Next Article in Journal
Correction: Díaz-Diego et al. The Last Attempt at Land Reform in Spain: Application and Scope of the Andalusian Agrarian Reform, 1984–2011. Land 2023, 12, 683
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Rural Credit on Cultivated Land Use Efficiency: An Empirical Analysis Using China Rural Revitalization Survey Data
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/land12111970
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Potential Pro-Environmental Behavior Spillover Effects of Specialization in Environmentally Responsible Outdoor Recreation

by
Timothy J. Mateer
1,2,*,
Theresa N. Melton
3,
Zachary D. Miller
4,
Ben Lawhon
5,
Jennifer P. Agans
2,
Danielle F. Lawson
2,6,
Kathryn J. Brasier
7 and
B. Derrick Taff
2
1
Department of Human Centered Design, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
2
Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
3
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
4
Intermountain Regional Office, National Park Service, Lakewood, CO 80228, USA
5
Recreation Solutions Group, Lyons, CO 80540, USA
6
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
7
Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(11), 1970; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12111970
Submission received: 22 September 2023 / Revised: 20 October 2023 / Accepted: 23 October 2023 / Published: 25 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Urban Contexts and Urban-Rural Interactions)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Outdoor recreationists represent a key population to educate for pro-environmental behavior (PEB). Given that previous research has found a mixed relationship between outdoor recreation and PEB, this research merges several concepts to better understand the social psychological nuances of this relationship. Specifically, this study explores how specialization regarding environmentally responsible outdoor recreation is related to other PEBs through a behavioral spillover framework. A correlational structural equation model was utilized to test this framework within a merged population of individuals from the Leave No Trace organization and general United States citizens. The results suggested that traditional behavioral spillover dynamics held for private PEBs but not public PEBs. However, recreation specialization was significantly related to both PEB types. These results suggest that the current behavioral spillover theory may only explain the relationship between some PEBs. Furthermore, environmentally responsible outdoor recreation specialization may be a promising pathway toward a spillover into encouraging private and public PEBs.

1. Introduction

Visitation rates to outdoor recreation spaces, such as those managed by the United States National Park Service, have grown steadily in recent years [1] and may continue to grow in the future. The COVID-19 pandemic has also resulted in new communities and social groups developing an interest in green spaces [2,3,4]. In fact, recent studies indicate that 50.7% of the United States population regularly participated in outdoor recreation activities following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic [4]. This rise in park visitation rates coincides with a wide variety of urgent environmental issues facing the planet, ranging from global climate change [5] to widespread species extinction [6]. Given the broad array of environmental problems embedded within the world’s social–ecological systems, this growing base of visitation to outdoor recreation spaces represents an important opportunity to educate an array of individuals on pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) and foster a closer connection between these individuals and the natural world [7,8]. Educational efforts to shift visitor behavioral patterns in a sustainable direction can play a significant role in supporting healthy social–ecological systems, both within the park boundary as well as outside of it [9,10,11].
Understanding how outdoor recreation participation can influence PEB has been a topic of significant interest in previous research [12,13,14]. Although some studies have been focused on promoting prescriptive behavioral outcomes through outdoor recreation, such as educating for proper waste disposal [15,16], encouraging more generalized PEB also represents an important educational goal for park managers and associated organizations. For example, the United States National Park Service mission statement asserts that they aim “to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world” [17]. This goal is especially important due to the multi-faceted and complex nature of many modern environmental problems [18,19].
Previous studies that have examined general PEBs amongst park visitors have explored their relationship with outdoor recreation involvement [13,20], place attachment [12], or some combination of these factors [14,21]. Although these studies have provided important insights into how visitation to outdoor recreation spaces may be related to PEB, a more nuanced understanding of the psychological processes that underly the adoption of general PEB can better inform how these educational efforts are approached by park management. Turning to theories established in social psychological literature may help to elucidate these complex relationships. Specifically, behavioral spillover, defined as “when an intervention that targets one behavior leads to positive or negative secondary effects on non-targeted behaviors” [22] (p. 76), is a psychologically grounded framework that may help researchers and practitioners better understand the relationship between outdoor recreation and generalized PEBs [23,24].
The purpose of the present study is to build upon and adapt the behavioral spillover framework to understand how engagement in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation practices (conceptualized through a recreation specialization lens, to be discussed later in the Section 2) links to more generalized PEB outside of the park boundary. This study may provide useful theoretical advances regarding behavioral spillover as it relates to outdoor recreation participation while also providing practical guidance for land managers on how to encourage generalized PEB in those visiting parks and protected areas. It should be noted here that the present study is correlational in nature, not causational. As some scholars assert that true behavioral spillover must be causational in nature [22], the term “evidence of spillover” will be utilized to describe the process being explored in this study.

2. Literature Review

To take advantage of increased park visitation rates and to encourage generalized PEB amongst these visitors, multiple areas of academic literature are utilized to build a theoretical model that is tested empirically in this study. If supported, this research has the potential to guide future educational and managerial efforts in parks and protected areas. Firstly, behavioral spillover theory and its potential applications in an outdoor recreation context are reviewed. Secondly, we examine recreation specialization in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation practices [25,26] as an additive component to the behavioral spillover framework. Lastly, general PEB is discussed as the primary outcome of interest for this study. The proposed theoretical model built from this literature review is outlined in Figure 1.

2.1. Behavioral Spillover Theory

The behavioral spillover framework provides a social and psychological basis for linking outdoor recreation involvement and general PEB in a manner that has not been fully explored in previous research [27,28,29]. Behavioral spillover aims to link changes in one PEB to changes in a constellation of other unrelated PEBs [22,23,24]. Negative behavioral spillover has often been linked to a moral licensing effect, with individuals feeling less inclined to engage in other PEBs after feeling that their engagement in one PEB satisfies their moral obligation to the natural environment [30]. Alternatively, positive behavioral spillover has been linked to the development of an environmental identity [31]. Broadly, as individuals strive to reduce cognitive dissonance, pro-environmental behaviors in one area of life “spill over” into other unrelated behaviors [23,24,32]. Evidence for this positive behavioral spillover has been supported both qualitatively [33,34] and quantitatively [35,36]. For example, Verfuerth et al. [34] found that a meat-reduction campaign in a workplace cafeteria influenced individuals’ other pro-environmental behaviors beyond dietary choices at work through an identity development pathway. Further, Lacasse [37] found that labeling an individual as an “environmentalist” in relation to their past PEB was related to an increase in their environmental self-identity, subsequently leading to positive behavioral spillover.
Van der Werff et al. [32] provide a behavioral spillover framework that can be effectively adapted to an outdoor recreation context. In the model developed by Van der Werff et al. [32], environmental identity mediates the relationship between ecocentric values and general PEB (as outlined in Figure 1). This aligns with the broader behavioral spillover research that supports an identity-based mechanism for positive behavioral spillover [34,36,37]. The ecocentric values → environmental identity → PEB framework is well suited for expansion to include additional social psychological variables to understand how PEBs are linked to one another. For example, Van der Werff et al. [32] utilized memory reinforcement regarding past PEB to strengthen individuals’ environmental identities. This subsequently led to increased levels of PEB.
Within the behavioral spillover framework, ecocentric values are defined as broad, basal psychological perceptions regarding the natural world [10,38]. Further, ecocentric values tend to transcend situations and are often treated as a foundational psychological construct in predictive behavioral models [39]. Aligning with research on values more generally [40], previous studies have suggested that ecocentric values are difficult to change and are tied to general perceptions about the world [10,41]. These perceptions likely influence how an individual sees themselves in relation to the natural world (i.e., environmental identity) [31] but may be too diffuse to meaningfully predict specific PEBs directly. Thus, the relationship between ecocentric values and PEB is likely fully mediated by environmental identity [32].
Environmental identity within the behavioral spillover framework is defined as “a sense of connection to some part of the nonhuman natural environment, based on history, emotional attachment, and/or similarity, that affects the ways in which we perceive and act toward the world” [31] (pp. 45–46). Social psychological theory posits that identity and behavior are linked by their shared meaning [42], providing support for assertions that developing an environmental identity can shift a constellation of behaviors in a more environmentally sustainable direction [32,34]. Notably, both the development of a personal environmental identity [31] and a social environmental identity [43] have been linked to the adoption of various PEBs across different contexts [44,45,46,47]. Prior research also suggests that formative experiences in the outdoors (e.g., recreational or educational) can influence the development of an environmental identity [7,44,48,49,50]. Evidence that prior engagement with the outdoors supports the development of an environmental identity provides further support that engagement in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation may encourage positive behavioral spillover.

2.2. Recreation Specialization as a Novel Construct within the Behavioral Spillover Framework

Although the literature on behavioral spillover has examined the mechanisms that link PEBs to each other, there has been little interaction with a parallel thread of research examining how outdoor recreation engagement can also “spill over” into PEB adoption [13,20,29]. Most studies on the relationship between PEB and outdoor recreation participation have generally indicated a positive relationship between the two constructs [13,51], but other studies have indicated that the relationship may be mixed [27,29] or insignificant [20]. For example, interview-based research conducted by Høyem [27] suggests that outdoor recreation participation can promote PEB, but this relationship is potentially linked to contemplation on the meaning of human–environmental relationships. This suggests that simply participating in outdoor recreation may not result in PEB adoption, as this shift could be linked to a higher-order psychological process related to contemplation or reflection [27]. Alternatively, research conducted by Teisl and O’Brien [29] suggests that the relationship between PEB and outdoor recreation may be dependent on the focal type of outdoor recreation. Ultimately, these mixed findings indicate that the relationship between outdoor recreation and PEB adoption is likely to be governed by complex social and psychological processes that have not been fully explored in previous research.
Recreation specialization may provide guidance on how to incorporate outdoor recreation involvement into a framework informed by behavioral spillover [25,26,52]. Broadly, recreation specialization places individuals on a spectrum of engagement in a recreational activity, ranging from casual participant to serious enthusiast [52]. A specialization lens has previously been utilized to effectively understand involvement in a wide variety of recreational activities [25,53,54,55]. Recreation specialization has also been used as a predictor to understand how individuals develop feelings of place attachment [56] and support conservation efforts [28]. Although previous research has used recreation specialization to predict pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, integration into a behavioral model that has broader support in the social psychological literature (i.e., behavioral spillover) has not been extensively explored.
This study specifically utilizes the tripartite specialization framework developed by Scott and Shafer [26]. The three dimensions of recreation specialization within this framework include focusing of behavior, skill and knowledge development, and commitment to the activity in a variety of ways [26,57]. Focusing of behavior refers to an individual’s commitment to participating in a specific form of recreation. Skill and knowledge development refers to an individual’s continued education regarding an activity. Lastly, commitment to an activity refers to behavioral and personal investments regarding a form of recreation (e.g., spending money on equipment to better carry out the activity). Furthermore, the development of “social worlds” around an activity has been posited as a way in which individuals grow in all three of these areas of recreation specialization [58,59]. This recreation specialization framework [26] provides the benefit of conceptualizing recreation specialization in a multi-dimensional manner that is both parsimonious and psychometrically validated [57]. As engagement in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation is the initial domain of interest within this study’s spillover framework, a specialization lens captures the multiple dimensions that are inherent in this concept.

2.3. Generalized PEB as the Outcome of Interest

General PEB, enacted by individuals across life domains, can play an integral role in supporting a more environmentally sustainable future [9]. The modified behavioral spillover framework tested presently aims to explore how specialization in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation is related to general PEB. General PEB has been conceptualized as an array of behaviors that either aim to steward the natural environment or reduce the negative anthropogenic impacts associated with certain actions [60,61,62]. Various predictive models have been developed to understand the social and psychological antecedents that precede general PEB adoption across various situations and contexts [39,63]. While these theories, such as Value–Belief–Norm Theory [39] or the Norm–Activation Model [64], have been useful in predicting PEB in generalized scenarios, the present study specifically aims to understand PEB adoption as it is related to outdoor recreation contexts.
Most predictive models have previously measured PEB in a unidimensional manner [60,65]. This practice may diminish the psychological complexity of PEB, which is relevant within the behavioral spillover framework. Some of the research examining the nature of PEB have noted a meaningful divergence between behaviors that are performed publicly and those that are performed privately [66]. This divergence is potentially related to the stronger influence of social norms and visibility regarding some behaviors in comparison with others [10,67]. Thus, general PEB is likely multi-dimensional in nature, with the social aspects of behavior meaningfully influencing how often behaviors are enacted [10,68,69]. The present model measures private and public PEB as two separate outcomes [62], with the goal of capturing this behavioral complexity.

2.4. Study Purpose and Hypotheses

Although the academic literature on behavioral spillover, recreation specialization, and PEB each provide important insights for supporting sustainable behaviors in park visitors, incorporating these concepts holistically may provide a unique perspective on how to support general PEB in these individuals. This study aims to explore the integration of these three concepts, with the goal of further elucidating the psychological relationships between the participation in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation and general PEB (consisting of behaviors that are both private and public in nature) [62]. Specifically, this study utilizes a correlational approach to understand how recreation specialization integrates into a behavioral spillover framework (providing evidence of spillover). Specialization in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation is conceptualized as an individuals’ involvement with Leave No Trace (LNT), a prominent environmental education approach to low-impact outdoor recreation [70]. Van der Werff et al.’s [32] framework is utilized to examine the explanatory power of including specialization as a unique component within this established spillover model, linking ecocentric values, environmental identity, and PEB. Although previous research has aimed to link recreation specialization to conservation-related behaviors [28], this study specifically aims to understand this process by exploring this relationship within a framework firmly grounded in social psychology theory.
The following propositions and hypotheses will be explored in this study. The propositions are specifically utilized to outline the general phenomenon that is supported if all the corresponding testable hypotheses are also supported. The hypotheses align with the relationships outlined in Figure 1 that is presented in the literature review:
Proposition 1. 
The measurement model incorporating ecocentric values, recreation specialization, environmental identity, public PEB, and private PEB indicates an acceptable model fit.
Proposition 2. 
Environmental identity is positively correlated with both ecocentric values and recreation specialization.
Hypothesis (H1). 
Ecocentric values will have a positive relationship with environmental identity.
Hypothesis (H2). 
Recreation specialization will have a positive relationship with environmental identity.
Proposition 3. 
Environmental identity is positively correlated with both public PEB and private PEB.
Hypothesis (H3). 
Environmental identity will have a positive relationship with public PEB.
Hypothesis (H4). 
Environmental identity will have a positive relationship with private PEB.
Proposition 4. 
The relationship between ecocentric values and both public and private PEB is fully mediated by environmental identity.
Hypothesis (H5). 
Ecocentric values will have a significant and positive indirect relationship with public PEB.
Hypothesis (H6). 
Ecocentric values will have a significant and positive indirect relationship with private PEB.
Proposition 5. 
The relationship between recreation specialization and both public and private PEB is partially mediated by environmental identity.
Hypothesis (H7). 
Recreation specialization will have a significant direct relationship with public PEB.
Hypothesis (H8). 
Recreation specialization will have a significant direct relationship with private PEB.
Hypothesis (H9). 
Recreation specialization will have a significant and positive indirect relationship with public PEB.
Hypothesis (H10). 
Recreation specialization will have a significant and positive indirect relationship with private PEB.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Sample

Surveys were distributed to two primary populations: a group of individuals recruited from Qualtrics market research panels [71] and individuals on the LNT email list. All data collection procedures were approved by the Pennsylvania State University Institutional Review Board. Individuals were enrolled in the LNT email list after partaking in a training session organized by LNT, registering as a member of the organization, or attending a week-long workshop to become an “LNT Master Educator” (taking an intensive multi-day course that prepares individuals to teach minimum-impact outdoor recreation practices to others). These two populations were intentionally sampled to aggregate individuals with a range of knowledge, skills, and behaviors related to outdoor recreation and environmentally oriented behaviors. Individuals within the initial Qualtrics panel were matched to the demographic variables of the United States Census for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and household income [72] utilizing a quota sampling procedure [73]. Prior information collected on individuals enrolled in the LNT email list indicates that they participate in 8 to 12 h of outdoor recreation per week [74]. This initial sample consisted of 1043 individuals recruited from the Qualtrics panel and 1978 individuals from the LNT email list. These two populations were aggregated into a single population of 3021 individuals with a range of outdoor recreation patterns and orientations toward the natural environment.
Given that a critical portion of the survey asked about the individuals’ level of specialization regarding LNT practices, a screening question was utilized to ensure that respondents had adequate knowledge to provide meaningful responses to this battery of questions. The screening question asked, “How would you describe your current knowledge of Leave No Trace practices?”. Respondents then answered on a scale from “0—No Knowledge” to “6—Expert” [75]. Any individuals who indicated their knowledge level to be less than or equal to one did not have the battery of questions asking about LNT specialization displayed to them. Because of this, individuals who skipped this question or indicated low levels of knowledge about LNT were excluded from the analysis. This resulted in 919 individuals being excluded from the analysis, leaving 2102 individuals remaining. The percentage of individuals coming from the Qualtrics sample and the LNT sample is outlined in detail in the Section 4.
Lastly, Little’s [76] MCAR Test was utilized to examine the data for patterns of missingness prior to proceeding with further analysis. The results indicated that the data were likely missing completely at random (ꭓ2 = 3954.915, df = 4297, p = 1.000). Given this finding, individuals with missing data were deleted listwise to provide a conservative estimate of the relationships between the variables within the data. This resulted in a 10.47% reduction in the sample size, with 1882 individuals included for the full analysis.

3.2. Survey Measures

As outlined in the propositions and hypotheses described earlier in this manuscript, the survey measures focused on ecocentric values, environmental identity, recreation specialization regarding LNT practices, and PEB in both private and public settings.
Ecocentric Values Scale. Ecocentric values were measured in a unidimensional manner, utilizing four items drawn from Vaske and Donnelly [77] as well as Gagnon-Thompson and Barton [38]. For this battery of questions, respondents were presented with this prompt: “Please rate how much you disagree or agree with the following statements by selecting the appropriate point from the scale below”. These statements asked individuals about their broad feelings regarding the natural environment. For example, one item prompted respondents to rate how much they agree with the following statement: “Nature has value, whether people are present or not”. Respondents answered on a scale ranging from “−3—Completely Disagree” to “3—Completely Agree”. The wording for each specific item in this scale and all other presented scales, along with their dimensionality, is outlined in the Section 4.2 of the Results.
Recreation Specialization Scale. In measuring recreation specialization, a unidimensional scale was developed to incorporate the three aspects of recreation specialization outlined by Scott and Shafer [26]: focusing of behavior, skill and knowledge development, and commitment to the activity. This scale was measured in a unidimensional manner, as previous recreation specialization literature [26] suggests that the components of the recreation specialization framework are highly related with each other. The scale was developed by adapting questions from the academic literature on recreation specialization [25,26,55,78]. The final scale consisted of 12 items. Respondents were prompted with the statement “Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements”. One prompt from this scale was “I have regularly used Leave No Trace techniques when recreating outdoors in the past”. Like the items measuring ecocentric values, respondents rated the extent to which they aligned with the provided statement on a scale ranging from “−3—Completely Disagree” to “3—Completely Agree”.
Environmental Identity Scale. Environmental identity was measured utilizing Clayton et al.’s [79] Revised Environmental Identity Scale. This scale represents an updated version of Clayton’s [31] Environmental Identity Scale. The revised scale was psychometrically validated in five countries located on four different continents. Thirteen of the fourteen original items were maintained to measure environmental identity in a unidimensional manner. One item was removed (“I feel that I have a lot in common with wild animals”) due to its similarity with items in the ecocentric values scale. Individuals were provided with the statement “Please indicate the extent to which each of the following statements describes you by selecting the appropriate point from the scale below”. This scale included prompts, such as “I consider myself a steward of our natural resources”. Respondents then chose a point ranging from “0—Not at all true of me” to “6—Completely true of me”.
PEB Scales. Lastly, novel scales measuring public and private PEB were developed utilizing the present study population. The scale development process is published as a separate study in Mateer et al. [62]. Five items were utilized to measure public PEB, while six items measured private PEB. Respondents were provided with the following statement: “Please rate how frequently you have participated in the following activities in the past six months by selecting the appropriate point from the scale below”. One sample behavior measured in the private PEB scale was “Avoided buying products with excessive packaging”. A sample behavior from the public PEB scale was “Donated money to support local environmental protection”. Respondents ranked the frequency of their behaviors on a scale that ranged from “0—Never” to “6—As frequently as possible”.

3.3. Analysis Procedures

All data analysis procedures were carried out in IBM SPSS 26, utilizing the AMOS extension when applicable. Analysis processes followed Anderson and Gerbing’s [80] two-step approach to structural equation modeling. Firstly, a confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to develop the measurement model and to assess the appropriate initial model fit. Following the establishment of the measurement model, the full structural model was built to test the hypothesized relationships between the latent constructs. A maximum likelihood estimation procedure was utilized when building both the measurement and structural models.
Prior to analysis, individual items were examined for deviations from normality, which is an assumption of structural equation models utilizing a maximum likelihood estimation procedure. Items were found to deviate from a normal distribution (all significance levels for the Shapiro–Wilk test were <0.001). To account for this, bias-corrected confidence intervals were utilized to reduce the likelihood of a Type 1 Error (95% confidence interval computed by 5000 bootstrap resamples) when testing for statistical significance in both the measurement and structural models [81]. Scale reliability was also examined utilizing Cronbach’s Alpha [82], with the appropriate scale reliability being >0.65 [83]. All scales but one met this threshold; specific values are provided in the Section 4. To assess the initial model fit for both the measurement and structural models, the ꭓ2 statistic was examined, although it is recognized that this statistic is sensitive to large sample sizes [84]. In recognizing the limitations associated with solely examining the ꭓ2 statistic, alternative global fit indices were also examined to determine the adequate model fit: RMSEA ≤ 0.10 [84]; SRMR ≤ 0.08 [84]; and CFI ≥ 0.90 [85]. Lastly, factor loadings were considered appropriate if they were statistically significant and >0.30 [86].

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics

Of the 1882 respondents retained for analysis, 17.9% responded via the Qualtrics market research panels, while the remaining 82.1% responded via the LNT listserv. The mean age of the samples was 45.9 (SD = 15.7), and the respondents identified as being predominantly white (85.9%). Additionally, 5.3% of respondents identified as Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx. A total of 2.7% of respondents identified as Black or African American, 0.9% identified as Native American, American Indian, or Alaskan Native, while 2.8% identified as Asian or Pacific Islander. The remaining 2.5% either identified as another race or did not indicate a response. For gender, 44.7% of individuals identified as female, 54.1% as male, and 1.0% as non-binary. Most (72.8%) individuals indicated that they held a four-year college degree or higher. Lastly, respondents were in a relatively high socioeconomic bracket, with 36.7% of individuals reporting an annual income of $100,000 or more. More detailed demographic information is further outlined in Table 1.

4.2. Measurement Model

The measurement model consisted of a confirmatory factor analysis for all the items and their corresponding latent constructs. In examining the ꭓ2 statistic, the results were significant and therefore indicated a poor model fit (ꭓ2 = 4051.702, df = 730, p < 0.001). Given the sensitivity of the ꭓ2 statistic to large sample sizes, alternative fit indices were also examined to provide a more general idea of the overall model fit. Alternative fit indices indicated a good model fit as they fell within all the established thresholds outlined in the Section 3: SRMR = 0.0544; RMSEA = 0.049; CFI = 0.911. Additionally, all the factor loadings were >0.30 and statistically significant. Proposition 1 is therefore supported as the fit indices and factor loadings broadly indicated an adequate model fit. Additionally, the Cronbach’s Alpha measures utilized to determine the scale reliabilities were all above the established 0.65 threshold [83], aside from that associated with the ecocentric values scale. Although the Cronbach’s Alpha for this scale fell slightly below the established threshold (0.60), the sub-scale was retained, as other measures indicating scale quality within the confirmatory factor analysis were acceptable. Further details on the measurement model and its associated scale reliabilities are outlined in Table 2.

4.3. Structural Model

Following the acceptance of the measurement model, the developed structural model was utilized to test the relationships between the latent constructs outlined in Figure 1 (Propositions 2–5 and Hypotheses 1–10). As would be expected given this study’s large sample size, the ꭓ2 statistic for the structural model indicates a poor model fit (ꭓ2 = 4055.578, df = 732, p < 0.001), although this represents only a minor reduction in model fit compared with the measurement model. In examining the alternative fit indices, these metrics indicate that the structural model met the appropriate thresholds for acceptance: SRMR = 0.0544; RMSEA = 0.049; CFI = 0.911. Given that the structural model met the necessary thresholds to indicate a good model fit, further analysis was conducted to examine the remaining propositions and hypotheses.
Proposition 2 (environmental identity is positively correlated with both ecocentric values and recreation specialization) and its associated hypotheses are supported by the structural model. The standardized path coefficient for the effect of ecocentric values on environmental identity is 0.53 and statistically significant (p < 0.001), supporting H1. For recreation specialization and its relationship to environmental identity, the standardized path coefficient is 0.42 and statistically significant (p < 0.001), supporting H2.
Proposition 3 (environmental identity is positively correlated with both public PEB and private PEB) is partially supported by the model results. The standardized path coefficient between environmental identity and public PEB is 0.06 and non-significant (p = 0.127), thus not supporting H3. In contrast to the relationship found between environmental identity and public PEB, the standardized path coefficient from environmental identity to private PEB is 0.44 and statistically significant (p < 0.001), in support of H4.
Proposition 4 (the relationship between ecocentric values and both public and private PEB is fully mediated by environmental identity) is partially supported by the developed structural model. In examining indirect effects between ecocentric values and both public and private PEBs, H5 is not supported, while H6 is supported. Ecocentric values have a non-significant indirect effect on public PEB (p = 0.135), with a standardized indirect path coefficient of 0.027. H6 is supported, as the latent construct ecocentric values has a significant indirect effect on private PEB (p < 0.001), with a standardized indirect path coefficient of 0.23. This implies that the pathway between ecocentric values and private PEB is mediated by environmental identity, but ecocentric values do not have a meaningful relationship with public PEB when mediated by environmental identity.
Lastly, Proposition 5 (the relationship between recreation specialization and both public and private pro-environmental behaviors is partially mediated by environmental identity) is also partially supported by the structural model. In examining direct pathways, recreation specialization had a significant direct effect on public PEB (standardized path coefficient = 0.32 and p < 0.001), supporting H7. The standardized path coefficient between recreation specialization and private PEB also suggests there is a significant direct relationship between the latent constructs (standardized path coefficient = 0.22 and p < 0.001). The indirect effect between recreation specialization and public PEB, as mediated by environmental identity, was not significant (p = 0.129). This pathway had an indirect path coefficient of 0.02. Alternatively, the indirect effect between recreation specialization and private PEB was significant (p < 0.001). The indirect path coefficient between these two variables was 0.18. This suggests that environmental identity partially mediates the relationship between recreation specialization and private PEB. For the relationship between recreation specialization and public PEB, the results suggest that there is a significant direct effect from recreation specialization on public PEB, but environmental identity does not play a meaningful role in mediating this relationship. The full structural model testing these relationships is outlined in Figure 2.

5. Discussion

The structural model provides correlational evidence of behavioral spillover, highlighting several nuances on how recreation specialization regarding environmentally responsible outdoor recreation practices may be related to both public and private PEB. The behavioral spillover framework examined in this study explored how an intervention targeted at one set of behaviors subsequently influences other unrelated sets of behaviors. Survey measures were utilized to examine whether specialization in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation (as promoted by LNT), was related to other, unrelated PEBs in the public and private domains. Ecocentric values as an independent predictor and identity as a mediator were also built into the model, as previous social psychological research supports these constructs as meaningful components within the behavioral spillover framework [32].
From a theoretical perspective, it is notable that environmental identity [31] had a significant relationship with private PEB, but not with public PEB. As described earlier, previous research has supported environmental identity as a mediator of positive behavioral processes [36,87]. This divergent relationship regarding public and private PEBs suggests that identity as a mediator of positive behavioral spillover may only hold true for one type of PEB (i.e., private behaviors). This highlights the importance of both measuring PEB in a multi-dimensional manner when examining behavioral spillover and understanding the potential limits of identity as a mediator within previously developed models. Previous research has suggested that private and public PEB may be two distinct behavioral domains [66,88]. This suggests that the multi-dimensional nature of PEB should be considered when examining spillover processes and the social psychological mechanisms that may influence how these behaviors support or inhibit each other. Furthermore, identity can also be conceptualized in several ways. The present study utilized Clayton’s [31] conceptualization of environmental identity as a form of personal identity, so it is unsurprising that the structural model primarily supports a relationship between this conceptualization of environmental identity and private PEBs. Personal environmental identity has been the primary focus of behavioral spillover research [31], however, Udall et al.’s [45] review on identity and PEB found that three forms of identity may influence PEB: personal identity, social identity, and place identity. Given the nuances associated with identity and PEB indicated by this study, future behavioral spillover research may benefit from examining how social environmental identity [43] and place identity [89,90,91] also influence behavioral spillover processes. Furthermore, divergent results from this study related to different types of PEB underscore the importance of defining which types of PEB are being measured in future research and why.
This divergence between private and public PEBs emphasizes the need for land managers and environmental educators to understand the behaviors that they are trying to promote. Environmental identity may be a useful pathway to maximize through educational efforts, if land managers and environmental educators decide that maximizing private PEB adoption is a priority. Previous research has suggested that extended educational experiences are needed to promote growth in individuals’ environmental identities [50,92]. Thus, land managers and educators may invest in multi-day programs that help people grow closer to the natural environment if they wish to maximize private PEB outcomes. If public PEBs are the preferred outcome, promoting an environmental identity amongst park visitors may not be a useful investment.
In examining the direct relationships between recreation specialization regarding environmentally responsible outdoor recreation and PEB, significant positive relationships were found for both public and private PEBs. Although some previous research has indicated that outdoor recreation involvement may have a mixed relationship with PEB [20,27], this research supports the broader trend in the academic literature that outdoor recreation is positively associated with higher levels of PEB (e.g., [13,51]). As discussed earlier, recreation specialization is a multi-faceted construct consisting of three dimensions: focusing of behavior, skill and knowledge development, and commitment to the activity in a variety of ways [26,57]. Quantifying environmentally responsible outdoor recreation involvement through this lens captures a range of social psychological constructs: knowledge, social norms, and attitudes. Given that recreation specialization includes both personal and social dimensions, this may explain its direct and positive relationship with both types of PEB, while environmental identity is only significantly associated with private PEB.
The direct relationship between recreation specialization regarding environmentally responsible outdoor recreation practices and PEB indicated by this study may provide useful guidance for land managers and environmental educators in promoting broader pro-environmental outcomes amongst outdoor recreationists. Recreation specialization can be supported by an individual developing a “social world” around a behavior or activity that supports growth in all three dimensions of recreation specialization [58,59]. Land managers and environmental educators may be able to support a spillover between environmentally responsible outdoor recreation and other PEBs by finding ways to develop community and social worlds around LNT practices amongst outdoor recreationists. Facilitating regular interactions and collaborative learning between outdoor recreationists may provide two ways to support the development of these social worlds in parks and protected areas [50]. This could potentially be supported by more widespread regular hikes in parks or protected areas where park employees demonstrate and teach proper minimum-impact outdoor recreation practices for attendees. In line with another dimension of recreation specialization, providing equipment that allows individuals to participate in minimum-impact outdoor recreation practices (e.g., providing bear cannisters to individuals camping in areas with high levels of human—bear conflict) may provide an avenue for individuals to further commit to environmentally responsible outdoor recreation practices. Although passive educational strategies, such as informational signage, have often been the norm in outdoor recreation spaces [8,15,93,94], this research suggests that facilitating environmentally responsible outdoor recreation through other means may be an effective path for promoting behavioral spillover. Although these strategies would likely necessitate additional monetary and institutional investment by parks and protected areas, widespread environmental benefits extending beyond the park boundary may be possible.

6. Limitations

Several limitations should be noted when interpreting the findings from this study. Firstly, the correlational nature of this research should be noted, as true behavioral spillover between environmentally responsible outdoor recreation and other PEBs cannot be definitively established [22]. Although prior research theoretically supports the developed structural model, this study only provides correlational evidence on how the behaviors and social psychological factors of interest are related. Future research building upon this study could utilize more advanced quasi-experimental designs, such as regression discontinuity analysis [95], to further test the relationship between social, psychological, and behavioral factors of interest. However, experimental designs would be essential in evaluating causal links.
Additionally, although this study combined a sample of individuals pulled from a pro-environmental organization and a general sample of United States residents, a large portion of the general sample was excluded from study analyses as they did not have prior knowledge of LNT practices. This resulted in the general sample ultimately being quite specialized in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation practices. As such, establishing a more traditional experimental design with a population who is completely naïve with regard to LNT practices could more formally tease apart how gaining knowledge on environmentally responsible outdoor recreation spills over into other forms of PEB. Previous research has effectively employed similar experimental designs regarding LNT practices specifically [96].
Thirdly, this study singularly utilized Clayton’s [31] conceptualization of environmental identity. This lens primarily conceptualizes environmental identity as a form of personal identity. Expanding identity measures to include social environmental identity [43] or place identity [89] could provide further evidence on how different forms of environmental identity ultimately influence the relationship between different PEBs. This approach would provide a more holistic picture on how identity ultimately influences PEB, building upon initial evidence provided by the literature review conducted by Udall et al. [45].
Fourthly, the study sample is confined to individuals residing in the United States, limiting study implications at an international level. While the study findings may have utility for educating park visitors in other countries, extending these findings to other locations and cultures should be performed with caution. Further research should validate this study’s findings in other contexts before educational and managerial decisions can be confidently guided by these results.

7. Conclusions

Previous research examining outdoor recreation involvement and PEB has generally indicated a positive relationship between the two constructs, but prior research has also shown that this relationship may be socially and psychologically complex [27]. Many previous studies have not explored the relationship between these constructs within a framework grounded in the broader social psychological literature. The behavioral spillover framework utilized in this study provided correlational evidence on how specialization in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation practices may spill over into public and private PEB participation. Environmental identity [31] was found to only be significantly related to private PEBs, but not to public PEBs. Thus, environmental identity’s role as a mediator of positive spillover was only indicated for private PEBs. Alternatively, specialization in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation practices had a significant, direct relationship with both private and public PEBs. This study’s grounding of specialization in a behavioral spillover framework provides a nuanced picture of how and when outdoor recreation participation may also influence broader participation in a variety of PEBs beyond the park boundary. If recreation specialization regarding environmentally responsible outdoor recreation practices can be promoted, individuals may also adopt other unrelated PEB, potentially taking a critical step in developing more sustainable social–ecological systems [9] and creating a more environmentally responsible citizenry. These findings can specifically be utilized by land managers in the United States to focus on ways to promote specialization in environmentally responsible outdoor recreation amongst park visitors. Additionally, in order to further maximize spillover into private PEBs, environmental identity may present an additional educational pathway for land managers to target with their outreach.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.N.M., Z.D.M., B.L. and J.P.A.; Methodology, T.J.M., T.N.M., Z.D.M., B.L., J.P.A. and B.D.T.; Validation, D.F.L., K.J.B. and B.D.T.; Formal analysis, T.J.M., T.N.M. and Z.D.M.; Investigation, T.J.M., T.N.M., Z.D.M. and B.D.T.; Writing—original draft, T.J.M.; Writing—review & editing, T.J.M., T.N.M., Z.D.M., B.L., J.P.A., D.F.L., K.J.B. and B.D.T.; Visualization, T.J.M.; Supervision, B.L., D.F.L., K.J.B. and B.D.T.; Project administration, T.J.M., B.L. and B.D.T.; Funding acquisition, B.L. and B.D.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The Leave No Trace Organization; Grant ##251491.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study can be made available by the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The views expressed in this paper are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official opinions or policy of the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, or the US Government.

References

  1. Timmons, A.L. Too much of a good thing: Overcrowding at America’s national parks. Notre Dame L. Rev. 2018, 94, 985. Available online: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol94/iss2/12 (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  2. Beery, T.; Olsson, M.R.; Vitestam, M. COVID-19 and outdoor recreation management: Increased participation, connection to nature, and a look to climate adaptation. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021, 36, 100457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mateer, T.J.; Rice, W.L.; Taff, B.D.; Lawhon, B.; Reigner, N.; Newman, P. Psychosocial factors influencing outdoor recreation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Sustain. Cities 2021, 70, 621029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Taff, B.D.; Rice, W.L.; Lawhon, B.; Newman, P. Who started, stopped, and continued participating in outdoor recreation during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States? Results from a national panel study. Land 2021, 10, 1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 2022. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  6. Finn, C.; Grattarola, F.; Pincheira-Donoso, D. More losers than winners: Investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends. Biol. Rev. 2023, 98, 1732–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chawla, L. Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. J. Environ. Educ. 1998, 29, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Marion, J.L.; Reid, S.E. Minimising visitor impacts to protected areas: The efficacy of low impact education programmes. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 5–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dietz, T.; Gardner, G.T.; Gilligan, J.; Stern, P.C.; Vandenbergh, M.P. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 18452–18456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Heberlein, T.A. Navigating Environmental Attitudes; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  11. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Halpenny, E.A. Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Larson, L.R.; Whiting, J.W.; Green, G.T. Exploring the influence of outdoor recreation participation on pro-environmental behaviour in a demographically diverse population. Local Environ. 2011, 16, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lee, T.H. How recreation involvement, place attachment and conservation commitment affect environmentally responsible behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 895–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mateer, T.J.; Taff, B.D.; Miller, Z.D.; Lawhon, B. Using visitor observations to predict proper waste disposal: A case study from three US national parks. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 1, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Miller, Z.D.; Lawhon, B.; Taff, B.D.; Schwartz, F.; Newman, P. Identifying strategies to reduce visitor-generated waste in national parks of the United States: The Zero Landfill Initiative. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2020, 19, 303–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. National Park Service. About Us. 2022. Available online: https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  18. Kreuter, M.W.; De Rosa, C.; Howze, E.H.; Baldwin, G.T. Understanding wicked problems: A key to advancing environmental health promotion. Health Educ. Behav. 2004, 31, 441–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Levin, K.; Cashore, B.; Bernstein, S.; Auld, G. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci. 2012, 45, 123–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Thapa, B. The mediation effect of outdoor recreation participation on environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. J. Environ. Educ. 2010, 41, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Larson, L.R.; Usher, L.E.; Chapmon, T. Surfers as environmental stewards: Understanding place-protecting behavior at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Leis. Sci. 2018, 40, 442–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Carrico, A.R. Climate change, behavior, and the possibility of spillover effects: Recent advances and future directions. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2021, 42, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nilsson, A.; Bergquist, M.; Schultz, W.P. Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: A review and research agenda. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 23, 573–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Truelove, H.B.; Carrico, A.R.; Weber, E.U.; Raimi, K.T.; Vandenbergh, M.P. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Oh, C.O.; Sutton, S.G.; Sorice, M.G. Assessing the role of recreation specialization in fishing site substitution. Leis. Sci. 2013, 35, 256–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Scott, D.; Shafer, C.S. Recreational specialization: A critical look at the construct. J. Leis. Res. 2001, 33, 319–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Høyem, J. Outdoor recreation and environmentally responsible behavior. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2020, 31, 100317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Oh, C.O.; Ditton, R.B. Using recreation specialization to understand conservation support. J. Leis. Res. 2008, 40, 556–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Teisl, M.F.; O’Brien, K. Who cares and who acts? Outdoor recreationists exhibit different levels of environmental concern and behavior. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 506–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Blanken, I.; Van De Ven, N.; Zeelenberg, M. A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2015, 41, 540–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Clayton, S. Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature; Clayton, S., Opotow, S., Eds.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 317–341. [Google Scholar]
  32. Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. I am what I am, by looking past the present: The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environ. Behav. 2014, 46, 626–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nash, N.; Whitmarsh, L.; Capstick, S.; Thøgersen, J.; Gouveia, V.; de Carvalho Rodrigues Araújo, R.; Harder, M.K.; Wang, X.; Liu, Y. Reflecting on behavioral spillover in context: How do behavioral motivations and awareness catalyze other environmentally responsible actions in Brazil, China, and Denmark? Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Verfuerth, C.; Jones, C.R.; Gregory-Smith, D.; Oates, C. Understanding contextual spillover: Using identity process theory as a lens for analyzing behavioral responses to a workplace dietary choice intervention. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Thomas, G.O.; Poortinga, W.; Sautkina, E. The Welsh single-use carrier bag charge and behavioural spillover. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 47, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Truelove, H.B.; Carrico, A.R.; Yeung, K.L.; Wolff, J.M. Identity and Guilt as Mediators of Pro-environmental Spillover. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 659483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lacasse, K. Don’t be satisfied, identify! Strengthening positive spillover by connecting pro-environmental behaviors to an “environmentalist” label. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 48, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gagnon-Thompson, S.C.; Barton, M.A. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stern, P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schwartz, S.H. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Stryker, S.; Burke, P.J. The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Soc. Psychol. Q. 2000, 63, 284–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fritsche, I.; Barth, M.; Jugert, P.; Masson, T.; Reese, G. A Social Identity Model of Pro-Environmental Action (SIMPEA). Psychol. Rev. 2018, 125, 245–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Miao, R.E.; Cagle, N.L. The role of gender, race, and ethnicity in environmental identity development in undergraduate student narratives. Environ. Educ. Res. 2020, 26, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Udall, A.M.; de Groot, J.I.; de Jong, S.B.; Shankar, A. How do I see myself? A systematic review of identities in pro-environmental behaviour research. J. Consum. Behav. 2020, 19, 108–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wallis, H.; Loy, L.S. What drives pro-environmental activism of young people? A survey study on the Fridays For Future movement. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 74, 101581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wenzel, K.; Süßbauer, E. Exploring domestic precycling behavior: A social identity perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Corcoran, P.B. Formative influences in the lives of environmental educators in the United States. Environ. Educ. Res. 1999, 5, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. McGuire, N.M. Environmental education and behavioral change: An identity-based environmental education model. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2015, 10, 695–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Williams, C.C.; Chawla, L. Environmental identity formation in nonformal environmental education programs. Environ. Educ. Res. 2016, 22, 978–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cooper, C.; Larson, L.; Dayer, A.; Stedman, R.; Decker, D. Are wildlife recreationists conservationists? Linking hunting, birdwatching, and pro-environmental behavior. J. Wildl. Manag. 2015, 79, 446–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bryan, H. Recreation specialization revisited. J. Leis. Res. 2000, 32, 18–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. McFarlane, B.L. Recreation specialization and site choice among vehicle-based campers. Leis. Sci. 2004, 26, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Salz, R.J.; Loomis, D.K. Recreation specialization and anglers’ attitudes towards restricted fishing areas. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2005, 10, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wu, T.C.; Scott, D.; Yang, C.C. Advanced or addicted? Exploring the relationship of recreation specialization to flow experiences and online game addiction. Leis. Sci. 2013, 35, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Oh, C.O.; Lyu, S.O.; Hammitt, W.E. Predictive linkages between recreation specialization and place attachment. J. Leis. Res. 2012, 44, 70–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lee, J.H.; Scott, D. Measuring birding specialization: A confirmatory factor analysis. Leis. Sci. 2004, 26, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ditton, R.B.; Loomis, D.K.; Choi, S. Recreation specialization: Re-conceptualization from a social worlds perspective. J. Leis. Res. 1992, 24, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Scott, D.; Godbey, G. Recreation specialization in the social world of contract bridge. J. Leis. Res. 1994, 26, 275–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lange, F.; Dewitte, S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Larson, L.R.; Stedman, R.C.; Cooper, C.B.; Decker, D.J. Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mateer, T.J.; Melton, T.N.; Miller, Z.D.; Lawhon, B.; Agans, J.P.; Taff, B.D. A multi-dimensional measure of pro-environmental behavior for use across populations with varying levels of environmental involvement in the United States. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0274083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ramkissoon, H.; Weiler, B.; Smith, L.D.G. Place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour in national parks: The development of a conceptual framework. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977; Volume 10, pp. 221–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Markle, G.L. Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured? Development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior scale (PEBS). Hum. Ecol. 2013, 41, 905–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sparks, A.C.; Henderson, G.L.; Sriram, S.K.; Smith, E.R. Measuring environmental values and identity. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2021, 34, 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Brick, C.; Sherman, D.K.; Kim, H.S. “Green to be seen” and “brown to keep down”: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 226–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Thomas, C.; Sharp, V. Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and its implications for other pro-environmental behaviours: A review of social norms and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 79, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Marion, J.L. Leave No Trace in the Outdoors; Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, PA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  71. Qualtrics. 2022. Available online: https://www.qualtrics.com/ (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  72. United States Census Bureau. United States of America. 2020. Available online: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?q=ACSDP1Y2019.DP05%20United%20States&g=0100000US (accessed on 1 December 2020).
  73. Etikan, I.; Bala, K. Sampling and sampling methods. Biom. Biostat. Int. J. 2017, 5, 215–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics. Report for Leave No Trace 2018 Member Survey; Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics: Boulder, CO, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  75. Vagias, W.M.; Powell, R.B.; Moore, D.D.; Wright, B.A. Predicting behavioral intentions to comply with recommended leave no trace practices. Leis. Sci. 2014, 36, 439–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Little, R.J. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1988, 83, 1198–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Vaske, J.J.; Donnelly, M.P. A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1999, 12, 523–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kyle, G.; Absher, J.; Norman, W.; Hammitt, W.; Jodice, L. A modified involvement scale. Leis. Stud. 2007, 26, 399–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Clayton, S.; Czellar, S.; Nartova-Bochaver, S.; Skibins, J.C.; Salazar, G.; Tseng, Y.C.; Irkhin, B.; Monge-Rodriguez, F.S. Cross-Cultural Validation of a Revised Environmental Identity Scale. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  82. Cortina, J.M. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Vaske, J.J. Survey Research and Analysis: Applications in Parks, Recreation and Human Dimensions; Venture Publishing: Shreveport, LA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  85. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kline, P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis; Routledge: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  87. Lauren, N.; Smith, L.D.; Louis, W.R.; Dean, A.J. Promoting spillover: How past behaviors increase environmental intentions by cueing self-perceptions. Environ. Behav. 2019, 51, 235–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dono, J.; Webb, J.; Richardson, B. The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Proshansky, H.M.; Fabian, A.K.; Kaminoff, R. Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. J. Environ. Psychol. 1983, 3, 57–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Russ, A.; Peters, S.J.E.; Krasny, M.; Stedman, R.C. Development of ecological place meaning in New York City. J. Environ. Educ. 2015, 46, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Stedman, R.C. Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 561–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Clayton, S.; Fraser, J.; Burgess, C. The role of zoos in fostering environmental identity. Ecopsychology 2011, 3, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Martin, C.L.; Momtaz, S.; Jordan, A.; Moltschaniwskyj, N.A. An assessment of the effectiveness of in-situ signage in multiple-use marine protected areas in providing information to different recreational users. Mar. Policy 2015, 56, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Saunders, R.; Weiler, B.; Scherrer, P.; Zeppel, H. Best practice principles for communicating safety messages in national parks. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2019, 25, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Cook, T.D.; Wong, V.C. Empirical tests of the validity of the regression discontinuity design. Ann. D’economie Stat. 2008, 91/92, 127–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Schwartz, F.; Taff, B.D.; Lawhon, B.; Hodge, C.; Newman, P.; Will, E. Will they leave what they find? The efficacy of a Leave No Trace education program for youth. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2018, 17, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 12 01970 g001
Figure 1. The proposed theoretical model in the present study.
Figure 1. The proposed theoretical model in the present study.
Land 12 01970 g001
Land 12 01970 g002
Figure 2. The developed structural model with fit indices: ꭓ2 = 4055.578, df = 732, p < 0.001; SRMR = 0.0544; RMSEA = 0.049; CFI = 0.911. Solid lines represent significant relationships between latent constructs and dotted lines represent insignificant relationships.
Figure 2. The developed structural model with fit indices: ꭓ2 = 4055.578, df = 732, p < 0.001; SRMR = 0.0544; RMSEA = 0.049; CFI = 0.911. Solid lines represent significant relationships between latent constructs and dotted lines represent insignificant relationships.
Land 12 01970 g002
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study sample.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study sample.
Demographic VariablesnPercentage of Sample
Mean age = 45.9 (SD = 15.7)
GenderFemale84244.7
Male101854.1
Non-binary181.0
Missing40.2
EthnicityWhite161785.9
Hispanic or Latino/Latina/Latinx995.3
Black or African American502.7
Native American, American Indian, or Alaskan Native160.9
Asian or Pacific Islander522.8
Other382.0
Missing100.5
Household IncomeLess than $10,000683.6
$10,000–$19,999864.6
$20,000–$29,9991126.0
$30,000–$39,9991367.2
$40,000–$49,9991246.6
$50,000–$59,9991266.7
$60,000–$69,9991317.0
$70,000–$79,9991296.9
$80,000–$89,999995.3
$90,000–$99,9991095.8
$100,000–$149,99938120.2
More than $150,00031116.5
Missing703.7
EducationSome high school90.5
GED or high school graduate1136.0
Some college or technical school38620.5
Four-year college graduate73238.9
Graduate degree63833.9
Missing40.2
Table 2. Individual item labels, notes for the measurement model, and scale reliabilities.
Table 2. Individual item labels, notes for the measurement model, and scale reliabilities.
Latent ConstructItem LabelItem DescriptionΛMeanSD
Ecocentric Values
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.60
“Please rate how much you disagree or agree with the following statements by selecting the appropriate point from the scale below”. (−3—Completely Disagree to 3—Completely Agree)		ECOVAL-1Wildlife, plants, and people have equal rights to live and develop.0.431.421.69
ECOVAL-2Nature has value, whether people are present or not.0.702.551.11
ECOVAL-3Humans are as much a part of the ecosystem as other animals.0.441.981.43
ECOVAL-4One of the worst things about overpopulation is that many natural areas are getting destroyed for development.0.521.971.40
Recreation Specialization
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.91
“Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements”. (−3—Completely Disagree to 3—Completely Agree)		SPEC-1I have regularly used Leave No Trace techniques when recreating outdoors in the past.0.802.261.12
SPEC-2I have taken time to educate others about using Leave No Trace techniques when recreating outdoors.0.701.861.38
SPEC-3When recreating outdoors previously, I have planned ahead and prepared beyond the basic necessities.0.752.171.11
SPEC-4I have disposed of waste properly when recreating outdoors in the past.0.682.421.01
SPEC-5I spend time regularly learning how to better Leave No Trace when recreating outdoors.0.491.151.45
SPEC-6I believe my knowledge of Leave No Trace techniques is more advanced than that of most other outdoor recreationists.0.581.351.41
SPEC-7I understand how to use Leave No Trace techniques in a variety of outdoor settings.0.802.111.11
SPEC-8I am confident in my ability to effectively Leave No Trace when participating in a variety of outdoor recreation activities.0.792.201.09
SPEC-9I have invested in outdoor equipment to help me better Leave No Trace when recreating outdoors.0.661.771.45
SPEC-10Using Leave No Trace techniques when recreating outdoors says a lot about who I am.0.671.951.21
SPEC-11Many people I surround myself with use Leave No Trace techniques when recreating outdoors.0.531.551.31
SPEC-12I identify with the general image associated with Leave No Trace.0.662.021.21
Environmental Identity
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.93
“Please indicate the extent to which each of the following statements describes you by selecting the appropriate point from the scale below”. (0—Not at all true of me to 6—Completely true of me)		EID-1I like to spend time outdoors in natural settings (such as woods, mountains, rivers, fields, local parks, lake or beach, or a leafy yard or garden).0.855.650.87
EID-2I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate from it.0.585.021.22
EID-3If I had enough resources such as time or money, I would spend some of them to protect the natural environment.0.755.441.01
EID-4When I am upset or stressed, I can feel better by spending some time outdoors surrounded by nature.0.815.510.97
EID-5Behaving responsibly toward nature—living a sustainable lifestyle—is important to who I am.0.725.301.01
EID-6Learning about the natural world should be part of everyone’s upbringing.0.825.580.89
EID-7If I could choose, I would prefer to live where I can have a view of the natural environment, such as trees or fields.0.755.560.95
EID-8An important part of my life would be missing if I was not able to get outside and enjoy nature from time to time.0.845.630.93
EID-9I think elements of the natural world are more beautiful than any work of art.0.505.091.21
EID-10I feel refreshed when I spend time in nature.0.825.650.81
EID-11I consider myself a steward of our natural resources.0.675.211.08
EID-12I feel comfortable out in nature.0.725.530.91
EID-13I enjoy encountering elements of nature, like trees or grass, even when I am in a city setting.0.755.550.94
Private Pro-Environmental Behavior
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.77
“Please rate how frequently you have participated in the following activities in the past six months by selecting the appropriate point from the scale below”. (0—Never to 6—As frequently as possible)		Priv-PEB-1Bought environmentally friendly and/or energy efficient products.0.734.801.29
Priv-PEB-2Walked or rode a bike when traveling short distances.0.514.371.66
Priv-PEB-3Reused or mended items rather than throwing them away.0.614.861.31
Priv-PEB-4Avoided buying products with excessive packaging0.704.291.57
Priv-PEB-5Bought organic vegetables.0.524.071.76
Priv-PEB-6Minimized use of heating or air conditioning to limit energy use.0.574.531.49
Public Pro-Environmental Behavior
Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.82
“Please rate how frequently you have participated in the following activities in the past six months by selecting the appropriate point from the scale below”. (0—Never to 6—As frequently as possible)		Pub-PEB-1Talked to others in your community about environmental issues.0.723.971.69
Pub-PEB-2Worked with others to address an environmental problem or issue.0.783.561.82
Pub-PEB-3Participated as an active member in a local environmental group.0.733.042.08
Pub-PEB-4Signed a petition about an environmental issue.0.593.372.07
Pub-PEB-5Donated money to support local environmental protection.0.753.561.86
Global Fit Indices: ꭓ2 = 4051.702, df = 730, p < 0.001; SRMR = 0.0544; RMSEA = 0.049; CFI = 0.911
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mateer, T.J.; Melton, T.N.; Miller, Z.D.; Lawhon, B.; Agans, J.P.; Lawson, D.F.; Brasier, K.J.; Taff, B.D. The Potential Pro-Environmental Behavior Spillover Effects of Specialization in Environmentally Responsible Outdoor Recreation. Land 2023, 12, 1970. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12111970

AMA Style

Mateer TJ, Melton TN, Miller ZD, Lawhon B, Agans JP, Lawson DF, Brasier KJ, Taff BD. The Potential Pro-Environmental Behavior Spillover Effects of Specialization in Environmentally Responsible Outdoor Recreation. Land. 2023; 12(11):1970. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12111970

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mateer, Timothy J., Theresa N. Melton, Zachary D. Miller, Ben Lawhon, Jennifer P. Agans, Danielle F. Lawson, Kathryn J. Brasier, and B. Derrick Taff. 2023. "The Potential Pro-Environmental Behavior Spillover Effects of Specialization in Environmentally Responsible Outdoor Recreation" Land 12, no. 11: 1970. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12111970

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop