Methods
We administered an online survey to a sample of Oregon State University undergraduate students recruited from NR-related courses during the 2017-2018 academic year. A total of 260 students from a variety of majors completed the survey; 218 responses were used for analysis based on their completion of the survey in its entirety (Table 1). Approximately 21% (n=45) were forestry majors, which approximates their percentage among natural-resource-related areas of study nationally (Sharik et.al 2015). The survey consisted of 40 questions, but only a subset of these were used for the present analysis.
To measure the ethical/metaphysical elements of environmental worldviews, we used 11 Likert-type items drawn from three established scales, including the New Environmental Paradigm scale (Dunlap et al. 2000), the Connectedness to Nature scale (Mayer and Frantz 2004), and the Environmental Identity scale (Olivos and Aragonés 2011). None of the psychological constructs these scales were designed to measure fully encompasses the philosophical worldview construct, as we conceptualize it, and in appropriating items from these scales it was not our intent to measure the New Ecological paradigm, nature connectedness, or environmental identity, per se. Rather, we chose select items from these scales because they were also suitable to measure certain (ethical and metaphysical) content of the environmental worldview construct; and because, as tested and widely-used survey items, we were confident that they were clearly worded and so had minimal likelihood of generating response error. Items were rated from 1 to 5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree). To group these items for analysis we used principal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation, retaining only variables with loadings of 0.40 or higher and eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Kaiser 1974). This procedure returned three factors, which we labeled Moral Inclusion (MI), Bond with Nature (BN), and Human’s Role (HR) (see Appendix).
Internal reliability, measured using Cronbach’s alpha (Vaske 2008), was acceptable for all three factors (MI: α = 0.77; BN: α = 0.60; HR: α = 0.56), so we averaged the scores of items loading on each factor.11One item was removed from the HR score to improve reliability. This produced three composite scores for each student, with lower scores signifying more anthropocentric (MI), more dualistic (BN), and more hierarchical (HR) beliefs. We calculated overall MI, BN, and HR means for forestry and non-forestry students, and compared them using independent sample Student’s t-tests (Table 2).
To capture ethical/epistemological aspects of environmental worldviews, we developed a measure to assess the extent to which students deviate from the dominant utilitarian mode of moral reasoning. “Moral reasoning” refers to the reasons people invoke to explain how they believe they ought to behave. We presented five statements, asking students to indicate the extent to which they agreed (or not) that each expresses an appropriate way to approach an environmental decision (Table 3). Items were inspired by five ethical theories identified in the environmental ethics literature (see Des Jardins 2001, Nelson and Vucetich 2012), each representing a different mode of moral reasoning. According to natural law theory, what is natural is good, and should therefore be maintained. Rights of nature refers to the idea nature has certain moral rights, which humans should uphold. Utilitarianism suggests humans should interact with the environment in ways that maximize benefits.22Although the item allowed a non-anthropocentric interpretation, we expect most students interpreted “benefit” in anthropocentric terms. According to virtue theory, humans should manifest certain virtues, such as care and humility, when they interact with the environment. Finally, in divine command theory, humans should interact with the environment as commanded by a divine figure. Students rated each statement on a 0-100 sliding scale, where 0 signifies neutrality and 100 signifies full agreement (Table 3).
Although we piloted this measure informally among colleagues, we acknowledge this was a highly exploratory section of the survey, which is a limitation of the study. Based on suggestive evidence generated from this measure, reported below, we highlight the development and validation of a measure of environmental moral reasoning as a direction that merits attention in future research. For analysis, we used independent t-tests to compare mean utilitarianism ratings between forestry and non-forestry students. We also calculated the proportion of students who rated utilitarianism higher than or equivalent to other modes of moral reasoning for both groups, and compared these proportions using chi-square tests (Figure 2).
A final epistemology measure assessed perceptions of non-scientific (i.e., creative, artistic, philosophical) ways of knowing. We used Likert-type items developed by Goralnik et al. (2015), to have students rate a statement about the value of the humanities. A standard definition of the humanities was included for reference (Stanford Humanities Center:http://shc.stanford.edu/what-are-the-humanities). Survey items were scored from 1 to 5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree). To group the items, we used principal components analysis, following the specifications noted above. All five items loaded on a single factor, which we call Attitudes toward Humanities (AH). Internal reliability was good (α = 0.88), so we averaged the five item scores, producing one composite measure for each student (Vaske 2008). Higher scores correspond to more positive attitudes toward the humanities, suggesting students acknowledge the legitimacy of forms of knowledge other than the Western scientific approaches that have generally dominated in NR fields. We averaged AH scores for forestry and non-forestry students, and compared the two groups using independent sample Student’s t-tests. Students were also asked whether they want their academic program to incorporate the humanities (yes/no/unsure). We used chi-square to compare “yes” versus “no/unsure” responses between forestry and non-forestry students (Figure 3).