Forests are an important source of resources, but public attitudes towards the forests have rarely been studied. This paper focus on this topic aiming at: (a) describing the attitude towards the forest and its correlates; (b) testing the hierarchic relationship between ecologic values, attitudes and use of the forest; and (c) testing the moderating role of attitudinal ambivalence in the association between attitudes and forest related behaviours. A sample of residents living close to forests was collected (N = 1206). Results show that the attitude towards the forest is quite favourable. More positive attitudes were found in the North, among those working in the forestry and those who live close. Universalistic values are associated with the use of the forest but this relationship was partially mediated by the attitude towards the forest. Finally, attitudinal ambivalence was a predictor of the behaviour, but not a moderator of the attitude behaviour association.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1421–1432.
2.
AxelrodL. J. (1994). Balancing personal needs with environmental preservation: identifying the values that guide decisions in ecological dilemmas.Journal of Social Issues, 50, 85–104.
3.
BaronR.KennyD. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
4.
BatistaM.LimaM. L. (2006). Ambivalência e consistência entre atitudes e comportamentos alimentares. In N. R. Santos, M. L. Lima, M. M. Melo, A. A. Candeias, M. L. Grácio, & A. A. Candeias (Orgs.), Actas do VI Simposio Nacional de Investigação em Psicología (CD—Vol. I, pp. 161–177). Évora: Departamento de Psicología da Universidade de Évora.
5.
BatistaM. T.LimaM. L. (2010). Selecção de estímulos alimentares ambivalentes e comparação de medidas em quatro indicadores de ambivalência atitudinal.Laboratório de Psicologia, 8 (1), 121–148.
6.
BriggS. R.CheekJ. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales.Journal of Personality, 54 (1), 106–148
7.
CastroP.LimaM. L. (2001). Old and new ideas about the environment and science: an exploratory study.Environment & Behavior, 33, 400–423.
8.
CastroP.GarridoM.ReisR.MenezesJ. (2009). Ambivalence and conservation behaviour: An exploratory study on the recycling of metal cans.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 24–33.
9.
ClarkC. F.KotchenM. J.MooreM. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro- environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 237–246.
10.
ConnerM.SparksP. (2002). Ambivalence and attitudes.European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 37–70.
CostarelliS.CollocaP. (2004). The effects of attitudinal ambivalence on pro-environmental behavioural intentions.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 279–288.
13.
De GrootJ. I. M.StegL. (2007). Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 318–332.
14.
De GrootJ. I. M.StegL. (2008). Value orientations to explain environmental attitudes and beliefs: how to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations.Environment and Behavior, 40 (3), 330–354.
15.
De GrootJ. I. M.StegL. (2010). Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, (4), 368–378. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.002
16.
DietzT.FietzgeraldA.ShwomR. (2005). Environmental values.Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 335–372.
17.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes.Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
18.
FazioR. H.ZannaM. P. (1978). On the predictive validity of attitudes: The roles of direct experience and confidence.Journal of Personality, 46, 228–243.
19.
KaplanK. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique.Psychological Review, 77, 361–372.
20.
KarpD. G. (1996). Values and their effect on proenvironmental behavior.Environment and Behavior, 28, 111–133.
21.
KorpelaK. M. (2003). Negative mood and adult place preference.Environment & Behavior, 35, 331–346.
22.
KorpelaK. M.YlénM.TyrväinenL.SilvennoinenH. (2009). Stability of self-reported favourite places and place attachment over a 10-month period.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29 (1), 95–100.
23.
KouplevatskayaI. (2006). The involvement of stakeholders in a forest policy reform process: Democracy promotion and power redistribution.Swiss Forestry Journal, 10, 483–490.
24.
KraxnerF.YangJ.YamagataY. (2009). Attitudes towards forest, biomass and certification—A case study approach to integrate public opinion in Japan.Bioresource Technology, 100, 4058–4061.
25.
McfarlaneB. L.BoxallP. C. (2000). Factors Influencing Forest Values and Attitudes of Two Stakeholder Groups: The Case of the Foothills Model Forest, Alberta, Canada.Society & Natural Resources, 13, 649–661.
26.
McfarlaneB. L.BoxallP. C. (2003). The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: an example of the forest sector.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 79–87.
27.
McfarlaneB. L.HuntL. M. (2006). Environmental activism in the forest sector: Social psychological, social-cultural, and contextual effects.Environment & Behavior, 38, 266–285.
28.
NordlundA. M.GarvillJ. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behaviour.Environment and Behaviour, 34, 740–756
29.
RamosA. (2006). Social values dynamics and socio-economic development.Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 5, 35–64.
30.
ReganD. T.FazioR. (1977). On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 28–45.
31.
Ruppert-WinkelC.WlnkelG. (2009). Hidden in the woods? Meaning, determining, and practicing of ‘common welfare’ in the case of the German public forests.European Journal of Forest Research. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-009-0335-x.
32.
SchultzP.ZeleznyL. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255–265.
33.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
SchwartzS. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 711–728.
36.
SchwartzS. H.MelechG.LehmannA.BurgessS.HarrisM.OwensV. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542.
37.
SiryJ. P.CubbageF. W.AhmedM. R. (2005). Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities.Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 551–561.
38.
StegL.DreijerinkL.AbrahamseW. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: testing VBN theory.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (4), 415–425.
39.
SternP. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.
40.
SternP. C.DietzT. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.
41.
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value belief norm theory of support for social movement: The case of environmental concern.Human Ecology Review, 6, 81–97.
42.
SternP. C.DietzT.GuagnanoG. A. (1998). A brief inventory of values.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 984–1001.
43.
SternP. C.DietzT.KalofL.GuagnanoG. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and pro environmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611–1638
44.
ThompsonM. M.ZannaM. P.GriffinD. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 361–386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
45.
TreimanT.DwyerJ. (2002). Missouri River Floodplain Landowners Survey—Final Report. Forest Research Report No. 3.Jefferson City: Missouri Department of Conservation.
46.
TreimanT.GartnerJ. (2004). Community forestry in Missouri, U.S.: Attitudes and knowledge of local officials.Journal of Arboric, 30, 205–213.
47.
TwarkinsM.FisherL.RobertsonT. (2001). Public Involvement in Forest ManagementPlanning. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 13, 237–251. DOI: 10.1300/J091v13n01_04
48.
VaskeJ. J.DonnellyM. P. (1999). A value—attitude—behaviour model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions.Society and Natural Resources, 12, 523–537.
