Annotated Bibliography
Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E., & Nowak, P. (1982). Measuring environmental concern: The new environmental paradigm scale. The Journal of Environmental Education, 13(3), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1982.9942647
This study tests NEP scale in terms of its reliability, validity, and unidimensionality with national samples of farmers and metropolitan residents of Iowa. Though NEP scale is found reliable and valid, it was found to be multidimensional for which its subscales need more related features.
Bernstein, J., & Szuster, B. W. (2019). The new environmental paradigm scale: Reassessing the operationalization of contemporary environmentalism. Journal of Environmental Education, 50(2), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2018.1512946
This study questions NEP for it conflating environmental attitudes with pro-environmental worldviews. It offers three dimensions to better explain the diversity of contemporary environmentalism.
Canlas, I. P., Karpudewan, M., & Khan, N. S. M. A. (2022). More than twenty years of value-belief-norm theory of environmentalism: What has been and yet to be done? Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11801
This paper reviews several popular ecological theories by exploring the bibliometric properties of studies. For VBN theory, it points out the influence of social norm, which is not included in VBN.
Catton, W. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13(1), 41–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27702311
Dunlap and Catton worked align to challenge the predominant social paradigm of Human Exceptionism Paradigm in 1970s by proposing a new paradigm named New Environmental Paradigm. After analyzing how NEP is more in line with the society changes than HEP, this paper proofs the usefulness by applying NEP into three topics. NEP here is a good sociology for explaining my keyword “environmental participation”.
Chatterjee, D. P. (2008). Oriental disadvantage versus occidental exuberance: Appraising environmental concern in India — A case study in a local context. International Sociology, 23(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580907084384
This study takes into account the East–West difference in conceptualizing environmental awareness under an attempt in India context. It finds out that NEP seems inappropriate in the Indian context considering the different traditions and the dominant worldviews.
Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 3–18. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18
This paper combs the origin of NEP, reviews current uses of NEP and goes through major criticisms of the theory. Last, the author reflects the reasons for the theory fail to become institutionalized.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm.” The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 19–28. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875
After NEP gaining popularity in academia, Dunlap continued to report a preliminary work on determining the extent to which the public accepts NEP so as to develop a valid instrument/scale to examine NEP. This qualified NEP as an advanced way of “environmental participation” explanation.
Geller, J. M., & Lasley, P. (1985). The new environmental paradigm scale: A reexamination. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1985.9941393
This study examines NEP’s dimensionality and its stability in three different setting. It doubts NEP by saying that the scale has only limited exposure and testing, thus can barely clear the confusion and contradictory findings. Notably, the limitation in this paper is that it uses the nine items from the original scale rather than the new one.
Gkargkavouzi, A., Halkos, G., & Matsiori, S. (2019). Environmental behavior in a private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity and habit. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 148, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.039
This paper proposed a model that integrates theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity and habit. The newly developed model exhibited predictive ability in explaining environmental behavior, i.e. my keyword “environmental participation”.
Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003
This paper proposes a meta-analysis of studies using NEP Scale in the past 30 years. It also present impacts of comparability of previous research using the NEP Scale and guidelines for future research.
Hwang, J., Kim, W., & Kim, J. J. (2020). Application of the value-belief-norm model to environmentally friendly drone food delivery services: The moderating role of product involvement. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(5), 1775–1794. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2019-0710
This study figures out ways influencing consumers’ behavior toward the services by applying the value-belief-norm model to environmentally friendly drone food delivery services. It also deepens the VBN theory by adding product involvement as a moderator. It provides a practical example of using VBN theory in environmental attitudes, which greatly affect my keyword “environmental participation”.
Kaiser, F., Hübner, G., & Bogner, F. (2006). Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value‐belief‐norm model in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2150–2170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02213.x
This paper contrasts VBN model and TPB model regarding their abilities to explain environmental behavior. Either model has its own drawbacks comparing to the other one, for example, TPB is found appropriately depicting the relations among its concepts while VBN can not.
Kiatkawsin, K., & Han, H. (2017). Young travelers’ intention to behave pro-environmentally: Merging the value-belief-norm theory and the expectancy theory. Tourism Management, 59, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.018
This research explores the intention to environment behavior in terms of traveling amongst young travelers by adopting the VBN theory and merging it with the expectancy theory with an aim to provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding environmental friendly behaviors.
Lalonde, R., & Jackson, E. L. (2002). The new environmental paradigm scale: Has it outlived its usefulness? The Journal of Environmental Education, 33(4), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960209599151
This paper points out the limitation of NEP scale such as the anachronistic wording of items, inability to capture people’s changing understanding of the environment in the past few decades. It also offers several suggestions for updating the NEP scale.
Lundmark, C. (2007). The new ecological paradigm revisited: Anchoring the NEP scale in environmental ethics. Environmental Education Research, 13(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701430448
This paper explores NEP scale’s theoretical foundation in terms of its environmental ethics, analyze which ethical positions on the relationship between human and nature seem to match.
Nordfjærn, T., & Zavareh, M. F. (2017). Does the value-belief-norm theory predict acceptance of disincentives to driving and active mode choice preferences for children’s school travels among Chinese parents? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.06.005
This paper examines the extent to which VBN theory predicts the acceptance of disincentives for Chinese parents to driving as well as the parental active transport mode use preferences for their children’s school travels. It turns out to be that VBN theory can barely predict transport cognitions in China.
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
This paper develops a conceptual framework for updating theories of environmental individual behavior and reports the author’s attempts to develop such a theory. It is a new and updated version of VBN theory one year after Stern first came up with VBN theory.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.
The author raises a social psychological theory that can explain the public support for environmental movement and elaborated the rationale of VBN theory working on pro-environment movement, i.e. “environmental participation”.
Wibowo, N. A., Sumarmi, S., Utaya, S., Bachri, S., & Kodama, Y. (2023). Students’ Environmental Care Attitude: A Study at Adiwiyata Public High School Based on the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP). Sustainability, 15(11), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118651
The new ecological paradigm (NEP) scale was used to analyze students’ environmental care attitudes in Adiwiyata schools in the Pati Regency. The conclusion of the paper is that gender differences on the NEP scale have a significant impact on environmental care attitudes, which means female students have a higher potential for environmental care attitudes. It provided a practical example of using NEP scale in environmental attitudes, which greatly affect my keyword “environmental participation”.
Yuanyuan Zhao. (2021). Literature review on the dimensions, theories, and influencing factors of pro environmental behavior. Modern Marketing, 23, 182–183. https://doi.org/10.19932/j.cnki.22-1256/F.2021.06.182
This paper reviews previous research on pro-environmental behavior globally from four aspects of definition, dimensions, theoretical basis, and influencing factors. The author also proposes her prospects for future in this field.
