This article was downloaded by: [Northwestern University]On: 22 August 2014, At: 17:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Environmental EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjee20

The Mediation Effect of OutdoorRecreation Participation onEnvironmental Attitude-BehaviorCorrespondenceBrijesh Thapa aa University of Florida , Gainesville, Florida, USAPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Brijesh Thapa (2010) The Mediation Effect of Outdoor Recreation Participationon Environmental Attitude-Behavior Correspondence, The Journal of Environmental Education, 41:3,133-150, DOI: 10.1080/00958960903439989

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958960903439989

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, 41(3), 133–150, 2010Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0095-8964DOI: 10.1080/00958960903439989

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The Mediation Effect of Outdoor Recreation Participationon Environmental Attitude-Behavior Correspondence

Brijesh ThapaUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Outdoor recreation participation has increased over the past decades and is projected for furthergrowth. Given the increase, it is important to assess recreationists’ environmental values, activitystyle, general, and site-specific attitudes and behaviors to promote environmental stewardship, and todevelop effective strategies in natural resource management and public policy. This study exploredrecreationists’ environmental attitude-behavior relationship and the impact of outdoor recreationactivity orientation (as a mediator variable) on attitude-behavior correspondence. Overall, attitudesexhibited stronger direct relationships with behaviors, when compared to the effect of participationon behaviors. The influence of activity participation on attitude-behavior correspondence was notsignificantly demonstrative. The association between participation in outdoor recreation and environ-mentalism is complex, and there is a need for additional research to better understand the relationship.

Keywords environmental attitude-behavior correspondence, mediation analysis, outdoor recreationparticipation

INTRODUCTION

Since outdoor recreationists are in direct contact with nature, it is generally assumed that theyare more likely to appreciate the natural surroundings and espouse a proenvironmental orienta-tion (Dunlap & Heffernan, 1975; Thapa & Graefe, 2003). Outdoor recreation participation alsooffers an educational feature (e.g., interpretative messages and information on bulletin boards),that influences recreationists’ environmental protection beliefs with respect to preservation orutilitarian perspective toward management and protection of natural areas (Dunlap & Heffernan,1975; Thapa, 2000). However, if participation in outdoor recreation activities stimulates or in-creases environmental attitudes and/or proenvironmental behaviors, this holds a promising future

Correspondence should be sent to Brijesh Thapa, Center for Tourism Research and Development, Department ofTourism, Recreation & Sport Management, University of Florida, PO Box 118208, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. E-mail:bthapa@hhp.ufl.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

134 THAPA

for the environmental movement as recreationists can be targeted for membership and supportby environmental organizations (Teisl & O’Brien, 2003). Also, outdoor recreation areas are alikely source to further expand environmental educational information and interpretation to pro-mote protection and stewardship (Thapa & Graefe, 2003). Results could also have various policyand practical implications (Nord, Luloff, & Bridger, 1998; Schuett & Ostergren, 2003; Teisl &O’Brien, 2003). Nord et al. (1998, p. 236) indicated that “if outdoor recreation leads to increasedenvironmentalism, then funding, promoting, and operating parks and outdoor recreation facilitiesand programs may be effective components of a strategy for protecting and improving the naturalenvironment.”

Outdoor recreation participation has increased over the past decades and is projected for furthergrowth (Cordell, 1999). Ninety seven percent of the U.S. population reported to have participatedin at least one outdoor recreation activity with walking as the most popular, and birding as thefastest growing activity. Also, there has been a major growth in popularity among activitiesthat are related to trails, motorized, camping, and snow skiing (Cordell, Betz, & Green, 2002).Given the increase, it is important to assess recreationists’ general environmental conscious-ness as well as attitudes and behaviors toward site-specific issues to promote environmentalstewardship in the outdoors. Nevertheless, environmental consciousness among outdoor recre-ationists varies due to individual value-orientation, which in effect may influence their choiceof activity and behaviors (Cordell et al., 2002; Thapa & Graefe, 2003). Individual and societalvalues are influencing catalysts in value formation, environmentalism, and outdoor recreationparticipation. Value-orientations and respective environmental worldview can be convergent ordivergent among recreationists that can create major challenges to natural resource managers(Schuett & Ostergren, 2003). However, knowledge of recreationists’ environmental values andethics are instrumental for natural resources management and public policy (Manning, Valliere,& Minteer, 1996). The objective of this study is to further examine environmental consciousnessbased on attitudes and behaviors among outdoor recreationists with varying styles of activityparticipation.

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION AND ENVIRONMENTALISM

The relationship between outdoor recreation participation and proenvironmental concern wasfirst empirically tested among a sample of residents in the State of Washington. Overall, findingswere mixed with respect to the positive association between outdoor recreation participation andenvironmental concern. However, participants involved in appreciative activities (e.g., hiking)were more likely to have a strong association with environmental concern than participantsinvolved in consumptive activities (e.g., hunting) (Dunalp & Heffernan, 1975).

Such a line of inquiry between outdoor recreation participation and cultivation of proenvi-ronmental concern has been further empirically tested with somewhat mixed or weak support(Geisler, Martinson, & Wilkening, 1977; Jackson, 1986; Pinhey & Grimes, 1979; Van Liere& Noe, 1981). Most of the early research has focused on the relationship to environmentalconcern, which has been measured using environmental attitudes, as it has been noted that at-titudes predispose behaviors (Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995). Also, direct contact evokes asense of personal meaning and is more likely to contribute to better behavioral predictability.Conversely, indirect contact or experience (via television, print media, etc.) increases awareness

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION 135

and understanding, but does not have the personal meaning, and hence, will probably lead toweak behavioral predictability (Tarrant & Green, 1999). However, some researchers have arguedand identified that due to the lack of consistency in findings, proenvironmental behaviors are abetter measure than environmental attitudes in assessing the association of participation in out-door recreation activities and environmentalism (Nord et al., 1998; Theodori, Luloff, & Willits,1998).

Since these studies, there has been limited recent empirical research on this topic (see Bjerke,Thrane & Kleiven, 2006; Bright & Porter, 2001; Cordell et al., 2002; Peterson, Hull, Mertig &Liu, 2008; Schuett & Ostergren, 2003; Teisl & O’Brien, 2003; Thapa & Graefe, 2003). However,the majority of the recent research has focused on the relationship of outdoor recreation partic-ipation and environmental attitudes. Also, analyses of additional independent variables such asdemographics have been incorporated to assess potential relationships. Findings generally sup-port earlier research outputs with respect to weak or moderate relationships. However, recentlyPeterson et al. (2008) identified that outdoor recreation participation had a greater impact on en-vironmental concern compared to previous studies. Nevertheless, research has generally focusedon the association of outdoor recreation participation on either environmental attitudes and/orbehaviors. Overall, there is a paucity of research in determining the effect of outdoor recreationparticipation on environmental attitude-behavior correspondence.

Numerous studies about environmental attitudes and behaviors have been documented. Re-search has generally found weak or modest relationships with respect to attitude-behavior corre-spondence (Cottrell, 2003; Scott & Willits, 1994; Tarrant & Cordell, 1997; Thapa, 1999, 2000).Three factors have been cited as reasons that contribute to the weak predictability of the attitude-behavior relationship (Tarrant & Cordell, 1997; Tarrant & Green, 1999): (1) Attitude specificity(specific versus general measures); (2) Attitude measurement; and (3) Effect of external factors.Based on these issues, researchers have continued to further study the relationship with improve-ment in methodology and operationalization of constructs. Research has now expanded beyondthe hypothesis of whether attitudes translate into behaviors; to when and under what conditionsattitude predicts behavior (Cottrell, 2003; Tarrant & Green, 1999). As such, the effect of externalvariables on the attitude-behavior relationship has been empirically tested. External variablesare usually linked to socio-demographic factors, normative behaviors, personality characteristics(e.g., locus of control, knowledge, and political orientation), and situational conditions (Tarrant& Cordell, 1997). Among these variables, sociodemographics and political orientation have re-ceived the most attention in empirical research, but have essentially been employed to examinethe effects on environmental attitudes and/or proenvironmental behaviors. In order to gain betterbehavioral predictability, the role of mediators has been pursued; in which general environmentalattitudes or concern have also been employed as mediators (Cottrell, 2003; Cottrell & Graefe,1997; Fulton, Manfredo, & Lipscomb, 1996; Tarrant, Bright, & Cordell, 1997; Vaske & Donnelly,1999).

Among the existing relevant research, Tarrant and Green (1999) explored the influence ofoutdoor recreation participation as a moderator and a mediator variable on environmental attitude-behavior correspondence among a sample of households in the Southern Appalachian region ofthe United States. Respondents were asked to indicate their participation in selected outdoorrecreation activities (appreciative, consumptive, and motorized) during the past twelve months.The activities were listed in a yes/no format. Environmental attitudes were operationalized usingfive scales popular in the literature, namely, New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), Environmental

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

136 THAPA

Concern (EC), Roper Scale, Awareness of Consequences (AC), and a modified version of theForest Values (FV) scale. Each respondent answered to only one of the scales. Environmentallyresponsible behaviors consisted of an 11-item scale. Based on the analyses, lack of a moderatingeffect (participation in outdoor recreation activities) in the attitude-behavior contingency wasidentified for all five scales. However, a mediating effect was found only for appreciative outdoorrecreation activities (day hiking, backpacking, nature/bird viewing) in the environmental attitude-behavior relationship.

A key limitation to Tarrant and Green’s (1999) study as well as most of the aforementionedstudies is that participation in outdoor recreation activities was not a mutually exclusive cat-egory. In prior studies, respondents were asked to denote their level of participation (numberof days) in a list of given activities. Based on their response to each activity, a dichotomous(yes/no) variable was created for activity participation. Operationalization of outdoor recreationactivity participation is a challenging issue as recreationists typically participate in more thanone activity. Van Liere and Noe’s (1981) research was first to recognize the challenge andthen adopt several measures. First, outdoor recreation was operationalized by determining theintensity of participation (number of hours) per day in each of the chosen activities. Second,frequency of participation (number of days) in the chosen activity was asked of respondents.They noted that “the advantage of these two questions is that they more accurately reflect in-volvement in several activities during the course of a visit to a park” (Van Liere & Noe, 1981,p. 508).

Jackson (1986) requested respondents to report their frequency of participation in the past yearin 36 mentioned activities. Only 15 activities were used in the analysis, and these were recodedinto participants and non-participants. Similarly, Nord et al. (1998) used frequency of visitation tothe forest, and types of activities while at the forest. Theodori et al. (1998) also used participationmeasures in nine mentioned activities. Recently, Bjerke et al. (2006) asked respondents to list ifthey were interested in 15 selected activities based on a 1–5 scale. Finally, Peterson et al. (2008)asked respondents to indicate their frequency of participation in select activities in a typical year.As reviewed, various types of operationalization for outdoor recreation participation have beenemployed in the literature and lacks consistency.

The original thesis offered by Dunlap and Heffernan (1975) has evolved and expanded fromenvironmental concern to incorporate proenvironmental behaviors and environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. Also, researchers have employed various measures of outdoor recre-ation participation, environmental attitudinal, and behavioral constructs. Although earlier researchhad lacked strong measures of operationalization and thus yielded weak or mixed relationships;improvement in operationalization and methodology has been evident in subsequent researchinitiatives. Overall, the inconsistencies in findings with respect to the outdoor recreation partici-pation and environmentalism may be a result of weak operationalization of key variables such asoutdoor recreation participation, environmental attitudes, and behaviors (Teisl & O’Brien, 2003;Thapa & Graefe, 2003; Thapa, 2000).

The purpose of this study was to further explore the association of participation in outdoorrecreation activities and environmentalism; more specifically, to explore the effect of participationin outdoor recreation activities as a mediator on environmental attitude-behavior correspondence.Also, the study aimed to extend the literature by utilizing a different measure of outdoor recre-ation participation and treatment of environmental attitudes and behaviors as multidimensionalconstructs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION 137

METHODS

Study Site

Bald Eagle State Forest, located in central Pennsylvania, United States, was the chosen study site.The forest encompasses 195,624 acres among five counties, and provides diverse recreationalopportunities on a year-round basis. The stocked streams and the world-famous Penns Creekdraw anglers, especially during the spring season. The summer provides excellent opportunitiesfor a diverse array of recreation activities, such as walking/day hiking, camping, mountain-biking, viewing scenery, backpacking, etc. Similarly, the fall season attracts horseback riders,photographers, and sightseers who drive through the forest to witness the fall colors. The winterseason largely attracts hunters during the small and big game seasons, while cross-country skiingand snowmobiling are also popular activities among visitors. The area receives day and overnightusers as 300+ private and leased cabins are located within the forest.

Selection of Subjects

Bald Eagle State Forest, similar to other forests within the Pennsylvanian State Forest system,consists of multiple parcels of land. Other public lands agencies such as State Parks, Fish andGame Commission lands, as well as private lands are coterminous or within the State Forestboundaries. The State Forest lands (340 miles of unpaved roads) can be accessed via multiplepoints of entry and are used by recreationists and commuters. A sampling plan to achieve arepresentative sample of forest users was formulated, in which the Forest was demarcated intoeight zones with 1–3 sampling sites per zone (n = 13).

Data were collected through a combination of survey methods. The first method consistedof on-site intercept surveys at all sites between June and October. Following on-site surveys(5 minutes), a follow-up questionnaire packet (letter describing the study, an eight-page survey,and a self-addressed, postage-paid return envelope) was given to individuals to complete at home.Individual addresses were also taken for subsequent survey mailings (second and third contact) asa reminder to return the questionnaire. Based on the on-site interviews (n = 593), 309 individualsmailed back the follow-up questionnaire (52% response rate).

The second method involved a “windshield survey” method (October–March), whereby sur-veyors drove through various zones and placed mail-back questionnaires on visitors’ vehicles(windshield). Surveyors rotated shifts (early morning and late afternoon/evening) and drove3 hours through approximately three to four zones. A “driving plan” was mapped for all theeight zones and subsequently followed. Since personal contacts were not initiated, the responserate was 23% with 213 returned questionnaires. The low response rate was expected and is alimitation. However, this was the best feasible approach given the winter weather conditions andvisitor use patterns composed of largely hunters. Based on both methods, the total usable samplewas 522 respondents.

Profile of Respondents

Males comprised 87% of respondents while 13% were females. The age distribution was skewedmore toward the ages of 41–50, which represented about 28% of the total sample. The next largest

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

138 THAPA

segment (22%) represented the age group between 31–40. However, about 21% represented the60 and over category, and 13% were under 30 years of age. The sample consisted of almostall Caucasians (99%). Approximately 40% indicated they were raised in rural areas (up to age18) as well as currently reside in rural areas. About 52% reported a high school education orless; 35% indicated some form of college education (technical/vocational or up to 4 years), and13% noted graduate school or more. Only 10% noted to have more than three children living intheir household, and 60% indicated none. Forty three percent reported their combined householdincomes to be over $50,000; 31% noted incomes between $30,000–$49,999; and 26% reportedunder $29,999.

OPERATIONALIZATION OF VARIABLES

Outdoor Recreation Activity

Operationalization of outdoor recreation activity participation has been a limitation in previousresearch as participation is usually not a mutually exclusive variable; recreationists typicallyparticipate in more than one activity. Owing to the limitation, Tarrant and Green (1999) recom-mended that in future studies, the participation in outdoor recreation variable be operationalizedby asking respondents to indicate their “most favorite recreation activity” (p. 27). Although, thismay still be limiting, it is an improvement in operationalization as individuals would likely aligntheir attitudes and views based on their most favorite or important activity due to centrality ofthe activity in their life. In this study, participation in outdoor recreation was examined as therespondent’s “most important activity” participated at the study site and elsewhere.

Of the 21 listed activities, hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling were the most popular activities.The identified activities were recoded within appreciative, consumptive, and motorized activityorientations. Appreciative (e.g., bird-watching) forms of recreational activity include recreation-ists enjoying the natural environment in a non-consumptive manner, while consumptive (e.g.,hunting) entails taking or rather consuming something from the environment. Motorized (e.g., allterrain vehicles-ATV) forms of recreation consist of employing motorized equipment to recreatein the natural environment (Jackson, 1986; Tarrant & Green, 1999; Thapa, 2000). Based onthe three activity orientations, 34% represented appreciative; 51% consumptive and 15% weremotorized (see Table 1).

Environmental Attitudes

Environmental attitudes were operationalized with the revised New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)scale, in which the scale is a general set of beliefs or attitudes toward the environment (Dunlap, VanLiere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). The scale is a revision of the original 12-item scale (Dunlap & VanLiere, 1978) conceptually based upon: (1) reality of limits to growth; (2) anti-anthropocentrism;(3) fragility of nature’s balance; (4) rejection of exemptionalism; and (5) possibility of an eco-crisis or ecological catastrophe. The scale consisted of 15 items on a 5-point Likert Scale formatthat ranged from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).

The NEP scale was subjected to a principal components analysis using varimax rotation,in which two of the 15 items were reverse coded to maintain consistent directionality of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION 139

TABLE 1Activity Orientation and Frequency of Participation of Respondents

Most Important Activity Frequency Percentage

Appreciative Activities 168 33.9Viewing scenery 39 7.9Walking/day hiking 39 7.9Camping 28 5.7Wildlife watching/feeding 16 3.2Swimming 15 3.0Picnicking 9 1.8Mountain biking 8 1.6Horseback riding 6 1.2Backpacking 2 0.4Canoeing 2 0.4Photography 2 0.4Jogging/trail running 1 0.2Hang-gliding 1 0.2

Consumptive Activities 251 50.7Hunting 173 34.9Fishing 75 15.2Insect collection 1 0.2Target shooting 1 0.2Cutting firewood 1 0.2

Motorized Activities 76 15.4Snowmobiling 64 12.9Off-road vehicles 7 1.4Motorboating 5 1.0

items. The analysis yielded three factors (Ecocentric, Dualcentric, and Technocentric) whichexplained 51% of total variance. The factor names and concept were based on ecocentric andtechnocentric dichotomy advanced by O’Riordan (1981) and also used and expanded in theliterature (see Jackson, 1986; Kuhn & Jackson, 1989; Thapa, 1999, 2000, 2001). Ecocentric(six items, Cronbach’s alpha = .81) attitude relates to the belief that the environment is ina precarious position, and human impacts can be detrimental to survival. Technocentric (fiveitems, Cronbach’s alpha = .70) attitude represents a techno-fix mentality toward environmentalconcerns and issues whereby technological innovations can solve problems. Finally, Dualcentric1

(four items, Cronbach’s alpha = .58) denotes a symbiotic dual equality attitude between humansand the environment (see Table 2). Factor loadings of 0.4 or more were employed, and the meanvalues of the items for environmental attitudes were computed to devise a single index score foreach factor.

Environmental Behaviors

Environmentally Responsible Behaviors were operationalized using a series of self-reported2

proenvironmental behaviors (15 items) on a 5- point Likert Scale format, ranging from Rarely(1) to Usually (5). A majority of the items were derived from the Environmentally Responsible

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

140 THAPA

TABLE 2Reliability Analysis for Respondents’ Environmental Attitudes

Corrected AlphaItem Total If Item

Questionnaire Statements Mean SD Correlation Deleted

EcocentricThe earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and

resources.3.44 1.2 .56 .77

If things continue on their present course we will soonexperience a major catastrophe.

3.25 1.1 .62 .76

We are approaching the limit of the number of people that theearth can support.

3.44 1.2 .53 .78

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 3.87 1.0 .58 .77When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous

consequences.3.76 1.2 .48 .79

Humans are severely abusing the environment. 3.93 1.1 .61 .76Overall Index 3.62 4.9 .81TechnocentricHuman ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earthunlivable. 3.08 1.2 .50 .63Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works

to be able to control it.3.82 1.1 .39 .67

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how todevelop them.

2.43 1.2 .44 .66

The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impactsof modern industrial nations.

3.84 1.1 .47 .64

The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has beengreatly exaggerated.

3.22 1.2 .47 .65

Overall Index 3.28 3.9 .70DualcentricHumans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.∗ 3.44 1.4 .46 .44Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. 3.94 1.2 .46 .44Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit

their needs.∗3.73 1.2 .33 .55

Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the lawsof nature.

4.38 0.8 .26 .59

Overall Index 3.87 3.1 .58

SD = standard deviation. ∗Items reverse coded.

Behavior Index (Smith-Sebasto, 1995). Other items were adapted from the literature (Cottrell& Graefe, 1997; Scott & Willits, 1994; Thapa, 1999). The behavioral items addressed variousthemes such as recycling; green consumerism (e.g., avoidance of certain products-change inpurchase behaviors); political activism (e.g., writing letters to congresspersons/officials, electionof officials based on their environmental record); and educational activities (e.g., learning morein the hopes of making a contribution).

The environmentally responsible behavior items were also subjected to a principal compo-nents analysis using varimax rotation. Five factors (Political Activism, Recycling, Educational,Green Consumerism, and Community Activism) were identified, which explained 70% of total

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION 141

variance. Political Activism (4 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .78) pertains to involvement in activi-ties/actions that advocate environmentalism. Recycling (3 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .84) relatesto involvement in sorting trash and recycling of glass bottles, cans, newspapers, etc. Educational(2 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .79) reflects actions such as, watching television programs andreading books and articles about environmental issues. Green Consumerism (3 items, Cronbach’salpha = .73) pertains to various purchase behaviors that have minimal environmental impact.Community Activism (3 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .66) reflects participation in a localized orcommunity setting with respect to environmental issues (see Table 3). Similarly, factor loadingsof 0.4 or more were used. A single composite index score for each factor was computed basedon the item mean values for environmental behaviors.3

TABLE 3Reliability Analysis for Respondents’ Environmentally Responsible Behaviors

Corrected AlphaItem Total If Item

Questionnaire Statements Mean SD Correlation Deleted

Political ActivismWritten to your elected officials expressing your opinions on

environmental issues1.67 1.0 .58 .73

Subscribed to environmental publications 1.95 1.1 .60 .71Voted for a public official due to his/her record on protecting

the environment2.52 1.4 .56 .73

Donated money or paid membership dues to anenvironmental/conservation organization

2.56 1.4 .60 .71

Overall Index 2.18 3.8 .78RecyclingRecycled glass bottles or jars or aluminum cans 4.26 1.0 .72 .75Sorted your trash to separate non-recyclable from recyclable

materials3.87 1.4 .69 .76

Recycled old newspapers 4.00 1.3 .67 .78Overall Index 4.04 3.2 .84EducationalWatched TV programs about the environment 3.68 1.1 .65 —Read books/magazines about the environment 3.30 1.2 .65 —Overall Index 3.49 2.0 .79Green ConsumerismTaken into account the amount of packaging on goods you buy 2.68 1.2 .65 .54Switched products because of environmental reasons 2.62 1.1 .64 .56Bought products made from recycled materials 3.60 0.9 .43 .79Overall Index 2.97 2.7 .73Community ActivismCar pooled or used public transportation to work 1.95 1.4 .39 .67Attended meetings on environmental/conservation issues 1.80 1.1 .55 .46Joined in community cleanup efforts 2.31 1.2 .47 .54Overall Index 2.02 2.8 .66

SD = standard deviation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

142 THAPA

Activity Orientation Appreciative Consumptive Motorized

Ecocentric Political Activism Dualcentric Recycling Technocentric Educational

Green Consumerism Community Activism

Attitudes (Predictor)

Behaviors (Criterion)

Participation (Mediator)

FIGURE 1 A theoretical mediation model of outdoor recreation activity participation on environmental attitude-behaviorcorrespondence. To test for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986): Step 1— Regress the mediator (outdoor recreationparticipation) on the predictor (attitudes); Step 2—Regress the criterion (behaviors) on the predictor (attitudes); Step3—Regress the criterion (behaviors) on both the predictor (attitudes) and the mediator (participation).

MEDIATION ANALYSIS

A theoretical mediation model was formulated to examine the influence of outdoor recreationparticipation on environmental attitude-behavior correspondence (see Figure 1). Basically, theanalyses were conducted to assess recreationists’: (1) environmental attitudes; (2) environmentalbehaviors; (3) environmental attitude-behavior relationship; and (4) impact of outdoor recreationactivity orientation (as a mediator variable) on environmental attitude-behavior relationship.Following factor analysis and reliability testing, Environmental Attitudes consisted of threedomains: Ecocentric, Dualcentric, and Technocentric; while Environmental Behaviors comprised:Political Activism, Recycling, Educational, Green Consumerism, and Community Activism.Outdoor recreation activity orientation was treated as Appreciative, Consumptive, and Motorized.

To test for mediation,4 a series of linear regressions were conducted as outlined by Baronand Kenny (1986). In order to establish a mediation effect, three conditions must be satisfied.First, Environmental Attitudes (predictor) must affect Outdoor Recreation Activity (mediator).Second, Environmental Attitudes (predictor) must affect Environmental Behaviors (criterion).Third, Outdoor Recreation Activity (mediator) must affect Environmental Behaviors (criterion).In addition, if these relationships are significant, then the effect of Environmental Attitudes(predictor) on Environmental Behaviors (criterion) must be smaller when Outdoor RecreationActivity (mediator) is included (Baron & Kenny, 1986). A mediator effect is evident when outdoorrecreation participation accounts for all or part of the relationship between environmental attitudesand behaviors (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Multiple mediation analyses were conducted since environmental attitudes (3 domains) andbehaviors (5 domains) were multidimensional constructs. In previous studies, single compositeunidimensional constructs have been utilized for attitudes and behaviors. The benefit of using amultidimensional approach offers better prediction of certain types of attitudes and behaviors,rather than a general assessment. Hence, the reported analyses were based on the influence of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION 143

TABLE 4Mediation Effect of Activity Participation on Environmental Attitude-Behavior Relationship (Ecocentric

Attitudes)

Ecocentric Attitudes Appreciative (beta) Consumptive (beta) Motorized (beta)

(Predictor and Mediator)Attitudes & Participation .15∗∗∗ −.04 −.13∗∗∗(Predictor and Criterion) a

Attitudes & Behaviors:Political Activism .25∗∗∗ .25∗∗∗ .25∗∗∗Recycling .12∗∗ .12∗∗ .12∗∗Educational .26∗∗∗ .26∗∗∗ .26∗∗∗Green Consumerism .33∗∗∗ .33∗∗∗ .33∗∗∗Community Activism .18∗∗∗ .18∗∗∗ .18∗∗∗

(Predictor and Criterion) b

Attitudes & Behaviors:Political Activism .26∗∗∗ .26∗∗ .24∗∗∗Recycling .12∗∗ .13∗∗∗ .13∗∗∗Educational .24∗∗∗ .25∗∗∗ .22∗∗∗Green Consumerism .31∗∗∗ .33∗∗ .32∗∗∗Community Activism .16∗∗∗ .17∗∗∗ .16∗∗∗

(Mediator and Criterion) b

Participation & Behaviors:Political Activism −.05 .12∗∗ −.10∗∗Recycling .09∗ −.06 −.04Educational .06 .08 −.20∗∗∗Green Consumerism .18∗∗∗ .11∗∗ −.08Community Activism .06 −.03 −.04

∗Significant at .05 level (2-tail significance).∗∗Significant at .01 level (2-tail significance).∗∗∗Significant at .001 level (2-tail significance).aRegressed the criterion (behaviors) only on the predictor (ecocentric attitudes).bRegressed the criterion (behaviors) on both the predictor (ecocentric attitudes) and the mediator (participation).

outdoor recreation activity participation on three domains of environmental attitudes and fivedomains of environmental behaviors (see Figure 1).

Ecocentric Attitudes

Based on the analysis for ecocentric attitudes, the following were identified (see Table 4). Accord-ing to Baron and Kenny (1986), the first condition needs to be significant; i.e., attitudes must havean affect on outdoor recreation activity participation. Results yielded significant relationships forappreciative and motorized activities. Respondents who held ecocentric attitudes were more likelyto indicate appreciative activities as their most important outdoor recreation activity. Conversely,they were less likely to denote motorized activities as their most important activity. The secondcondition required that attitudes must have an affect on behaviors. The results suggested thatregardless of activity orientation (appreciative, consumptive, and motorized), ecocentric attitudeshad significant positive effects on all behavioral domains.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

144 THAPA

The third condition required that outdoor recreation activity participation must have an affecton behaviors when attitudes are controlled for in the regression equation. Based on the results,successful mediation was only identified for appreciative (Recycling and Green Consumerism),and motorized (Political Activism and Educational) activities. However, for appreciative activities,only the Green Consumerism behavioral domain satisfied the final condition, as the Recyclingbehavioral domain remained unchanged with the introduction of outdoor recreation participationas a mediator variable. For motorized activities, both behavioral domains (Political Activismand Educational) met the final condition, albeit negative relationships existed. Although a totalof three mediated relationships were found, the direct effects of ecocentric attitudes on therespective significant behaviors were much greater than the mediated effect of outdoor recreationparticipation. In fact, judging by the beta values, ecocentric attitudes demonstrated stronger directrelationships with the respective behaviors, when compared to the mediation effect of outdoorrecreation activity participation on significant behaviors.

Dualcentric Attitudes

Upon analysis of the results for dualcentric attitudes among the three activity orientations, thefollowing were identified (see Table 5). For the first condition, dualcentric attitudes did havean effect on outdoor recreation activity participation for appreciative and motorized activityorientations. Respondents who held dualcentric attitudes were more likely to participate as wellas indicate appreciative activities as their most important outdoor recreation activity. Conversely,they were less likely to denote motorized activities as their most important activity. For thesecond condition, regardless of activity orientation (appreciative, consumptive, and motorized),dualcentric attitudes had significant positive effects on all behavioral domains except recycling.

With respect to the third condition, the effect of outdoor recreation participation resultedin one (Green Consumerism) significant relationship for appreciative activities. For motorizedactivities, the mediator effect resulted in two significant negative relationships (Political Activismand Educational). Although a total of four mediated relationships were identified, the directeffects of dualcentric attitudes on the respective significant behaviors were also found. Based onthe beta values, the dualcentric attitudes also had stronger direct relationships with the respectivebehaviors, when compared to the mediation effect of outdoor recreation activity participation onsignificant behaviors.

Technocentric Attitudes

The analysis of technocentric attitudes among the three activity orientations resulted in noticeablesimilarity to the results for dualcentric attitudes (see Table 6). For the first condition, technocen-tric attitudes did have significant effects on participation for appreciative activity and motorizedactivity orientations. However, negative relationships were identified among appreciative activ-ities for activity participation. Respondents who held technocentric attitudes were less likely toparticipate as well as indicate appreciative activities as their most important outdoor recreationactivity. Conversely, they were more likely to indicate motorized activities as their most importantactivity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION 145

TABLE 5Mediation Effect of Activity Participation on Environmental Attitude-Behavior Relationship (Dualcentric

Attitudes)

Dualcentric Attitudes Appreciative (beta) Consumptive (beta) Motorized (beta)

Step a (Predictor and Mediator)Attitudes & Participation .17∗∗∗ −.06 −.14∗∗∗(Predictor and Criterion) a

Attitudes & Behaviors:Political Activism .21∗∗∗ .21∗∗∗ .21∗∗∗Recycling .09 .09 .09Educational .30∗∗∗ .30∗∗∗ .30∗∗∗Green Consumerism .34∗∗∗ .34∗∗∗ .34∗∗∗Community Activism .13∗∗ .13∗∗ .13∗∗

(Predictor and Criterion) b

Attitudes & Behaviors:Political Activism .22∗∗∗ .22∗∗∗ .20∗∗Recycling .07 .09 .08Educational .28∗∗∗ .30∗∗∗ .27∗∗Green Consumerism .31∗∗∗ .33∗∗ .33∗∗Community Activism .12∗∗ .12∗∗ .12∗∗

(Mediator and Criterion) b

Participation & Behaviors:Political Activism −.05 .12∗∗ −.11∗∗Recycling .10∗ −.05 −.05Educational .05 .09∗ −.20∗∗∗Green Consumerism .17∗∗∗ −.10∗∗ −.08Community Activism .06 −.02 −.05

∗Significant at .05 level (2-tail significance)∗∗Significant at .01 level (2-tail significance)∗∗∗Significant at .001 level (2-tail significance)aRegressed the criterion (behaviors) only on the predictor (ecocentric attitudes)bRegressed the criterion (behaviors) on both the predictor (ecocentric attitudes) and the mediator (participation)

For the second condition, regardless of activity orientation (appreciative, consumptive, andmotorized), technocentric attitudes had significant positive effects on all behavioral domains ex-cept Recycling and Consumer Activism. All significant beta values registered negative direction,in which an increase in respondents’ technocentric attitudes led to a decrease in environmentalbehaviors.

For the third condition, the effect of outdoor recreation participation yielded two (GreenConsumerism and Recycling) significant relationships for appreciative activities. For motorizedactivities, the effect of outdoor recreation participation resulted in two significant negative re-lationships (Political Activism and Educational). A total of four mediated relationships wereestablished. Similarly, the direct effects of technocentric attitudes on the respective behaviorshad stronger direct relationships, when compared to the mediation effect of outdoor recreationparticipation on significant behaviors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

146 THAPA

TABLE 6Mediation Effect of Activity Participation on Environmental Attitude-Behavior Relationship (Technocentric

Attitudes)

Technocentric Attitudes Appreciative (beta) Consumptive (beta) Motorized (beta)

(Predictor and Mediator)Attitudes & Participation −.17∗∗∗ .01 .21∗∗∗(Predictor and Criterion) a

Attitudes & Behaviors:Political Activism −.24∗∗∗ −.24∗∗∗ −.24∗∗∗Recycling −.08 −.08 −.08Educational −.26∗∗∗ −.26∗∗∗ −.26∗∗∗Green Consumerism −.23∗∗∗ −.23∗∗∗ −.23∗∗∗Community Activism −.05 −.05 −.05

(Predictor and Criterion) b

Attitudes & Behaviors:Political Activism −.24∗∗ −.23∗∗∗ −.21∗∗∗Recycling −.06 −.08 −.07Educational −.25∗∗∗ −.26∗∗∗ −.21∗∗∗Green Consumerism −.19∗∗∗ −.22∗∗∗ −.21∗∗∗Community Activism −.05 −.04 −.05

(Mediator and Criterion) b

Participation & Behaviors:Political Activism −.05 .11∗∗ −.10∗∗Recycling .10∗ −.06 −.05Educational .06 .08 −.20∗∗Green Consumerism .19∗∗∗ −.12∗∗ −.09Community Activism .08 −.03 −.06

∗Significant at .05 level (2-tail significance).∗∗Significant at .01 level (2-tail significance).∗∗∗Significant at .001 level (2-tail significance).a Regressed the criterion (behaviors) only on the predictor (ecocentric attitudes).b Regressed the criterion (behaviors) on both the predictor (ecocentric attitudes) and the mediator (participation).

DISCUSSION

Based on the results, outdoor recreation participation did mediate the relationship between en-vironmental attitudes and behaviors for only appreciative and motorized recreationists. Analysisidentified significant results that were consistent for all three attitudinal indices, in which medi-ation for appreciative activities existed only for green consumerism behaviors, while mediationfor motorized activities existed for political activism and educational behaviors. The finding wasclosely aligned to Tarrant and Green’s (1999) results in which a mediating effect was found onlyfor appreciative outdoor recreation activities (day hiking, backpacking, nature/bird viewing) inthe environmental attitude-behavior relationship. In addition, mediation reflected that respondentswith ecocentric and dualcentric attitudes were likely to participate in appreciative activities, andhence report participation in green consumerism behaviors. Conversely, respondents with tech-nocentric attitudes were less likely to participate in appreciative activities. However, the direct

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION 147

effect of technocentric attitudes on green consumerism behaviors showed a significant inverse re-lationship, in which an increase in technocentric attitudes led to a decrease in green consumerism.Results also found that participation in motorized activities had a mediating effect on attitudinal(ecocentric, dualcentric, and technocentric) and behavioral (political activism and educationalindices) correspondence. Respondents who held higher technocentric (and lower ecocentric anddualcentric attitudes) were more likely to participate in motorized activities, and hence had lowerparticipation in political activism and educational behaviors.

The benefit of using the multidimensional approach resulted in better prediction of certain typesof behaviors, rather than an overall behavioral assessment. When both attitudes and behaviors wereemployed as multidimensional constructs, eight mediated relationships were identified. Althoughsome mediated relationships were documented for appreciative and motorized activities, theywere less powerful than the direct effects of environmental attitudes on behaviors. Overall,attitudes exhibited stronger direct relationships with behaviors, when compared to the effect ofmediators (outdoor recreation activity participation) on behaviors. This research further supportedthe attitude-behavior link (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and related findings in the literature, and madean attempt to further understand the relationship with the use of a mediating variable. Basically,the influence of outdoor recreation activity participation on environmental attitude-behaviorcorrespondence was not significantly demonstrative. However, future research could employadditional external variables (sociodemographic factors, normative behaviors, and personalitycharacteristics) in the model to understand the relationship, and improve predictive validity ofproenvironmental behaviors (Cottrell & Graefe, 1997; Cottrell, 2003; Tarrant & Cordell, 1997;Tarrant & Green 1999). The association between participation in outdoor recreation activity andenvironmentalism is complex, and there is a need for additional research to better understandthe relationship, especially recreationists’ environmental attitude-behavior link (Bright & Porter,2001; Schuett & Ostergren, 2003; Teisl & O’Brien, 2003; Thapa, 2000).

The results of this study is not generalizable to the general population of forest recreationistsas only user groups within Bald Eagle State Forest were sampled. Findings of this study should betaken within the context of the sample, which was overwhelmingly skewed toward males; almostall were Caucasians and the majority lived in rural areas with no children in their household.However, demographics of respondents in the study site were consistent to the region in CentralPennsylvania. Future research should account for respondents’ diversity, recreational activitychoices, and environmentalism (Schuett & Ostergren, 2003), as the growth of ethnic populationcombined with higher birth rates and immigration will have major implications in outdoorrecreation participation and management of natural resources (Cordell et al., 2002; Johnson,1999; Manning, 2000; Thapa, Graefe, & Absher, 2002). It has been projected that such growth ofracial and ethnic groups will result in increased participation rates of 40–50% in major outdoorrecreation activities between 1990 and 2025(Murdock, Backman, Hoque, & Ellis, 1991).

This study also combined many activities into an activity orientation rather than examining theactivities individually. Given the varied recreational opportunities within the study site, it was ap-propriate to cluster activity participation groups. However, future research could account for eachactivity as analyzing participants in each activity may offer a comprehensive outlook toward thatspecific activity rather than an activity cluster group. In addition, comprehensive environmentaleducation can be targeted toward participants of activity groups that have low environmentalethic, and those that do not engage in proenvironmental behaviors. Also, the respective activ-ity’s associations and organizations can be targeted and educated about the need to develop

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

148 THAPA

environmental stewardship (Thapa & Graefe, 2003; Thapa, Graefe, & Meyer, 2006). The associa-tions and organizations are important, as they play a critical role in developing activity norms thatinclude environmental ethic and behaviors. Agencies as well as nonprofit organizations shouldestablish working relationships and partnerships with recreation groups at the national and locallevels to promote environmental messages (Schuett & Ostergren, 2003; Thapa, Graefe, & Meyer,2005; 2006). For example, nonprofit organizations dealing with marine resource issues (e.g.,coral reef alliance, marine conservation society, reef environmental education foundation, etc.)are active in the development and promotion of conservation education program (Thapa et al.,2005; 2006). In addition, environmental educators need to assess information needs and commu-nication behaviors of different type of recreationists. Based on assessment and proven effectivecommunication strategies, various messages in appropriate mediums should be communicated.However, conventional on-site initiatives via printed materials and interpretive message boardsshould also be further encouraged (Cole, Hammond & McCool, 1997; Thapa et al., 2002).

The growth in outdoor recreation activities as well as changing demographics coupled with aparadigmatic shift among the public to be more environmentally conscious necessitates furtherresearch aimed at understanding recreationists’ environmental orientations and related behaviors.Information about recreationists’ view toward the use of natural resources as well as the reasonsfor choosing certain activities can aid managers to better manage as well as optimize visitorsatisfaction. Such information is essential to develop effective strategies in resource management(Cordell et al., 2002; Schuett & Ostergren, 2003; Thapa, 2000).

NOTES

1. Deletion of any item within the Dualcentric factor would not have significantly increased the Cronbach’salpha value. However, a factor that has a small number of items (six or less) and with alpha value closeto .60 is acceptable for an exploratory study (see Cortina, 1993; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

2. It is acknowledged that self-reported behaviors are generally employed in social science research, asit is usually difficult to directly observe behaviors given the level of involvement in time, costs andpracticality. Self-reported behaviors are a limitation but do provide an alternative, even though reliabilityand validity of responses may be an issue (Tarrant & Cordell, 1997; Thapa et al., 2006).

3. For additional descriptive explanation of the frequency distributions and factor analysis of environmentalattitudes and environmental behaviors see Thapa (2000) and Thapa and Graefe (2003).

4. For additional examples based on Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation analysis and respective conditionssee: Bright and Porter (2001); Tarrant and Green (1999); Thapa et al. (2005).

REFERENCES

Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual,strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bjerke, T., Thrane, C., & Kleiven, J. (2006). Outdoor recreation interests and environmental attitudes in Norway. ManagingLeisure, 11, 116–128.

Bright, A. & Porter R. (2001). Wildlife-related recreation, meaning, and environmental concern. Human Dimensions ofWildlife, 6(4), 259–276.

Cole, D. N., Hammond, T. P., & McCool, S. F. (1997). Information quantity and communication effectiveness: Low-impactmessages on wilderness trailside bulletin boards. Leisure Sciences, 19(1), 59–72.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION 149

Cordell, K. (1999). Outdoor recreation in American life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign,IL: Sagamore Publishing Inc.

Cordell, K., Betz, C., & Green, G. (2002). Recreation and the environment as cultural dimensions in contemporaryAmerican Society. Leisure Sciences, 24, 13–41.

Cortina, M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and application. Journal of Applied Psychology,78(1), 98–104.

Cottrell, S. (2003). Influence of socio-demographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmentalbehavior among recreational boaters. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 347–375.

Cottrell, S. & Graefe, A. (1997). Testing a conceptual framework of responsible environmental behavior. The Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 29(1), 17–27.

Dunlap, R. & Heffernan, R. (1975). Outdoor recreation and environmental concern: An empirical examination. RuralSociology, 40(1), 18–30.

Dunlap, R. & Van Liere, K. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm.” The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4),10–19.

Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: Arevised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fulton, C., Manfredo, M., & Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach.Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(2), 24–47.

Geisler, C., Martinson, B., & Wilkening, A. (1977). Outdoor recreation and environmental concern: A restudy. RuralSociology, 42(2), 241–249.

Jackson, E. (1986). Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment. Leisure Studies, 5, 1–23.Johnson, C. (1999). Participation differences among social groups. In H. Cordell (Ed.), Outdoor recreation in American

life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends (pp. 248–268). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.Kuhn, R. & Jackson, E. (1989). Stability of factor structures in the measurement of public environmental attitudes. The

Journal of Environmental Education, 20(3), 27–32.Manning, R. E. (2000). Coming of age: History and trends in outdoor recreation research. In W. C. Gartner and D. W.

Lime (Eds.), Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure and tourism (pp. 121–130). London: CABI Publishing.Manning, R., Valliere, W., & Minteer, B. (1996). Environmental values and ethics: An empirical study of the philosophical

foundations for park policy. The George Wright Forum, 13(2), 20–31.Murdock, S. H., Backman, K., Hoque, N., & Ellis, D. (1991). The implications of change in population size and

composition on future participation in outdoor recreational activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(3), 238–259.Nord, M., Luloff, A., & Bridger, J. (1998). The association of forest recreation with environmentalism. Environment and

Behavior, 30(2), 235–246.Nunnally, J. & Bernstein, H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.O’Riordan, T. (1981). Environmentalism (2nd ed.). London: Pion Limited.Peterson, N., Hull, V., Mertig, A., & Liu, J. (2008). Evaluating household-level relationship between environmental views

and outdoor recreation: The Teton Valley case. Leisure Sciences, 30, 293–305.Pinhey, T. & Grimes, D. (1979). Outdoor recreation and environmental concern: A re-examination of the Dunlap-Heffernan

Thesis. Leisure Sciences, 2(1), 1–11.Schuett, M. & Ostergren, D. (2003). Environmental concern and involvement of individuals in selected voluntary

associations. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(4), 30–38.Scott, D. & Willits, F. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior: A Pennsylvania survey. Environment and Behavior,

26(2), 239–260.Smith-Sebasto, N. (1995). The effects of an environmental studies course on selected variables related to environmentally

responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 26(4), 30–34.Stern, P., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social psychological context. Environment

and Behavior, 27(6), 723–743.Tarrant, M., Bright, A., & Cordell, K. (1997). Attitudes toward wildlife species protection: Assessing moderating and

mediating effects in the value-attitude relationship. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2(2), 1–20.Tarrant, M. & Cordell, K. (1997). The effect of respondent characteristics on general environmental attitude-behavior

correspondence. Environment and Behavior, 29(5), 618–633.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4

150 THAPA

Tarrant, M., & Green, G. (1999). Outdoor recreation and the predictive validity of environmental attitudes. LeisureSciences, 21(1), 17–30.

Teisl, M. & O’Brien, K. (2003). Who cares and who acts? Outdoor recreationists exhibit different levels of environmentalconcern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 506–522.

Thapa, B. (1999). Environmentalism: The relation of environmental attitudes and environmentally responsible behaviorsamong undergraduate students. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 19(5), 432–444.

Thapa, B. (2000). The association of outdoor recreation activities and environmental attitudes and behaviors amongforest recreationists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Thapa, B. (2001). Environmental concern: A comparative analysis between students in Recreation & Park Managementand Other Departments. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 39–53.

Thapa, B., & Graefe, A. (2003). Forest recreationists and environmentalism. Journal of Park and Recreation Administra-tion, 21(1), 75–103.

Thapa, B., Graefe, A., & Absher, J. (2002). Information needs and search behaviors: A comparative study of ethnicgroups in the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests, California. Leisure Sciences, 24(1), 87–107.

Thapa, B., Graefe, A., & Meyer, L. (2005). Moderator and mediator effects of SCUBA diving specialization on marine-based environmental knowledge-behavior contingency. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(1), 53–67.

Thapa, B., Graefe, A., & Meyer, L. (2006). Specialization and marine based environmental behaviors among SCUBAdivers. Journal of Leisure Research, 38(4), 601–615.

Theodori, G., Luloff, A., & Willits, F. (1998). The association of outdoor recreation and environmental concern: Re-examing the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociology, 63(1), 94–108.

Van Liere, D., & Noe, F. (1981). Outdoor recreation and environmental attitudes: Further examination of the Dunlap-Heffernan Thesis. Rural Sociology, 46(3), 505–513.

Vaske, J., & Donnelly, M. (1999). A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions.Society and Natural Resources, 12(6), 523–537.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thw

este

rn U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

51 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

4