The goal of environmental education is ultimately to enable a person to strive for and to attain a more ecological way of life. In this article, we begin by distinguishing three forms of environmental knowledge and go on to predict that people’s attitude toward nature represents the force that drives their ecological behavioral engagement. Based on data from 1,907 students, we calibrated previously established instruments to measure ecological behavior, environmental knowledge, and attitude toward nature with Rasch-type models. Using path modeling, we corroborated our theoretically anticipated competence structure. While environmental knowledge revealed a modest behavioral effect, attitude toward nature turned out to be, as expected, the stronger determinant of behavior. Overall, we propose a competence model that has the potential to guide us into more evidence-based ways of promoting the overall ecological engagement of individuals.
BambergS.MöserG. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14–25.
2.
BentlerP. M.BonettD. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
3.
BondT. G.FoxC. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
BrüggerA.KaiserF. G.RoczenN. (2011). One for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. European Psychologist, 16, 324–333.
6.
ChawlaL.CushingD. F. (2008). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13, 437–452.
7.
ClaytonS. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In ClaytonS.OpotowS. (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45–65). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
8.
Corral-VerdugoV. (2002). A structural model of proenvironmental competency. Environment & Behavior, 34, 531–549.
9.
de HaanG. (2006). The “BLK 21 program” in Germany: A “Gestaltungskompetenz”-based model for education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 12, 19–32.
10.
FrickJ.KaiserF. G.WilsonM. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1597–1613.
11.
GaterslebenB.StegL.VlekC. (2002). The measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment & Behavior, 34, 335–362.
12.
GräselC. (2001). Ökologische Kompetenz: Analyse und Förderung [Ecological competence: Analysis and promotion] (Unpublished habilitation thesis). Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany.
13.
HeimlichJ. E.ArdoinN. M. (2008). Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research, 14, 215–237.
14.
HinesJ. M.HungerfordH. R.TomeraA. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8.
15.
JensenB. B.SchnackK. (2006). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12, 471–486.
16.
KaiserF. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 395–422.
17.
KaiserF. G.ByrkaK.HartigT. (2010). Reviving Campbell’s paradigm for attitude research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 351–367.
18.
KaiserF. G.FrickJ. (2002). Entwicklung eines Messinstrumentes zur Erfassung von Umweltwissens auf der Basis des MRCML-Modells [Development of an environmental knowledge measure: An application of the MRCML model]. Diagnostica, 48, 181–189.
19.
KaiserF. G.FrickJ.Stoll-KleemannS. (2001). Zur Angemessenheit selbstberichteten Verhaltens: Eine Validitätsuntersuchung der Skala Allgemeinen Ökologischen Verhaltens [Accuracy of self-reports: Validating the General Ecological Behavior scale]. Diagnostica, 47, 88–95.
20.
KaiserF. G.FuhrerU. (2003). Ecological behavior’s dependency on different forms of knowledge. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 598–613.
21.
KaiserF. G.HartigT.BrüggerA.DuvierC. (2013). Environmental protection and nature as distinct attitudinal objects: An application of the Campbell paradigm. Environment & Behavior, 45, 369–398.
22.
KaiserF. G.OerkeB.BognerF. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrument for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 242–251.
23.
KaiserF. G.RoczenN.BognerF. X. (2008). Competence formation in environmental education: Advancing ecology-specific rather than general abilities. Umweltpsychologie, 12(2), 56–70.
24.
KaiserF. G.WilsonM. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific composition of a general performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1531–1544.
25.
KollmussA.AgyemanJ. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.
26.
MastersG. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.
27.
MayerF. S.FrantzC. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
28.
McClellandD. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than intelligence. American Psychologist, 28, 1–14.
29.
MiddenC. J. H.KaiserF. G.McCalleyL. T. (2007). Technology’s four roles in understanding individuals’ conservation of natural resources. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 155–174.
30.
MonroeM. C. (2003). Two avenues to conservation behavior. Human Ecology Review, 10, 113–125.
31.
MuthénB.SartorraA. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267–316.
32.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2009). Mplus statistical modeling software (Version 5.21). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
33.
NisbetE. K.ZelenskiJ. M.MurphyS. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ attitude toward nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment & Behavior, 41, 715–740.
34.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2003). Definition and selection of competencies: Theoretical and conceptual foundations (Summary of the final report “Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society”). Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Author.
35.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). PISA 2006 (Tech. Rep.). Paris, France: Author.
36.
RaschG. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1960)
37.
RoczenN. (2011). Environmental competence—The interplay between connection with nature and environmental knowledge in promoting ecological behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology.
38.
SchultzP. W. (2002a). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In SchmuckP.SchultzP. W. (Eds.), The psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61–78). New York, NY: Kluwer.
39.
SchultzP. W. (2002b). Knowledge, information, and household recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In DietzT.SternP. C. (Eds.), New tools for environmental protection: Education, information, and voluntary measures (pp. 67–82). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
41.
WangS.WangT. (2001). Precision of Warm’s weighted likelihood estimates for a polytomous model in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 317–331.
42.
WeinertF. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In RychenD. S.SalganikL. H. (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competences (pp. 45–65). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
43.
WilsonM. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
WuM. L.AdamsR. J.WilsonM. (1998). ACER ConQuest: Generalized item response modeling software [Computer software and manual]. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
