A structural equation model explaining motivation for involvement in local wetland issues was developed and tested. Wetland preservation was used as an example of an ongoing environmental problem in a typical urban neighborhood. The roles of knowledge and disposition in determining an individual's reported activity were hypothesized to be mediated through intermediary variables. The two intermediary variables nominated were derived from the literature on hazard coping, which has been largely ignored by attitudinal research on individual conservation behavior. These intermediary variables were defined as emotive arousal and cognitive problem assessment. The influence of knowledge was hypothesized to be mediated by both arousal and assessment. Disposition was thought to be mediated by arousal alone. In contrast to activism after floods, a positive rather than negative relationship between arousal and reported activity was predicted. The model was supported by the responses of residents after viewing slides of local wetlands. Implications for further research are examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Chambers, J. , & Davis, J. (1989). How wetlands work. In G. Lowe (Ed.), Proceedings of the Swan Coastal Plain Management Conference (pp. 97-104). Perth: Western Australian Water Resources Council.
2.
de Young, R. (1985-1986). Encouraging environmentally appropriate behaviour: The role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Environmental Systems, 15, 281-292.
3.
Evans, G. W. , & Cohen, S. (1987). Environmental stress. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 571-610). New York: Wiley.
4.
Evans, G. , & Jacobs, S. (1981). Air pollution and human behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 95-125.
5.
Fisher, J. , Bell, P., & Baum, A. (1984). Environmental stress. In Environmental psychology (pp. 84-108). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
6.
Forester, J. (1985). Practical rationality in plan making. In M. Breheny & A. Hooper (Eds.), Rationality in planning: Critical essays on the role of rationality in urban and regional planning (pp. 48-59). London: Pion.
7.
Hebb, D. O. (1955). Dnves and the C.N.S. (conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 62, 243-254.
8.
Hines, J. M. , Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986-1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1-8.
9.
Hopper, J. R. , & Neilson, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195-220.
10.
Huebner, R. B. , & Lipsey, M. W. (1981). The relationship of three measures of locus of control and environmental activism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 45-58.
11.
Jandakot Groundwater Study Group . (1986). Working paper on groundwater management in the Jandakot areaPerth: Water Resources Council.
12.
Jöreskog, K. G. , & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to he program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
13.
Kantola, S. J. , Symne, G. J., & Nesdale, A. R. (1984). An informational analysis approach incorporating Fishbein's model in a test of the effects of appraised severity and efficacy in promoting water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 164-182.
14.
Macpherson, D. K. , & Syme, G. J. (1989). Social investigation of allocation policy for the Jandakot Public Water Supply area. Perth: Western Australian Water Resources Council.
15.
McKechnie, G. (1977). The Environmental Response Inventory in application. Environment and Behavior, 9, 255-276.
16.
Manfredo, M. J. , & Shelby, B. (1989). The effect of using self report measures in tests of attitude-behavior relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 106, 731-743.
17.
Manzo, L. C. , & Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Behavioral commitment to environmental protection: A study of active and nonactive members of the Sierra Club. Environment and Behavior, 19, 673-694.
18.
Marks, G. , & von Winterfeldt, D. (1984). Not in my backyard: Influence of motivational concerns on judgments about risky technology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 408-415.
19.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
Oskamp, S. , Harrington, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Sherwood, D. L., Okuda, S. M., & Swanson, D. C. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behavior: Environment and Behavior, 23, 494-519.
21.
Preston, V. , Taylor, M., & Hodge, D. (1983). Adjustment to natural and technological hazards: A study of an urban residential community. Environment and Behavior, 15, 143-164.
22.
Raden, D. (1985). Strength related attitude dimensions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 312-330.
23.
Rochford, E. B. , & Blocker, T. J. (1991). Coping with "natural" hazards as stressors: The predictors of activism in a flood disaster. Environment and Behavior, 23, 171-194.
24.
Samdahl, D. M. , & Robertson, R. (1989). Social determinants of environmental concern: Specification and test of a model. Environment and Behavior, 21, 57-81.
25.
Schmidt, F. , & Gifford, R. (1989). A dispositional approach to hazard perception: Preliminary development of the environmental appraisal inventory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 57-67.
26.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
27.
Syme, G. J. , lllingworth, D. J., Eaton, E., & Kantola, S. J. (1981). Identification of early leavers from a remote mining community. Population and Environment, 4, 147-155.
28.
Syme, G. J. , Macpherson, D. K., & Seligman, C. (1991). Factors motivating community participation in regional water-allocation planning: A test of an expectancy value model. Environment and Planning A, 23, 1779-1795.
29.
Wandersman, A. , Florin, P., Friedman, R., & Meier, R. (1987). Who participates, who does not and why: An analysis of voluntary neighbourhood organisations in the United States and Israel. Sociological Forum, 2, 534-555.
