-
iarize with the people of the parks, and to educate them to sustainable development
(Cervoni & Chirilli, 2006). We expected the program to inuence children’s and
their parents’ general proenvironmental attitudes and worldviews, attachment to
local protected areas and general proenvironmental behaviors. Results of the two
studies suggest that Little Guide program has indeed general positive eects on both
children who participate in its activities and their parents. This means that, partic-
ipation in EE programs carried out in PNAs–together with the promotion of envi-
ronmental ethics and attachment to local PNAs–can actually enhance participants’
future proenvironmental behaviors (Fig. 1). However, these eects were not gener-
alized across all the considered psychological aspects, as they especially emerged
in children living in a large urban context. Also, eects measured on children’s
parents were signicant for proenvironmental attitudes only, and not for self-
reported environmental behaviors.
At least three important applied considerations rise from our ndings. First,
these results suggest the importance of adequately identifying all the specic
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 11
General
Pro-environmental
Attitudes
General
Pro-environmental
Behavior
Environmental
Ethics
Attachment to
local PNAs
Participation in
GENS program
.37**
.23**
.13*
.26**
.37**
.14*
Figure . Conceptual model synthetizing common factors significantly influencing children’s general
proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors in the posttest of Study . Note. PNA =Protected Natural
Areas.
social-psychological aspects on which EE projects may exert their eects, and then
taking into account these aspects as parameters for the analysis. This could allow
for a more precise and articulated analysis of training and educational methods
eectiveness. To our knowledge, programs have often aimed at increasing a generic
and too vaguely dened “sensitivity” or “concern” toward the environment, or
toward the specic issue under consideration (e.g., Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Our
results show, instead, that a more precise approach in the denition of the possible
eects exerted by EE programs should be preferred.
Second,hereweshowhowimportantitistodevelopspecicEEprogramscon-
sidering both social-psychological and social-demographic aspects of the audience,
with important applied implications: our results challenge the possibility to conceive
EE programs as a means to produce general eects across all participants. Although
one might adequately identify in advance the possible psychological factors aected
by the specic activities scheduled by the program, this does not ensure that the
program will aect these aspects in all situations. Our studies report evidence indi-
cating a moderating role of participants’ place of residence, with the program being
more eective on children living in a big city rather than in small one. Indeed, in our
view, and in line with recent theorizations in EE (e.g., the Education for Sustainable
Development; see Johnson, 2011;Wesselink&Wals,2011), a key element for
eective EE is its capacity to avoid top-down programs and prefer activities attuned
to the specic characteristics of the social-physical context (e.g., individuals and
geography) in which it is applied. In this perspective, what has been traditionally
called “program evaluation” should rather become a nal moment of a broader
activity of on-site monitoring, thought to precede, accompany, and follow-up the
EEprogramelaborationandimplementation.Thisactivitygoesbeyondthemore
limited idea of EE program evaluation; yet, its scope is broader, it is informative.
Indeed,ifEEprogramswerealwaysprecededbystudiesonaspectsconcerning,
say, participants attitudes, values, beliefs, and specic social-physical characteristics
of the site in which participants live, environmental educators could count on a
crucial set of information useful to attune the project to its participants’ points of
view. Social-psychological studies conducted before, during, and at the end of the
implementation of the program could help in highlighting strength and weakness
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
12 S. DE DOMINICIS ET AL.
of the project. These could allow to adjust the activities in itinere, and/or to better
plan future activities with similar participants in comparable contexts.
Finally, our ndings shed light on the role that PNAs could have both for envi-
ronmental education and for a more general transition toward a more sustainable
society. In fact, Local PNAs are places where environmental education programs
usually focus on the promotion of environmental knowledge (Lieänder et al.,
2013). Yet, it should be noted that world’s environmental problems could not be
faced through education only (Fanˇ
coviˇ
cová & Prokop, 2011): it is well recognized
that standalone knowledge does not promote proenvironmental behavioral change;
but rather, proenvironmental and sustainable behaviors should be promoted cou-
pling education with motivation (e.g., Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Accordingly, we
argue that it could be possible that local PNAs aid in the development of local green
communities and that this could be achieved through environmental education pro-
grams focused on enhancing positive place–people bonds (Lieänder et al., 2013),
whichwillinturnshapelocals’proenvironmentalvalues,attitudes,andbehaviors.
More generally, however, the present studies show the importance of young
people experience with natural areas in order to improve their attitudes and self-
reported behaviors toward a greater environmental sustainability (conrming liter-
ature trends, e.g.: Chawla & Derr, 2012; Vining & Merrick, 2012). This empirically
conrms the importance of a full-ecology approach (Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 2002),
which integrates human beings with natural areas and elements.
Acknowledgments
TheauthorsaregratefultoMaurilioCipparone,VitoConsoli,AnnaMariaCervoni,andtothe
sta of the agency 355 for their support to the research work, and to Elena Bilotta, Manuela Cec-
carelli, and Federico Cipparone for their help in data collection, and to two anonymous reviewers
who provided precious and constructive suggestions to improve the manuscript’s nal version.
Funding
Funding for this study was provided by Agenzia Regionale per i Parchi del Lazio–ARPLazio
(Regional Agency for Latium Parks), which supported this contributionwith two specic research
funds (years 2003 and 2004; Project Coordinator Professor Mirilia Bonnes). Research contents
are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the
funding body and initiative.
ORCID
Stefano De Dominicis http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8165-8028
References
Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 13
Ballantyne, R., Connell, S., & Fien, J. (1998). Students as catalysts of environmental change: A
framework for researching intergenerational inuence through environmental education.
Environmental Education Research,4, 285–298.
Blumstein, D. T., & Saylan, C. (2007). The failure of environmental education (and how we can
x it). PLOS Biology,5, 973–977.
Bogner, F. X. (1998). The inuence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term vari-
ables of environmental perspective. Journal of Environmental Education,29, 17–29.
Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A.P. (1999). Multidimensional
perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban
environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology,19, 331–352.
Bonaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Martorella, H., & Bonnes, M. (2002). Local identity processes and envi-
ronmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of PNA. Journal of Economic Psychology,
23, 631–653.
Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2002). Environmental psychology: From spatial-physical environ-
ment to sustainable development. In R.B.Bechtel&A.Churchman(Eds.),Handbook of envi-
ronmental psychology (pp. 28–54). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Bonnes, M., Bonaiuto, M., Passafaro, P., & Carrus, G. (2006). Indagine psicologico ambientale
per l’Agenzia Regionale Parchi del Lazio (ARP–Lazio) “Le aree naturali protette per la pro-
mozione di consapevolezza, sensibilità e impegno ambientali [Environmental psychologi-
cal investigation for the Latium Agency for Regional Parks (ARP-Lazio) “Protected Natural
Areas for the promotion of environmental awareness, perception and commitment”] In R.
Lazio (Ed.), Programma GENS–Progetto Piccole Guide. L’educazione Ambientale nelle aree pro-
tette del Lazio. Un’indagine psicologico ambientale “Valutazione e monitoraggio di interventi
per la promozione della sensibilizzazione e dell’impegno ambientale” [GENS Program–Little
Guides Project. Environmental Education in Laitum protected natural areas. An environ-
mental psychological investigation “Evaluation and monitoring of environmental perception
and commitment promotion interventions”] (pp. 19–52). Rome Italy: Edizioni ARP–Agenzia
Regionale Parchi.
Bonnes, M., Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Passafaro, P. (2004). Inhabitants’ environ-
mental perceptions in the city of Rome within the framework for urban biosphere reserve
of the UNESCO Programme on Man and Biosphere. Annals New York Accademy of Science,
1023, 175–186.
Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M., & Bonnes, M. (2005). Environmental concern, regional identity, and
support for protected areas in Italy. Environment and Behavior,37(2), 237–257.
Cervoni, A. M., & Chirilli, V. (2006). Gens risorse naturali, risorse umane [Gens naturalresources,
human resources]. In R. Lazio (Ed.), Programma GENS–Progetto Piccole Guide. L’educazione
Ambientale nelle aree protette del Lazio. Un’indagine psicologico ambientale “Valutazione e
monitoraggio di interventi per la promozione della sensibilizzazione e dell’impegno ambien-
tale” [GENS Program–Little Guides Project. Environmental Education in Laitum protected
natural areas. An environmental psychological investigation “Evaluation and monitoring of
environmental perception and commitment promotion interventions”] (pp. 7–18). Roma:
Edizioni ARP–Agenzia Regionale Parchi.
Chawla, L., & Derr, V. (2012). The development of conservation behaviors in childhood and
youth. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psy-
chology (pp. 527–555). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Collado, S., Staats, H., & Corraliza, J. A. (2013). Experiencing nature in children’s summer camps:
Aective, cognitive and behavioural consequences. Journal of Environmental Psychology,33,
37–44.
De Dominicis, S., Fornara, F., Cancellieri, U. G., Twigger-Ross, C., & Bonaiuto, M. (2015). We are
at risk, and so what? Place attachment, environmental risk perceptions and preventive coping
behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology,43, 66–78.
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
14 S. DE DOMINICIS ET AL.
De White, T. G., & Jacobson, S. K. (1994). Evaluating conservation education programs at a South
American zoo. Journal of Environmental Education,25, 18–22.
Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Beneeld, P. (2006).
The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Sci-
ence Review,87, 107–111.
Disinger, J. F., & Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy.Columbus,OH:ERICClearinghouse
for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed
measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education,9,
10–19.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorse-
ment of the new environmental paradigm: A revised NEP scale. JournalofSocialIssues,3,
425–442.
Evans, S. M., Gill, M. E., & Marchant, J. (1996). Schoolchildren as educators: The indirect
inuence of environmental education in schools on parents’ attitudes towards the environ-
ment. JournalofBiologicalEducation,30, 243–248.
Fanˇ
coviˇ
cová, J., & Prokop, P. (2011). Plants have a chance: Outdoor educational programmes alter
students’ knowledge and attitudes towards plants. Environmental Education Research, 17(4),
537–551.
Farmer, A. J., & Wott, J. A. (1995). Field trips and follow-up activities: Fourth graders in a public
garden. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 33–35.
Frantz, C. M., & Mayer, F. S. (2014). The importance of connection to nature in assessing envi-
ronmental education programs. Studies in Educational Evaluation,41, 85–89.
Giord, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice.Colville,WA:Optimal
books.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental edu-
cation. The Journal of Environmental Education,21, 8–21.
Johnson, S. (2011). Review of higher education and sustainable development: Paradox and pos-
sibility by Stephen Gough and William Scott. Environmental Education Research,17(2), 281–
284.
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy,28, 395–422.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3),
239–260.
Kruse-Graumann, L. (Ed.) (1995). Societal dimensions of biosphere reserves–Biosphere reserves for
people. Bonn, Germany: UNESCO.
Leeming, F. C., Dwyer, W. O., Porter, B. E., & Cobern, M. K. (1993). Outcome research in envi-
ronmental education: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Education,24, 8–21.
Lieänder, A. K., & Bogner, F. X. (2014). The eects of children’s age and sex on acquiring
pro-environmental attitudes through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental
Education,45(2), 105–117. doi:10.1080/00958964.2013.875511
Lieänder, A. K., Fröhlich, G., Bogner, F. X., & Schultz, P. W. (2013). Promoting connected-
ness with nature through environmental education. Environmental Education Research,19(3),
370–384.
Milton, B., Cleveland, E., & Bennett-Gates, D. (1995). Changing perceptions of nature, self,
and others: A report on a park/school program. Journal of Environmental Education,26,
32–39.
Musser, L., & Malkus, A. J. (1994). Children’s attitude toward the environment scale. Journal of
Environmental Education,25, 22–26.
Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 15
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the
evidence. Environmental Education Research,7, 207–320.
Schultz, P. W. (2015). Strategies for promoting pro-environmental behavior: Lots of tools but few
instructions. European Psychologist,19, 107–117. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000163
Stern, M. J., Powell, R. B., & Ardoin, N. M. (2010). Evaluating a constructivist and culturally
responsive approach to environmental education for diverse audiences. The Journal of Envi-
ronmental Education,42, 109–122.
Szagun, G., & Mesenholl, E. (1993). Environmental ethics: An empirical study of West German
adolescents. Journal of Environmental Education,25, 37–44.
Thompson, S. G. C., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitude toward the
environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology,14, 149–157.
Uzzell, D. (1999). Education for environmental action in the community: New roles and relation-
ships. Cambridge Journal of Education,29, 397–413.
Van Matre, S. (1990). Earth education: A new beginning. Greenville: WV: Institute for Earth
Education.
Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmental responsible behavior.
Journal of Environmental Education,32, 16–21.
Vaughan, C., Gack, J., Solorazano, H., & Ray, R. (2003). The eect of environmental education on
schoolchildren, their parents and community members: A study of international and inter-
community learning. Journal of Environmental Education,34, 12–21.
Vining, J., & Merrick, M. S. (2012). Environmental epiphanies: Theoretical foundations and prac-
tical applications. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conser-
vation psychology (pp. 485–508). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wesselink, R., & Wals, A. E. J. (2011). Developing competence proles for educators in environ-
mental education organisations in the Netherlands. Environmental Education Research,17(1),
69–90.
Zelezny, L. C. (1999). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Environmental Education,31, 5–14.
Downloaded by [5.170.130.49] at 06:36 18 August 2017
