This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 11 November 2014, At: 01:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

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

A Role for Ecological Restoration Work inUniversity Environmental EducationPeter A. Bowler , Florian G. Kaiser & Terry HartigPublished online: 31 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Peter A. Bowler , Florian G. Kaiser & Terry Hartig (1999) A Role for Ecological RestorationWork in University Environmental Education, The Journal of Environmental Education, 30:4, 19-26, DOI:10.1080/00958969909601880

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958969909601880

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 licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany 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, 1999, Vol. 30, No. 4, 19-26

A Role for Ecological Restoration Work in University Environmental

Education

PETER A. BOWLER, FLORIAN G. KAISER, and TERRY HARTIG

ABSTRACT The effects of ecological restoration field work and in-class instruction on students’ ecological behavior, environmental attitudes, and perceptions of restora- tive qualities in a natural environment were studied in 3 classes of university under- graduates (N = 488). In 1 class, students (n = 145) carried out ecological restoration work on 8 field trips. Students in 2 control classes (n = 157; n = 186) each made only 1 field trip, to a site where the other class had done restoration work, but did no restoration work. In 1 of the control classes, data were collected from 5 subgroups at different points in the course to examine the effects of cumulating in-class instruc- tion. Ecological restoration work positively affected environmental attitudes and eco- logical behavior, but within the attitude measures it affected only ecological behav- ior intention and not environmental knowledge or environmental values. In-class instruction was associated with perceived restorative qualities in the study site; per- ceptions of Being Away, Coherence, and Fascination increased over the course of instruction.

cological restoration is a set of activities directed E toward reinstating and managing, and thus restoring, the integrity of compromised ecological systems (Clewell, 1993a, p. 141; Clewell, 1993b, pp. 206-207). It may involve, for example, planting trees and shrubs that have been extirpated locally or stripping away the concrete lining of a channelized creek to reestablish stream features need- ed by spawning fish. In the present study we evaluated eco- logical restoration field work as an adjunct to in-class instruction in a university-level environmental cumculum.

~~ ~

Peter A. Bowler is an associate adjunct professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California at Irvine. Floriun G. Kaiser is a profrssor of psychology at the University of Trier; Germany. Terry Hartig is with the Institute for Housing Research at Uppsala University in Gavle, Sweden.

We used several evaluation criteria in this study. Of foremost concern was change in ecological behavior. Eco- logical behavior consists of “actions which contribute towards environmental preservation and/or conservation” (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993, p. 153). It includes behaviors such as recycling and composting, energy and water con- servation, political activism, commitment to environmen- tal organizations, and so forth.’ Although ecological behavior has been neglected in most studies of students at all levels (Smith-Sebasto & D’Costa, 1996), a basic objec- tive of environmental education (EE) should be to promote ecological behavior.

In the present study we used two theoretical frameworks to identify mediating factors through which ecological restoration work and in-class instruction might influence ecological behavior. Consistent with much psychological research on the precursors of ecological behavior (Hines. Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986-1987) and with Newhouse’s

19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:02

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

20 The Journal of Environmental Education

( 1990) observation that the environmental attitude concept is a promising one for EE, we based one of these frame- works on the theory of reasoned action (e.g., Ajzen & Fish- bein, 1980). Although somewhat different from the original theory of reasoned action, the framework we used repre- sents that theory’s scope fairly well (cf. Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992). It joins factual environmental knowledge as an approximation of attitude toward ecological behavior, environmental values as approximations of subjective norms, and ecological behavior intentions. Promoted as a unifying framework, it represents three general approaches to understanding environmental attitudes (Kaiser, Wolfing, & Fuhrer, 1997). Those approaches include research on atti- tude toward the environment (e.g., Maloney &Ward, 1973). work in the New Environmental Paradigm tradition (e.g.. Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978), and prior research on attitude toward ecological behavior starting from the theory of rea- soned action (e.g., Stutzman & Green, 1982).

Together with its influence on environmental attitude components, EE may promote ecological behavior by enabling or amplifying psychological benefits from experi- ences in environments with particular ecological signifi- cance. Various studies support the idea that natural environ- ments have a large potential for affording psychological restoration benefits to members of contemporary urban societies (e.g., Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Hartig, Bowler, and Wolf (1994) have sug- gested that restorative experiences in natural environments can initiate and sustain a person’s orientation to protect such environments and so to participate in ecological restoration efforts (cf. Bowler, 1992). Similarly, if a person perceives restorative qualities in a natural environment, he or she may be moved to protect further access to the potential benefit, whether in the given environment or in natural environ- ments more generally.

In the present study, attention restoration theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) guided the measurement of perceived restorative potential in the freshwater marsh environment we used as a study site. Attention restoration theory has to do with the renewal of a depleted capacity to focus atten- tion. This capacity is vital to effective functioning and well being, and its depletion has a range of negative behavioral, emotional, and interpersonal consequences. The theory posits that recovery from directed attention fatigue occurs when person+nvironment transactions involve a sense of being away from one’s usual routines and demands on directed attention; fascination with objects and processes in the environment; a sense of extent, or of being in an envi- ronment large enough in scope and coherent enough in the organization of its various elements to sustain involvement; and compatibility, or the match between intended activities, information available in the environment to support those activities, and the demands imposed on the person by the environment.

In light of the attitude approach adopted here and the rea- soning regarding links between psychological restoration

and ecological restoration, ecological restoration field work can be viewed as a particularly effective EE modality. Such field work targets students’ energies on a particular, local environmental problem with the promise of a readily iden- tifiable outcome; it allows them to directly experience their role in an ecological process just as it allows discussion of the relevant biological and human ecology; in doing so it leads them to make the step from possible behavior inten- tions to a form of ecological behavior; and in the process i t may engender psychological benefits that encourage con- tinued involvement. Ecological restoration field work thus affords educators possibilities for influencing factors thought to mediate the relationship between EE and eco- logical behavior: environmental knowledge and values, behavior intentions, and the perception of restorative quali- ties in a natural environment. The effectiveness of ecologi- cal restoration work as an adjunct to in-class instruction is appropriately assessed in comparison to in-class instruction with limited field experience, a standard minimum for uni- versity EE and the control condition in the present study.

Evaluations of EE innovations previously have been trou- bled by problems such as an inadequately developed theo- retical basis, the lack of an experimental design, the lack of controls, the use of measurement instruments that are not well developed psychometrically, and the use of instru- ments designed for a particular program evaluation (Leem- ing, Dwyer, Porter, & Cobern, 1993; see also Iozzi, 1989; Smith-Sebasto & D’Costa, 1996). In the present study we overcame such research limitations in two major ways. First, the configuration of groups allowed a measure of con- trol over a self-selection explanation that can undermine causal inferences drawn from a quasi-experimental study. Specifically, the ecological restoration class and the control class were composed of upper division students who took the course as an elective. The demand for all biology cours- es at the given university is high, which reduces the possi- bility that more ecologically inclined students self-selected only into the ecological restoration class.

Second, we used measurement instruments that are theo- retically grounded and that have been subjected to prior psychometric development work. Following from the envi- ronmental attitude framework used here, we included mea- sures for environmental knowledge, environmental values, ecological behavior intentions, and general ecological behavior. These measures were initially validated with data from a large sample of members of two Swiss transporta- tion associations (Kaiser, in press; Kaiser, Wolfing, et al., 1997), and the same underlying measurement model has been confirmed in the present sample (Kaiser, Ranney, Har- tig, & Bowler, 1997; Kaiser & Wilson, 1997). Measures of being away, fascination, coherence (a key aspect of extent). and compatibility were included to represent the constructs in attention restoration theory. These measures were devel- oped in previous studies with students from the same uni- versity as the present sample (Hartig, Korpela, Evans, & GLling, I996), and the measurement model for an expand-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:02

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bowler, Kaiser, and Hartig 7-1

ed scale has been confirmed in the present sample (Hartig. Kaiser, & Bowler, 1997).

In the present study, then, we considered the following question: Does extensive ecological restoration field work in conjunction with in-class instruction have a more power- ful effect than in-class instruction with limited field experi- ence on attitudinal precursors of ecological behavior, on psychological reward potentials as reflected in perceptions of restorative qualities in a study site, and on ecological behavior itself?

Method Design and Participants

Students (N = 488) in three courses participated volun- tarily. The three 10-week courses are part of either the bio- logical sciences or the social ecology curriculum of the Uni- versity of California at Irvine (see course descriptions below). One of two upper division courses (Restoration Ecology; predominantly junior- and senior-level biological sciences majors, n = 145) involves an extensive amount of ecological restoration field work in addition to in-class instruction. The second upper division course (Limnology and Freshwater Biology; predominantly junior- and senior- level biological sciences majors, n = 186) and a lower divi- sion course (Introduction to Environmental Analysis; pre- dominantly freshmen and sophomore Social Ecology students; n = 157) received in-class instruction with only one field trip. These latter two classes served as controls. The control students’ field trip was to a freshwater marsh where the other class had done restoration work (the study site). In the upper division control class, data were collect- ed from subgroups at different time points to examine the linear effects of cumulating in-class instruction. These stu- dents were sampled in five waves across a span of 7 weeks, at intervals ranging from 1 to 3 weeks with at least one lec- ture falling between consecutive sampling waves. The five subsamples did not yield any gender-specific, f(4, N = 186) = 4.5, p = .34, or age-specific, F(4, 177) = 1.23, p = .30, q2 = 2.7%. differences. In the other two classes sam- pling was conducted at the end of the course.

Participants’ (44.4% male) median age was 21.0 years (M = 2 1.4, range = 17-50). Appropriately, those in the upper division courses were slightly older than participants in the lower division class, F(2,477) = 4.47, p = .012; q2 = 1.8%, 22.0 and 2 I .4 years versus 20.9 years, respectively. There were disproportionately more female than male participants in the lower division course than in the upper division class- es, x2(2, N = 487) = 17.6, p = .0002.

EE Content Restoration Ecology is an upper division Biological Sci-

ences elective that covers theoretical and practical aspects of habitat restoration and mitigation. Among the topics dis- cussed in lecture and taken up in field work are designing, implementing, and monitoring restoration projects in local habitats, including collecting seeds and cuttings, planting

and maintenance, and controlling exotics. The course has 2 hr of in-class lecture and 2 hr of ecological restoration field work each week. Environmental ethics are discussed throughout the course in the context of recreating human- damaged habitat and habitat loss in general.

Limnology and Freshwater Biology is an upper division Biological Sciences elective that covers the biology of freshwater environments. The biota of lakes, ponds, and rivers and the factors that influence the distribution of organisms are discussed. Students have a 3-hr lecture once weekly and must participate in one of a series of visits to the marsh study site scheduled during the 10-week quarter. Environmental ethics are stressed throughout the course in readings and slide and video presentations and to a greater extent than in the Restoration Ecology course.

Introduction to Environmental Analysis is a lower divi- sion Social Ecology requisite that overviews general con- cepts, theoretical principles, and analytical techniques for investigating environmental systems. Students use tools from the natural and social sciences to analyze conternpo- rary environmental challenges such as pollution, resource acquisition, and facility and ecosystem design. The course meets twice weekly for 80-min lectures. The introductory lecture provides students with a background in environ- mental ethics, and students view the Annenberg film series “Race to Save the Planet,” which provides EE and ethics instruction in many of its episodes. Students are required to attend a field trip to the study site.

Study Site The San Joaquin Marsh Reserve is a 202-acre unit of the

University of California’s Natural Reserve System. A rem- nant of a once vast freshwater marsh system, it is surround- ed by roads and development. Because flood control mea- sures now prevent the passage of an adjacent creek through the marsh, vegetation is no longer flushed out on a regular basis and areas that had been open water are now filled with cattails and reeds. The marsh is also bisected by a berm on top of which a major road is situated; this reduces the flow of water within the marsh and so also promotes vegetation buildup. Trails and single-track dirt roads provide access to some areas of the marsh.

Measures The Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Values,

and Ecological Behavior Intention scales altogether consist of 20 items (Kaiser, Ranney, et al., 1997). Eight items repre- sent Environmental Knowledge (e.g., “Fossil fuels [e.g., gas, oil] produce CO, in the atmosphere when burned”) and 4 items represent Environmental Values (e.g., “Animals should have legal rights”); all knowledge and value statements rep- resent true or environmentally oriented statements. Eight items represent Ecological Behavior Intention (e.g., “I am ready to pay environmental taxes”). A 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) was the response format used for all of these items. Scores for Environmental

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:02

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

22 The Journal of Environmental Education

Knowledge, Environmental Values, and Ecological Behavior Intention were obtained by taking the mean of the con- stituent items. Mean values were calculated only if partici- pants had answered at least half of the items for each scale.

The General Ecological Behavior scale (Kaiser, in press; Kaiser & Wilson, 1997) has been calibrated as a unidimen- sional scale based on a partial credit model within-item response theory (cf. Wright & Masters, 1982). It consists of 5 1 items that represent different types of ecological behav- ior (e.g., “I bring empty bottles to a recycling bin”) and some nonenvironmental prosocial behaviors (e.g., “Some- times I give change to panhandlers”). Responses were made with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

The present version of the Perceived Restorativeness scale (Hartig et al., 1997) consists of 26 items. Five items represent Being Away (e.g., “Spending time here gives me a break from my day-to-day routine”), 8 tap Fascination (e.g., ”This place has fascinating qualities”), 4 measure the Coherence aspect of extent (e.g., “There is a great deal of distraction”), and 9 measure Compatibility (e.g., “I have a sense that I belong here”). A 7-point scale is used to indicate the extent to which the given statement describes the expe- rience one is having in the given setting (effectively, l = not ut ull to 7 = completely).

Finally, the 33-item Social Desirability scale developed by Crowne and Marlowe (1960) was included to control for social desirability effects on responding. Eighteen of the items must be answered affirmatively to contribute to the Social Desirability sum score. For example, an affirmative answer to the item, “I have never intensely disliked any- one,” is taken as a socially desirable response and added to the sum score. The remaining I5 items have to be answered negatively to contribute to the sum score (e.g., “I like to gossip at times”). To be consistent with the response options for the ecological behavior items, the original true-false format was changed to a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Procedures All participants filled out the questionnaires during a sin-

gle class period. This was done either while sitting within the study site (the two upper division courses) or while sit- ting in a lecture hall (the lower division course), with a slide of the study site projected on a large screen. Completion of the questionnaire required approximately 35 min.

Results Influences of Ecological Restoration Field Work

The first step in analysis was to assess the influence of ecological restoration work on environmental attitude, per- ceived restorative potential of the study site, and ecological behavior. Effects of ecological restoration field work on environmental attitudes and the restorative potential of the marsh were first tested with multivariate analyses of vari-

ance (MANOVAs). Univariate comparisons (ANOVAs) fol- lowed. When warranted by the results of the given ANOVA, nonorthogonal planned comparisons were carried out with 1 tests. Descriptive statistics for the various measures are given in Table 1.

Environmental Attitude All three environmental attitude-related variables com-

bined-Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Values, and Ecological Behavior Intention-were significantly affected by class differences (MANOVA), Pillai’s trace F(6, 968) = 7.27, p < .OOOI, q2 = 8.6%. Although all three uni- variate ANOVAs were also significant-Environmental Knowledge: F(2, 485) = 6.37, p = .002, q2 = 2.6%; Envi- ronmental Values: F(2,485) = 11.74, p < .0001, q2 = 4.6%: Ecological Behavior Intention: F(2,485) = 9.33, p = .0001, q’ = 3.7%-0nly one of these effects can be attributed to ecological restoration work. Only for Ecological Behavior Intention did the planned comparisons differentiate the eco- logical restoration class from the control classes. The mean Ecological Behavior Intention score of the ecological restoration class was significantly higher than that of each of the control classes, (300) = 3. I 1 , p = ,002, and t(329) = 4.20, p -c .001. The control classes did not significantly dif- fer, t(341) = .99, p = .32. When we controlled for Social Desirability effects in an analysis of covariance (ANCO- VA), the effect of ecological restoration work on Ecological Behavior Intention persisted, F(2,484) = 10.3 1, p < .OOO I , q 2 = 3.9%.

Perceived Restorative Potential of the Study Site The four Perceived Restorativeness scale variables-

Being Away, Coherence, Fascination, and Compatibility- were in combination significantly affected by class differ- ences (MANOVA), Pillai’s trace F(8.966) = 3.01, p = ,002, q2 = 4.9%. Although two of the four univariate ANOVAs- Being Away: F(2, 485) = 3.53, p = .03, q’ = 1.4%; Coher- ence: F(2,485) = 7.16, p = -0009, q2 = 2.9%; Fascination: F(2, 485) = 1.70, p = .18, q2 = 0.7%; Compatibility: F(2, 485) = 1.97, p = .14, q2 = 0.8%-showed statistical signif- icance, the effects could not be attributed to ecological restoration work. The subsequent comparisons of the three classes regarding Being Away and Coherence did not sig- nificantly differentiate the ecological restoration class from the two control classes.

Ecological Behavior All three classes could be distinguished (ANOVA)

according to their General Ecological Behavior scale score, F(2, 485) = 11.2, p c .OO01, q2 = 4.4%. Planned cornpar- isons of the three classes regarding General Ecological Behavior differentiated the ecological restoration class from the two control classes (see Table 1). The mean General Eco- logical Behavior score of the ecological restoration class was significantly higher than that of each of the control classes, (300) = 2.47, p = .01, and t(329) = 4.72, p < .001. The two

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:02

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bowler, Kaiser, and Hartig

TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations for All Scales, Grouped by Class

Ecological restoration Control class Control class

(upper division, (lower division, (upper division, n = 145) n = 157) n = 186)

Criterion M SD M SD M SD

Attitude Environmental Knowledge" 4.23 .58 4.30 .53 4.09 .55 Environmental Values" 4.16 .68 4.20 .68 3.86 .78 Ecological Behavior Intentionb 3.12 .78 2.86 .77 2.78 .65

Being Awaya 5.15 1.08 4.80 1.35 4.95 1.05 Fascination 5.63 .90 5.44 1.07 5.59 .85 Coherencea 4.76 1.18 4.71 1.30 5.14 1.02 compatibility 4.88 1.00 4.68 1.09 4.70 .87

Perceived Restorative Potential

Behavior General Ecological Behavi0l.b . I3 .26 -06 .24 .oo .22

Nok. Attitude Scale means are based on a 5-point Likert response format, whereas Perceived Restora- tiveness Scale means are based on a 7-point Liken response format. As the General Ecological Behav- ior Scale represents Logits-the basic units of scales based on probabilistic measurement theory (cf. Wright & Masters, 1982)-it ranges potentially between + and - infinity. Triteria that reveal statistically significant group differences not attributable to field work. bCriteria that reveal statistically significant group differences attributable to field work.

control classes could also be distinguished significantly from each other, r(341) = 2.20, p = .03. The lower division class had a significantly higher mean ecological behavior score than the upper division class. When Social Desirabili- ty effects were controlled for in an ANCOVA, the effect of class differences on General Ecological Behavior was basi- cally unaffected, F(2.484) = 13.26, p < .OOOI, q2 = 4.8%.

Influence of Environmental Instruction The second step in analysis involved checking whether

environmental attitude, perceptions of restorative qualities in the marsh, and ecological behavior showed a linear increase corresponding with increase in the amount of in- class environmental instruction. Effects of sampling wave on environmental attitude and perceived restorativeness were tested multivariately with MANOVAs. Tests of uni- variate effects involved linear regression analyses.

Environmental Attitude

Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Values, and Ecological Behavior Intention were in combination (MANOVA) not affected by sampling wave in the one upper division control class, Pillai's trace F(3, 182) = .69, p = 36, q2 = I . I%. Hence, all linear regression analyses yielded nonsignificant F values (all ps > .2).

Perceived Restorative Potential of the Study Site

The measures of Being Away, Coherence, Fascination, and Compatibility were in combination marginally affected by the time at which data were collected in the course of

instruction, as shown in a multivariate statistical tendency, Pillai's trace F(4, 181) = 2.24, p = .07, q2 = 4.7%. Three of four linear regressions showed either a significant effect of sampling wave or revealed a statistical tendency, Being Away: F(1, 184) = 3.95. p = .05, q2 = 2.1%, p = ,I I , t = 1.99; Coherence: F(1, 184) = 3.56, p = -06, q2 = 1.9%. /3 = .lo, t = 1.89; Fascination: F( I , 184) = 6.69, p = .O I , = 3.5%, p = .12, t = 2.59; Compatibility: F( I , 184) = 2.03. p = .16, q* = I . ]%, p = .07, t = 1.42. Only Compatibility appeared to be unaffected by the duration of instruction. Figure I shows the mean scale scores for all four measures of perceived restorative quality of the marsh environment across the five data collection waves.

When we controlled for Social Desirability effects in stepwise regressions, the instruction effects on perceived restorativeness persisted; Being Away: F( 1, 183) = 3.75, p = .05, q2 = 2.0%; Coherence: F(1, 183) = 3.38, p = .07, q? = 1.8%; andFascination: F(1, 183)=6.4O,p=.Ol,q?=3.3~.

Ecological Behavior

An environmental instruction effect was not found with the General Ecological Behavior scale score. The amount of time students in the upper division control class were exposed to instruction did not, apparently, affect their Gen- eral Ecological Behavior score, F( I , 184) = .07, p = 30, ti' <

Discussion In the present study we started from the assumption that

ecological behavior is the ultimate criterion of the el'fec-

0.1 %, p = -.OO, t = -.26.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:02

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

24 The Journal of Environmental Education

tiveness of EE modalities. Drawing on environmental atti- tude theoretical frameworks (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and attention restoration theory (e.g., Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). we identified factors potentially mediating between EE and ecological behavior as additional effectiveness cri- teria. Two EE modalities-ecological restoration field work and in-class instruction-were considered for effectiveness with a sample of university students. We wanted to know if ecological restoration field work in conjunction with in- class instruction would have a more powerful effect than in- class instruction with limited field experience on attitudinal precursors of ecological behavior, on psychological reward potentials as reflected in perceptions of restorative qualities in the study site, and on ecological behavior itself.

Ecological restoration field work in conjunction with in- class instruction did in fact have a more powerful effect than in-class instruction with limited field experience on General Ecological Behavior and one of its attitudinal precursors, Ecological Behavior Intentions. Students in the ecological restoration class reported that they engaged in a variety of ecological behaviors to a greater extent than students in each of the control classes. These findings stood even when social desirability in responding was taken into account. This result is not readily attributed to self-selection of more ecological- ly inclined students into the ecological restoration class; one of the comparison classes was also an upper division elective

course, and both it and the ecological restoration course were subject to enrollment pressures that would have worked against self-selection. Furthermore, if self-selection had operated, then corresponding differences might be expected in the other two theoretical attitudinal precursors of ecological behavior. Such differences in Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Values were not found; in fact, Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Values scores were uniformly high across the three classes.

One might argue that greater ecological behavior on the part of the ecological restoration class in comparison to the other upper division elective class was due to the fact that data from students in the latter were collected in five waves. If ecological behavior and ecological behavior intentions could be expected to increase linearly with cumulating in- class instruction, then the class average scores for the given variables would be pulled down by basing them on scores from students who had received varying amounts of instruc- tion. Thus, we put aside for the moment the fact that no sta- tistically significant effects of sampling wave were found with respect to ecological behavior and its attitudinal pre- dictors, and directly assessed this argument by repeating the analyses in question using only the data from the last-sam- pled wave.

When the analyses were carried out for Ecological Behavior Intention, the effect of ecological restoration field

6.0 , ................................................................................................................................

...........................................................

-'.--.... Fascination /' / ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .../:.. . . . .............................................

5.0

.... ..........................

. . . ... ...... ... .- _a_ .....................................................................................

.................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

& 4.0 -1 I I I 1 1 2 3 4 5

Sampling Waves (ie., Time)

Coherence Being Away

Cornpati bility

FIGURE 1. Mean #cores for perceived restorative qualities across the 6ve waves of data collection. The mean Perceived Restorativeness Scale values fall on a 1-7 scale, where 7 indicates, for example, maximally high Fascination.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:02

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bowler, Kaiser, and Hartig 2s

work remained, F(2, 320) = 6.40, p = .002, q2 = 3.8%. The planned comparisons of the three classes regarding Ecolog- ical Behavior Intention differentiated the ecological restora- tion class from the two control classes as before. The mean Ecological Behavior Intention score of the ecological restoration class (M = 3.12) was significantly higher than that of each of the other classes, for the control class sub- sample in question, M = 2.63, SD = .75, n = 21; t(164) = 2.73, p = .007. Also as before, the two control classes did not differ significantly, t(176) = 1.29, p = .20. When we controlled for Social Desirability effects in an ANCOVA, ecological restoration work’s effect on Ecological Behavior Intention again was basically unaffected, F(2, 319) = 6.25,

Similarly, the effect of ecological restoration work on General Ecological Behavior also remained when we used only the last-sampled group to represent the upper division control class; the three classes could again be distinguished according to their General Ecological Behavior scale score, F(2, 320) = 6.19, p < ,003, q2 = 3.7%. The subsequent planned comparisons again differentiated the ecological restoration class from the control classes, with the mean General Ecological Behavior score of the ecological restoration class (M = .12) significantly higher than that of each of the control classes, for the control class subsample, M = -.05, SD = .19, n = 21; t(164) = 3 . 1 1 , ~ = .002. The control classes still differed-at least marginally, t( 176) = 1.93, p = .06. When we controlled for Social Desirability effects (ANCOVA), the effect of ecological restoration work on General Ecological Behavior again was basically unaffected, F(2, 319) = 6 . 2 4 , ~ < .003, q2 = 3.9%.

The picture that emerges, then, is one in which ecologi- cal restoration work affects students’ intentions to behave ecologically to the point that the intentions become mani- fest in ecological behavior. Even with students who have strong environmental values and a high level of general environmental knowledge, such as those measured in the present sample, ecological restoration work might be par- ticularly effective as an EE modality in promoting both intention and behavior, It may be potent in this way in part because it provides a specific target for intentions with the promise of a relatively clear outcome. Consider, for exam- ple, that it may be quite easy for students to drive less, but it may be hard for them to see how their reduced driving ameliorates problems of environmental degradation. In con- trast, their ecological restoration work can produce an immediately recognizable positive effect on a given local environmental problem. The practice of behaviors immedi- ately recognizable as having positive ecological value may in turn help students develop additional intentions that, in turn, result in the performance of a range of other types of ecological behavior, such as reduced driving.

In contrast to ecological behavior intentions and self- reported ecological behavior, ecological restoration work did not engender stronger perceptions of Being Away, Fas- cination, Coherence, and Compatibility. Although there

p < .003, q 2 = 3.9%.

were group differences in perceptions of Being Away and Coherence (an aspect of extent), these effects could not be attributed to the ecological restoration work. This finding may be related to the strenuous nature of the work, to the fact that students in the ecological restoration class only worked in the marsh on several occasions, to the possibility that other sites in which the ecological restoration students had worked had provided a stronger referent for the restora- tive qualities, or to some other factor. Further research can pursue these questions and consider other psychological benefits of the person-natural environment exchange, aside from restorative benefits, that might help constitute a per- sonal, emotional basis for continued ecological restoration work andor other ecological behaviors.

In addition to the assessment of differences between groups caused by ecological restoration work, we assessed the effects of in-class instruction alone using a multiwave data collection strategy in the one upper division control class. N o significant effect on the environmental attitude and ecological behavior measures was demonstrated, which might seem to suggest that in-class instruction is not an effective modality. Before coming to this judgment, howev- er, we should point out that at least with respect to the Envi- ronmental Knowledge and Environmental Values mea- sures-though not with respect to Ecological Behavior Intention-the finding of no instruction effect could be due to a ceiling effect; both of those measures were already quite high (i.e.. around 4 on a 5-point Likert scale) at the first data collection wave. Most students were already envi- ronmentally concerned to some degree, although they may not have been following through with behavior concurrent- ly. Alternatively, the absence of an instruction effect could also imply that the environmental attitude and ecological behavior measures were too general or too focused on broad, global, pollution-oriented elements rather than spe- cific issues tied more directly to students’ everyday experi- ences.

As alluded to previously, the absence of an instruction effect with respect to Environmental Knowledge and Envi- ronmental Values in particular offers another counter-argu- ment to a self-selection explanation for the finding of Eco- logical Behavior Intention and General Ecological Behavior differences between the ecological restoration course and the upper division control course. In advancing a self-selection alternative explanation, one might argue that differences in the measured factors existed prior to the course (i.e., that more ecologically inclined students self-selected into the ecological restoration course); that this would have been reflected in all of the various attitudinal measures as well as in the behavior measure had they been measured in both classes at the outset of instruction; and that instruction mere- ly served to cancel out the differences between those classes with respect to the Environmental Knowledge and Environ- mental Values measures. Yet the lack of an instruction effect on those measures and the fact that they were high to begin with undermines this argument. Rather, the results suggest

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:02

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

26 The Journal of Environmental Education

that the various attitudinal precursors remained at high levels over the course of instruction, with ecological restoration work contributing to an increase in Ecological Behavior lntention and General Ecological Behavior.

The positive effect of in-class instruction on Being Away, Fascination, and Coherence suggests that in-class instruc- tion can bring students to intensify their perception of potentially restorative qualities in a field site. Given the quasi-experimental nature of the study and the possibility that other processes running concurrently with the course could also have influenced these responses (e.g., the con- current cumulation of students' need for restoration), these results must be considered tentative. Still, the possibility that in-class instruction can serve EE goals in part by poten- tiating psychological reward values of natural environments is intriguing and worthy of further consideration.

NOTE

I . Because ecological was the psychological index term used to search for literitture on such behaviors (i.e., conservation ecological behavior; see Walk- er. 1994). it. rather than another descriptor (environmental), is adopted here.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The present research was supported by Grant DUE9554965 from the U.S. National Science Foundation (P.A.B), a grant to the University of Cal- ifornia at Irvine's School of Biological Sciences from the Transportation Corridor Agencies, and by Fellowship 8210-040207 from the Swiss National Science Foundation (F.G.K.). For assistance with the conduct of the study we are grateful to the staff of the San Joaquin Marsh Reserve (a unit of the University of California's Natural Reserve System) and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Cal- ifornia at Irvine. We are also grateful to Gabriel Magassy and Samantha Holtax for their assistance in preparing and entering data.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Peter A. Bowler, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine. CA 92697-2525. or White Mountain Research Station, 3000 E. Line St., Bish- op. CA 93514; e-mail: pabowler@uci.edu.

REFERENCES

Ajzcn. I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting s o c ~ i c i l hehhrrvio,: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Axelrod, L. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding to environmental concern: What factors guide individual action? Journal of Envimnmen-

Howler, P. A. (1992). In defense of disturbed land. Restomtion and Man-

Clewell, A. F. (19930). Ecology. restoration ecology, and ecological

t ~ ~ l P.svcholog,v, 13, 149-1 59.

crgement Nofes, 10, 144-149.

restoration. Restoration Ecology, l(3). 141.

Clewell. A. F. (1993b). SER comments. Ecological restoration, conservti- tion, and environmentalism. Restorarion E C O ~ O ~ J l(3). 206-207.

Crowne, D. P.. & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology 24, 349-354.

Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The "new environmental para- digm": A proposed instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of' Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.

Hartig. T., Bowler, P. A., & Wolf, A. (1994). The psychological ecology of ecological restoration. Restoration and Management Notes, /2,

Hartig. T., Kaiser, F. G.. & Bowler, P. A. (1997). Further development o$tr

measure of perceived environmental restorativeness (Working Paper #5 ). Giivle, Sweden: Institute for Housing Research, Uppsala University.

Hartig. T., Korpela. M.. Evans, G . W.. & Gtirling, T. (1996). Validation q / a measure of perceived environmental resforativeness (Goteborg Psy- chological Reports, Vol. 26, No. 7). G6teborg. Sweden: Department of Psychology, GBteborg University.

Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G . W. (1991). Restorative effects of ntitur- al environment experiences. Environment and Behavioc 23, 3-26.

Hines. J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera. A. N. (1986-1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, /8(2). 1-8.

lozzi, L. A. (1989). What research says to the educator-Part one: Envi- ronmental education and the affective domain. The Journcrl o f ' Eniimn- mental Education, 20(3), 3-9.

Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. J o u n i d i!/ Applied Social Psychology, 28,395-422.

Kaiser, F. G.. Ranney, M., Hartig, T., & Bowler, P. A. ( 1999). Ecological behavior, environmental attitude, and feelings of responsihility for the environment. European Psychologist, 4, 33-48.

Kaiser, F. G.. &Wilson, M. (in press). Assessing people's general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural measure. Journal ofApplied Social P,sVchol(igy,

Kaiser, F. G., WBlfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal of Envimnmental Psychology, /Y, 1-19.

Kaplan, R.. & Kaplan, S. (1989). Tha experience of nature: A pS?.cholOgl- cal perspective. New York Cambridge University Press.

Leeming. F. C., Dwyer. W. 0.. Porter, B. E., & Cobern. M. K. (1993). Out- come research in environmental education: A critical review. The Jour- nal of Environmental Education, 24(4), 8-21.

Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, 1. (1992). A comparison of the thcory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Per.sonality uncl Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 3-9.

Maloney, M. P., & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Let's hear from the peo- ple. An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologisr, 28, 583-586.

Newhouse. N. (1990). Implications of attitude and behavior research for environmental conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22( I), 26-32.

Smith-Sebasto, N. J., & D'Costa. A. (1996). Designing a Likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behavior in undergraduate stu- dents: A multistep process. The Journal of Environmental Education.

Stutzman, T. M., & Green, S. B. (1982). Factors affecting energy con- sumption: W o field tests of the Fishbein-Ajzen model. JOUt'ncl/ o] Social Psychology, 117. 183-201.

Walker, A., Jr. (Ed.). (1994). Thesaurus of psychological index ternis (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wright, B., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale onalvsis: Rasch mea- surement. Chicago: MESA.

133-137.

27(1), 15-20.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 0

1:02

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14