Environmental Education Research

ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Environmental values and environmental concern

Gregor Torkar & Franz X. Bogner

To cite this article: Gregor Torkar & Franz X. Bogner (2019): Environmental
values and environmental concern, Environmental Education Research, DOI:
10.1080/13504622.2019.1649367

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1649367

Published online: 10 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 23

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1649367

Environmental values and environmental concern

Gregor Torkara and Franz X. Bognerb
a
Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; bCentre of Maths and Science Education
(Z-MNU), University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Attitudes, values and concerns are frequently measured to monitor indi- Received 3 December 2018
vidual preferences of adolescents. As there is still some discussion about Accepted 22 July 2019
how to monitor those variables with respect to empirical instruments,
KEYWORDS
directions of items or length of instruments, we applied two established
Environmental values;
scales (2 Major Environmental Value Model [2-MEV] and Environmental environmental concerns;
Motives Scale [EMS]) to a Slovenian sample of 804 middle and high attitude sets; 2-MEV model;
school students. Subsequently, we confirmed the validity and reliability secondary school students
of both scales as well as their applicability to Slovene subjects, aged
12–18 years. The main objective of our study was to explore the rela-
tionship between three factors of environmental concern (EMS) and the
two higher-order factors of utilisation of nature and preservation of
nature (2-MEV). The results show that altruistic (ALT), biospheric (BIO)
and egoistic (EGO) environmental concerns correlate strongly positively
with preservation of nature, but negatively and less strongly but still sig-
nificantly with utilisation of nature. We conclude that raising awareness
of EGO environmental concern may be as important as ALT and/or BIO
concern for understanding the environmental values and attitudes of an
individual. Consequences and recommendations for designing and com-
pleting educational programmes are discussed.

Introduction
Human behaviour substantially affects our natural environment, making environmental problems
among the most pressing social problems of our time. Addressing these issues will require sub-
stantial shifts in the way in which we treat nature and the environment (IPCC 2014). Major envir-
onmental problems sooner or later generate unpleasant living conditions for everyone. Surveys
indicate that a high percentage of people in Europe and other parts of the world express severe
concern about environmental issues (e.g. Dunlap 2008; Eurostat 2008, 2011). Unfortunately,
behaviour gaps are common as people frequently fail to engage in appropriate behaviour.
Numerous theoretical frameworks have been developed to explain this gap (Kaiser 2006;
Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). Individual concerns are complex facets based upon a variety of
theoretical foundations, often based in practice upon existing psychometric definitions encapsu-
lating degrees of favour or disfavour (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). The list of grass root thinkers is
long, and goes back to the last century laying (philosophical) foundations (e.g. Dewey 1925,
1929; Muir 1916; Leopold 1949; Carson 1962, just to mention a few pioneers).
Any environmental education initiatives strive towards empowering for environmentally
responsible actions (Leeming, Dwyer, and Bracken 1995), but these actions are challenging to

CONTACT Gregor Torkar [email protected]

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. TORKAR AND F. X. BOGNER

monitor or to predict. Nevertheless, attitudes are regarded as important predictors and vital
determinants of behaviour (e.g. Bogner and Wilhelm 1996; de Groot and Steg 2007; Kaiser 2006).
In the 1980s, ecocentric views postulated the New Environmental Paradigm (Dunlap and Van
Liere 1978), the New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap et al. 2000) or the Ecological World View
(Blaikie 1992). Simultaneously, the Dominant Social Paradigm (Pirages and Ehrlich 1974; Dunlap
and Van Liere 1978) was established to subsume anthropocentric (exploitative and utilitarian)
views that regard our planet as an unlimited resource for growth-for-ever fantasies and extensive
consumption illusions. In line with this issue, empirical studies concentrated on the motives
underlying environmental preferences: according to Schultz and Zelezny (2003) such studies may
allow us to better understand types of environmental concerns that drive individuals to act in an
environmentally friendly manner. In general, ecocentric and anthropocentric preferences are
postulated in a broad model formulated to explain individual differences in pro-environmental
attitudes and behaviour (e.g. Bogner, Brengelmann, and Wiseman 2000). On the other hand,
Stern, Dietz, and Kalof (1993) proposed a classification called value-basis theory or, later, modi-
fied value-belief-norm (VBN; Stern and Dietz 1994) by extending an existing norm-activation the-
ory of altruistic (ALT) behaviour (Schwartz 1973; Schwartz and Howard 1981). The norm-
activation theory of altruism theory holds that actions occur in response to the moral norms of
an individual. These norms are activated in individuals who are aware of consequences to other
people, other species, or the biosphere, and therefore act in order to avert those consequences
(Schwartz 1973). The VBN theory considers values or valued objects as providing the source of
environmental concern: people’s attitudes about environmental issues and pro-environmental
behaviour are assumed to be based on self (egoistic [EGO]), other people (social-ALT), or all liv-
ing things (biospheric [BIO]) value orientations (Stern and Dietz 1994). EGO values are said to
focus on self and self-oriented goals, such as social power, wealth and personal success while
social-ALT ones focus on other people, such as family members, friends and humanity in general.
BIO values are assumed to focus on the well-being of all living things, such as plants, animals
and trees. For example, concern for air pollution can be based upon fundamentally different rea-
sons: Polluted air is dangerous to my health (EGO), polluted air is dangerous to the health of
children (ALT), or polluted air is damaging to forests (BIO; Schultz 2000). Thus, concern for envir-
onmental issues may originate in the awareness and belief of harmful consequences leading to
all three sets of values (valued objects) and concern for environmental issues (Schultz et al.
2004): A person’s belief about how he or she is a part of the natural environment provides the
foundation for the types of environmental concerns a person develops. Thus, the argumentation
is in line with a hierarchical structure where the EGO level subsumes both social-ALT and BIO
preferences: the Inclusion Model for Environmental Concern (De Dominicis, Schultz, and
Bonaiuto 2017) provides the template. Consequently, individuals with EGO value orientations
may behave more pro-environmentally when their behaviour results in a personal benefit (but
not if there is an exclusively environmental benefit), while individuals with ALT value orientations
will act pro-environmentally when there are environmental benefits, and also when there are
personal benefits. Subsequently, many scales were developed including EGO, social-ALT and BIO
value orientations. Later, the Environmental Motives Scale (EMS) was given priority due to high
reliability scores and a satisfactory factor structure (e.g. De Dominicis, Schultz, and Bonaiuto
2017), as well as cross-cultural validity (e.g. de Groot and Steg 2007; Schultz et al. 2005; Torkar
2016). Cross-validation studies with other item batteries (Schultz et al. 2005), such as connected-
ness with nature (Schultz 2001) or pro-environmental behaviour (de Groot and Steg 2007), pro-
vided further insight.
A meta-analysis by Leeming et al. (1993) found no instrument measuring environmental atti-
tudes to be appropriate for adolescents. In consequence, during the late-1990s, with a desperate
need for an appropriate measure, the 2 Major Environmental Value model (2-MEV) scale was
developed by integrating and adjusting many existing approaches (Bogner 1999, 2000; Bogner
and Wilhelm 1996; Bogner, Brengelmann, and Wiseman 2000; Bogner and Wiseman 1999, 2002,
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 3

Figure 1. Measurements of correlations between the two higher order factors of the 2-MEV scale and three sets of values
in EMS.

2004, 2006). These efforts finally led Wiseman and Bogner (2003) to incorporate the yielded first
order factors to the two higher-order factors measure: preservation (PRE) and utilisation (UTL). A
subsequent series of bi-national studies (e.g. Bogner and Wiseman 1997a, 1998, 2002) led to a
20-item scale where, following a definition of Rokeach (1968) first-order factors were labelled
‘attitudes’ and second-order factors ‘values’. Wiseman and Bogner (2003) described PRE as bio-
centric dimension including conservation, stewardship and protection, while UTL encapsulated
the anthropocentric dimension of utilisation/exploitation of natural resources. Applying the
instrument in many European countries and languages has demonstrated the scale’s validity
within different cultural contexts (Munoz et al. 2009; Cast
era et al. 2018). Additionally, pre-test
cohorts in the succeeding eight years were monitored, revealing clear constancy in the factor
loading pattern and scores (Bogner et al. 2015).
Nevertheless, even half a decade after development, the 2-MEV scale remained just a scale
amongst many until a series of independent studies repeatedly demonstrated the validity and
reliability of the 2-MEV scale. (i) Milfont and Duckitt (2004), working in a psychometric context,
examined a sample of 455 New Zealand freshmen and confirmed the two-factor second-order
structure; (ii) some years later Johnson and Manoli (2008), from a dicactic background did so
again with a US school sample; (iii) a Flemish study within a state-wide eco-school initiative also
obtained the two-factor structure (Boeve-de Pauw and van Petegem 2011); and (iv) finally, a
West African sample again confirmed the quality of the instrument within the context of a devel-
oping country (Borchers et al. 2013). Thus, repeated independent confirmation of the 2-MEV
scale from a variety of theoretical backgrounds had already taken place more than a decade
ago. This provided the basis for confirmation of the instrument quality before applying them
elsewhere (McLeod 2018). Therefore, the 2-MEV currently is in the favourable situation to allow
inter-study comparisons on a solid foundation of the current psychology of sustainable develop-
ment (Boeve-de Pauw 2011). Even more, since the 2-MEV implies no conflict between assigning
importance to preserving the environment and the need to make use of natural resources, it
offers an empirical instrument for assessing a wide variety of educational programmes.
Our present study had three objectives: (1) to re-examine the psychometric structure of
both the 2-MEV and the EMS (Figure 1), (2) to correlate the two, and (3) to test for any gender
differences. The expectation is to provide measures to monitor the attitudes of future
Slovenian cohorts.

Methods and procedures

A sample of 804 Slovene students (female: 58.5%), aged 12–18 years, completed an online ques-
tionnaire. A convenience sample was used to recruit students willing to participate.
Questionnaires were digitally completed during normal school schedules in classrooms. Measures
were administered in Slovenian. Besides basic socio-demographic and socio-psychological varia-
bles, Schultz’s (2000, 2001) measure for environmental concern and the 2-MEV scale (Wiseman
4 G. TORKAR AND F. X. BOGNER

and Bogner 2003; Kibbe, Bogner, and Kaiser 2014) were applied. Slovenia has 103 inhabitants/
km2 (for comparison, Germany scores has 232, France 103, Austria 105, and Hungary 106). Both
the latter are immediate neighbours of Slovenia and have similar population pressures
as Slovenia.
The 2-MEV Scale (Wiseman and Bogner 2003, as modified by Kibbe, Bogner, and Kaiser 2014)
was used to measure two higher-order values: preservation of nature and utilisation of nature.
Nine of twenty items were negatively formulated. The questionnaire utilises a 5-point Likert scale
with responses ranging from strongly agree (5-points) to strongly disagree (1-point) with a neu-
tral mid-point response not sure (3-points). The 2-MEV scale was first time applied in Slovenian,
therefore a forward and back translation process, which included two experts in science educa-
tion, was used. Only minor changes in wording were necessary. Finally, the translated version
was tested on 18 secondary school students (aged 14–15) in order to assure that items
were understood.
Environmental Motives Scale: 12 items were used to measure concern for environmental prob-
lems caused by humans (Schultz 2000, 2001). Concern about environmental issues is divided into
three categories: EGO, ALT, and BIO. Participants rated items on degree of concern from 1 (not
important) to 7 (extremely important). The items making up the EMS have varied somewhat
between studies (Schultz 2000, 2001; Schultz et al. 2004; Bruni, Chance, and Schultz 2012). In the
present study, items from Schultz et al. (2004, 2005) were used, with one modification replacing
the item ‘marine life’ with ‘all living things’ in order to avoid possible regional differences by
respondents of coastal and continental areas of Slovenia. EGO items were ‘me’, ‘my future’, ‘my
lifestyle’, and ‘my health’. ALT items were ‘all people’, ‘all children’, ‘people in the community’,
and ‘future generations’. BIO items were concerned with ‘animals’, ‘plants’, ‘birds’ and ‘all living
beings’. Items order was random. Since EMS had previously been used in Slovenian (Torkar
2016), no additional validity check of the instrument was performed.
The 20 items of the 2-MEV scale and the 12 items were subjected to principal component
analysis (PCA) with oblimin rotation using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Prior to performing PCA the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed with the
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value (Kaiser 1970, 1974) and Barlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett 1954). In
addition, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the fit of the three-factor model
of EMS (Schultz 2000, 2001). Four indices were used to assess the fit of the three-factor model,
including the CFI, TLI, RMSEA and its 90% confidence interval, and SRMR. These are standard
indices for CFA that indicate the degree of fit of the model. CFI and TLI values
0.90 are consid-
ered acceptable and values
0.95 are considered excellent (Byrne, 2012; Marsh, Hau, and Wen
2004). For the indices of misfit, that is, the RMSEA and SRMR, values 0.08 are considered
acceptable and values 0.05 are considered excellent. Basic descriptive statistics of the numerical
variables (M and SD) were computed. Pearson’s correlation coefficient quantified the relationship
between environmental attitudes (preservation and utilisation) and measures of environmen-
tal concerns.

Results
The results of the PCA with oblimin rotation of the 2-MEV scale are described in Table 1 and
Figure 2. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was 0.88, exceeding the recommended value of 0.60
(Kaiser 1970, 1974), and Barlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett 1954), reaching statistical significance
(chi-squared ¼ 3788.03, df ¼ 190, p < 0.001). Correlation between the two factors was low
(r ¼ 0.330), reflecting a little over 10% common variance. We tested the original factor structure
(Wiseman and Bogner 2003; Kibbe, Bogner, and Kaiser 2014). Two items (11 and 13) were
dropped from the analysis due factor loadings below 0.4. For further analysis, mean scores for
the 2-MEV scale were computed: PRE (M ¼ 4.285, SD ¼ 0.675) and UTL (M ¼ 2.320, SD ¼ 0.622).
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 5

Table 1. Factor structure of the 2-MEV items.

Item PRE UTL
1. It upsets me to see the countryside taken over by building sites. –0.621
5. I always switch the light off when I do not need it. –0.616
7. Dirty industrial smoke from chimneys makes me angry. –0.604
15. Humans do not have the right to change nature as they see fit. –0.592
4. Humankind will die out if we do not live in tune with nature. –0.590
2. I save water by taking a shower instead of a bath (in order to spare water). –0.582
9. It is interesting to know what kinds of creatures live in ponds or rivers. –0.580
20. Not only plants and animals of economic importance need to be protected. –0.502
18. Human beings are not more important than other creatures. –0.398
11. Weeds are as much important as beautiful flowers.
13. Worrying about the environment does not hold up development projects.
12. Our planet has unlimited resources. 0.677
14. Nature is always able to restore itself. 0.661
17. We must build more roads so people can travel to the countryside. 0.618
16. We need to clear forests in order to grow crops. 0.613
6. Society will continue to solve even the biggest environmental problems. 0.610
19. People worry too much about pollution. 0.607
8. The quiet nature outdoors makes me anxious. 0.604
3. We do not need to set aside areas to protect endangered species. 0.549
10. Sitting at the edge of a pond watching dragonflies in flight is boring. 0.463
PRE, preservation; UTL, utilisation.

Figure 2. Graphical representation of the factor solution (item meaning see Table 1).

The loadings of item-11 and item-13 were low and tended towards UTL (Figure 1 and Table 1).
Cronbach’s a for the two factors showed acceptable internal consistency: UTL (a ¼ 0.87) and
PRE (a ¼ 0.78).
For the 12 items of the EMS the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.909, exceeding the recom-
mended value of 0.6 (Kaiser 1970, 1974) and the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett 1954)
6 G. TORKAR AND F. X. BOGNER

Table 2. Factor loadings from the Environmental Motives Scale (EMS).

Item BIO EGO ALT
11. Animals. 0.914
12. Plants. 0.879
8. Birds. 0.866
6. All living beings. 0.638
3. My health. 0.865
5. My lifestyle. 0.852
1. Me. 0.818
9. My future. 0.762
7. People in my community.
4. All children. –0.921
2. All people. –0.900
10. Future generations. –0.612
ALT, altruistic; BIO, biospheric; EGO, egoistic.

Table 3. Correlations between measures of environmental concern, preservation and utilisation.

BIO EGO ALT
PRE Pearson Correlation 0.727 0.590 0.792
Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
N 804 804 804
UTL Pearson Correlation –0.327 –0.087 –0.231
Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 0.013 <0.001
N 804 804 804
ALT,

altruistic; BIO, biospheric; EGO, egoistic; PRE, preservation; UTL, utilisation.

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

achieved statistical significance (chi-square ¼ 6417.965, df ¼ 66, p < 0.001), thus supporting the
factorability of the correlation matrix. The EMS factors were consistent with those found in previ-
ous research representing BIO, EGO, and ALT concerns (Table 2). These three factors explained
73.8% of the total variance. The scree-plot proposed by Cattell (1966) suggested three compo-
nents for further investigation. The same occurred with the utilisation domain. One item (7) was
dropped from the analysis due to crossloading. Mean scores for each factor were calculated (BIO,
EGO, or ALT concerns): ALT concern yielded the highest mean (M ¼ 5.546, SD ¼ 1.263), followed
by BIO (M ¼ 5.429, SD ¼ 1.292) and EGO mean concerns (M ¼ 5.283, SD ¼ 1.108). There were
positive correlations between the concern scores that for EGO and ALT was moderate, EGO and
BIO also moderate, and ALT and BIO strongly positive (Table 3). To further support a three-factor
model, EMS was tested using CFA to see if it is consistent with the model reported by Schultz
(2000, 2001). The results from this analysis showed that the three-factor model provided accept-
able fit (chi-square ¼ 405.09, df ¼ 51, p < 0.001). Three out of four fit indices were in the excel-
lent range (CFI ¼ 0.994; TLI ¼ 0.992; RMSEA ¼ 0.093 (90% CI: 0.085–0.102); and SRMR ¼ 0.055).
Cronbach’s a for the three scales ranged from acceptable to excellent internal consistency: BIO
(a ¼ 0.907), EGO (a ¼ 0.854), and ALT concern (a ¼ 0.863).
The second set of analyses examined the relationship between measures of environmental
concern and preservation and utilisation factors. As shown in Table 3, ALT concern correlated
strongly and positively with the preservation of nature and weakly and negatively with util-
isation of nature. BIO concern showed a strong positive correlation with preservation and a
weak negative correlation with the utilisation of nature. EGO concern showed moderate posi-
tive correlation with preservation and very weak negative correlation with the utilisation
of nature.
Gender differences in utilisation of nature, preservation of nature, EGO environmental concern,
ALT environmental concern, and BIO environmental concern were examined. The difference
between female (M ¼ 2.220, SD ¼ 0.608) and male students (M ¼ 2.463, SD ¼ 0.615) in the utilisa-
tion of nature was small but significant (t¼–5.555, df ¼ 802, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.344). Males
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 7

agreed very slightly more strongly with attitudes of utilisation of nature. Female students
(M ¼ 3.777, SD ¼ 0.564), in contrast, had more positive attitudes towards preservation of nature
then male students (M ¼ 3.562, SD ¼ 0.592, t¼–5.182, df ¼ 802, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.365)
[what was the male value?]. There were no statistically significant differences in EGO environ-
mental concern between male and female students (t ¼ 1.879, df ¼ 658.721, p ¼ 0.061). The differ-
ence between female (M ¼ 5.720, SD ¼ 1.166) and male students (M ¼ 5.298, SD ¼ 1.354) in the
ALT environmental concern was significant (t ¼ 4.602, df ¼ 640.900, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.342),
in favour of females. Females (M ¼ 5.622, SD ¼ 1.246) were also significantly more concerned for
the biosphere than male students (M ¼ 5.152, SD ¼ 1.309, t ¼ 5.165, df ¼ 802, p < 0.001,
Cohen’s d ¼ 0.367).

Discussion
There is strong evidence that the Slovene version of the 2-MEV and the EMS are well suited to
students aged 12–18 years. Construct validity and reliability measures of the 2-MEV and the EMS
are again confirmed. Although the 2-MEV scale has shown its suitability in about 30 language
versions (Bogner 2018), its application in Slovenia needed confirmation in order to assure its suit-
ability for evaluation purposes of national educational programmes. This procedure is in line
with other transfers into national languages, for instance, in the early stages of the 2-MEV
applied by the creators of the scale (e.g. Bogner and Wiseman 1997a, 1998, 2002) or other
groups (Johnson and Manoli 2008; Munoz et al. 2009; Schneller, Johnson, and Bogner 2015). The
same was true for urban and rural student populations (Bogner and Wiseman 1997b). In conse-
quence, it is advisable to test the scale’s suitability before application.
A close relationship exists between different environmental concerns and the two higher-
order factors: utilisation of nature and preservation of nature. Tensions between ALT and self-
interested (EGO) foundations of environmental attitudes and behaviours has long been in discus-
sion (De Dominicis, Schultz, and Bonaiuto 2017). Schultz et al. (2005) as well as Gifford and
Nilsson (2014) showed ALT orientation to be associated with amplified levels of environmental
concern and with pro-environmental behaviour, whereas an EGO self-interested orientation tends
to be negatively associated with environmental concern and behaviour. On the other hand,
Kibbe, Bogner, and Kaiser (2014) reported that the more people appreciate nature for personal
benefits, the more they tend to preserve the environment. Our results strongly support De
Dominicis, Schultz, and Bonaiuto (2017) who described both altruists and self-interested individu-
als as motivated to engage in pro-environmental behaviour. We, too, anticipate a positive correl-
ation between ALT and BIO environmental concerns and with preservation, that is, the students
can have different reasons for concerns but still express attitudes of preservation of nature: this
contradicts Schultz et al. (2005) as well as Gifford and Nilsson (2014) while confirming De
Dominicis, Schultz, and Bonaiuto (2017). Furthermore, all three reasons for environmental con-
cern seem weakly and negatively correlated with utilisation of nature. Most intriguing is the posi-
tive relationship between EGO environmental concern and preservation of nature. Stern, Dietz,
and Kalof (1993) demonstrated a positive relationship between egocentric environmental con-
cern and willingness to take part in political action, to pay higher income taxes and to pay more
for gasoline. The message of this present study is important for designing environmental educa-
tion programmes. Building on the results, we argue that raising students’ awareness of harmful
environmental consequences for them, other people and/or the biosphere can be an important
foundation for the development of environmental values and attitudes.
Some previous studies have demonstrated that values, attitudes and concerns towards envir-
onmental issues differ between groups delineated by gender. A significant gender difference has
been reported, particularly in studies examining concern about environmental problems that
pose health and safety risks to participants and their families (e.g. Marshall 2004). Additionally,
8 G. TORKAR AND F. X. BOGNER

socialisation environments such as rural or urban residencies have been shown to be influential
(Bogner and Wiseman 1997a, b; Yu 2014). Regarding gender effects Bogner et al. (2015) reported
negligible differences, in utilisation of nature as well as in preservation of nature, for elementary
and middle school students sampled from three states in the USA. For all measures of environ-
mental concern, our study showed female students as scoring significantly higher in ALT environ-
mental concern and BIO environmental concern, though effect sizes are small, in line with
Schultz (2000) who reported adult women as scoring higher than men on all three measures of
environmental concern. Stern, Dietz, and Kalof (1993) found that women tend to see environ-
mental quality as more to have consequences for personal well-being, social welfare, and the
health of the biosphere. A simple explanation of these findings is that such differences are the
consequences of child socialisation, which become a source of gender differences in environ-
mental concern. Sociological theories of gender emphasise gender differences in the socialisation
process and/or social roles and status in the society (e.g. Gilligan 1982; Davidson and
Freudenburg 1996; Xiao and McCright 2015).

Conclusion
In common with Europe as a whole, the Slovene educational policy (e.g. White Paper on
Education in the Republic of Slovenia 2011; School Curriculums for Science Subjects etc.) recom-
mends and urges action to improve adolescent concern for the environment and environmental
attitudes. In light of the fast development of environmental education practice, educators can
fulfill strong demands for evaluating outcomes in environmental curricula by monitoring the
(expected) understanding of students’ environmental attitude. As an appropriate tool, the 2-MEV
Scale has been used several times to evaluate the effectiveness of educational programmes (e.g.
Liefl€aender and Bogner 2014; Manoli et al. 2014; Scho €enfelder and Bogner 2017). It has been
translated into different languages but also separately confirmed, by allowing comparison of pro-
gramme assessments with regard to both, the embedded national tradition: Europe alone has
more than 50 school systems with mostly different languages as well as different programme tra-
ditions concerning methods of incorporating this complex issue into formal and informal frame-
works. The present study was the first attempt to apply the 2-MEV scale to adolescents in
Slovenia and to provide first-hand information about how the modified scale works in the
Slovene context. As the scale showed a stable structure even when some items were modified
and adjusted to local requirements (Bogner 2018; Schneller, Johnson, and Bogner 2015), subse-
quent studies could also make some modifications based on local conditions. In future research
it would also be interesting to examine the 2-MEV scale and the Environmental Motives Scale
using the Rasch model.
The present study represents the first attempt to relate the measures of the EMS and the 2-
MEV and to demonstrate how EGO environmental concern may be identified in its role for the
individual development of environmental values and attitudes. Therefore, EGO environmental
concerns need addressing in formal and informal environmental education. Educational initiatives
should show students how caring for the environment is good for everyone, in benefitting from
conserving ecosystems. Educating students about ecosystem services could be an effective
means of communicating the significance of various ecosystems and human dependence on
ecological life-support systems. In this way students can learn to value ecosystems, as well as to
better evaluate their interactions with them (Torkar 2016; Torkar and Krasovec 2019).
These instruments will enable us to determine expected changes in environmental values,
attitudes and concerns among Slovene students. Due to time constrains the number of items is
also an important issue. In this respect, the instruments with their comparatively low number of
items are practical tools for evaluating educational programmes. A follow-up study of our current
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 9

sample before leaving secondary school is planned, with the intent to monitor long-term impacts
on these variables.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers of this article and the CRSN (The Centre for
Research and promotion of Giftedness at the Faculty of Education University of Ljubljana) research group for help
and valuable comments.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Gregor Torkar works as associate professor at the Department of Biology, Chemistry, and Home Economics at the
Faculty of Education of the University of Ljubljana. His research field in general is biology and environmental edu-
cation within the primary, secondary and undergraduate level of education. His current research focus is ecology,
evolution and conservational education. He is involved in several national and international research projects on
science education and nature conservation.

Franz X. Bogner (with a PhD in neurobiology, a Habilitation in Biology Education as well as a post-doctoral fellow-
ship at the Cornell University, USA) is the Department head and full professor of the Institute of Biology Education
as well as the director of the Z-MNU (Centre of Math & Science Education) at the University of Bayreuth. He and
his research group are mainly involved in pre-service teacher education and in-service teacher enhancement. Prof.
Bogner’s research projects consistently included cognitive (and emotional and attitudinal) assessment. His citation
impact factor is h ¼ 36, his best paper (Bogner 1998) is >500 cited.

ORCID
Gregor Torkar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4125-8529
Franz X. Bogner http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6319-7942

References
Bartlett, M. S. 1954. “A Note on the Multiplying Factors for Various v2 Approximations.” Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 16 (2): 296–298. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00174.x.
Blaikie, W.H. 1992. “The Nature and Origins of Ecological World Views: An Australian Study.” Social Science Quarterly
73 (1): 144–165.
Boeve-de Pauw, J. 2011. Valuing the Invaluable: Effects of Individual, School and Cultural Factors on the
Environmental Values of Children. Antwerpen: Garant.
Boeve-de Pauw, J., and P. van Petegem. 2011. “The Effect of Flemish Eco-Schools on Student Environmental
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Affect.” International Journal of Science Education 33 (11): 1513–1538. doi:10.1080/
09500693.2010.540725.
Bogner, F. X. 1998. “The Influence of Short-Term Outdoor Ecology Education on Long-Term Variables of
Environmental Perception.” The Journal of Environmental Education 29 (4): 17–29. doi:10.1080/
00958969809599124.
Bogner, F. X. 1999. “Empirical Evaluation of an Educational Conservation Programme Introduced in Swiss Secondary
Schools.” International Journal of Science Education 21 (11): 1169–1185. doi:10.1080/095006999290138.
Bogner, F. X. 2000. “Environmental Perception of Italian and Some European non-Mediterranean Pupil
Populations.”Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 9 (9–10): 570–581. doi:10.3390/su10020350.
Bogner, F. X. 2018. “Environmental Values (2-MEV) and Appreciation of Nature.” Sustainability 10 (2): 350. doi:10.
3390/su10020350.
Bogner, F. X., J. Brengelmann, and M. Wiseman. 2000. “Risk-Taking and Environmental Perception.” The
Environmentalist 20 (1): 49–62. doi:10.1023/A:1006656011403.
10 G. TORKAR AND F. X. BOGNER

Bogner, F. X., B. Johnson, S. Buxner, and L. Felix. 2015. “The 2-MEV-Model: Constancy of Adolescent Environmental
Values in an 8-Year Time-Frame.” International Journal of Science Education 37 (12): 1938–1952. doi:10.1080/
09500693.2015.1058988.
Bogner, F. X., and M. G. Wilhelm. 1996. “Environmental Perspectives of Pupils: The Development of an Attitude and
Behaviour Scale.” The Environmentalist 16 (2): 95–110. doi:10.1007/BF01325101.
Bogner, F. X., and M. Wiseman. 1997a. “Environmental Perspectives of Danish and Bavarian Pupils: Towards a
Methodological Framework.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 41 (1): 53–71. doi:10.1080/
0031383970410104.
Bogner, F. X., and M. Wiseman. 1997b. “Environmental Perception of Rural and Urban Pupils.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 17 (2): 111–122. doi:10.1006/jevp.1997.0046.
Bogner, F. X., and M. Wiseman. 1998. “Environmental Perception of Swiss and Bavarian Pupils: An Empirical
Evaluation.” Swiss Journal of Sociology 24 (3): 547–566. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.7.3.225.
Bogner, F. X., and M. Wiseman. 1999. “Towards Measuring Adolescent Environmental Perception.” European
Psychologist 4 (3): 139–151. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.4.3.139.
Bogner, F. X., and M. Wiseman. 2002. “Environmental Perception: Factor Profiles of Extreme Groups.” European
Psychologist 7 (3): 225–237. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.7.3.225.
Bogner, F. X., and M. Wiseman. 2004. “Outdoor Ecology Education and Pupils’ Environmental Perception in
Preservation and Utilization.” Science Education International 15 (1): 27–48.
Bogner, F. X., and M. Wiseman. 2006. “Adolescents’ Attitudes towards Nature and Environment: Quantifying the 2-
MEV Model.” The Environmentalist 26 (4): 247–254. doi:10.1007/s10669-006-8660-9.
Borchers, C., C. Boesch, J. Riedel, H. Guilahoux, D. Quattara, and C. Randler. 2013. “Environmental Education in Cote
D’Ivoire/West Africa: Extra-Curricular Primary School Teaching Shows Positive Impact on Environmental
Knowledge and Attitudes.” International Journal of Science Education 4 (3): 240–259. doi:10.1080/21548455.2013.
803632.
Bruni, C. M., R. C. Chance, and P. W. Schultz. 2012. “Measuring Values-Based Environmental Concerns in Children:
An Environmental Motives Scale.” The Journal of Environmental Education 43 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/00958964.
2011.583945.
Byrne, B. M. 2012. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New
York: Routledge.
Cast
era, J., P. Cle
ment, F. Munoz, and F. X. Bogner. 2018. “How Teachers’ Attitudes on GMO Relate to Their
Environmental Values.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 57: 1–9. 002 doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.04.
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Cattell, R. B. 1966. “The Scree Test for the Number of Factors.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 1 (2): 245–276. doi:
10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.
Davidson, D. J., and W. R. Freudenburg. 1996. “Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns.” Environment and
Behavior 28 (3): 302–339. doi:10.1177/0013916596283003.
De Dominicis, S., P. Schultz, and M. Bonaiuto. 2017. “Protecting the Environment for Self-Interested Reasons:
Altruism Is Not the Only Pathway to Sustainability.” Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1065. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.
01065.
De Groot, J. I., and L. Steg. 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 (3): 318–332. doi:10.1177/0022022107300278.
Dewey, J. 1925. Experience and Nature. La Salle: Open Court. doi:10.1086/ahr/80.2.430.
Dewey, J. 1929. The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action. New York: Minton, Balch
and Company.
Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. Van Liere. 1978. “The New Environmental Paradigm.” The Journal of Environmental Education
9 (4): 10–19. doi:10.3200/JOEE.40.1.19-28.
Dunlap, R. E. 2008. “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use.” The Journal of
Environmental Education 40 (1): 3–18. doi:10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18.
Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. “New Trends in Measuring Environmental
Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.” Journal of Social Issues
56 (3): 425–442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176.
Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.
Eurostat 2008. “Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment.” Special Eurobarometer 295/Wave 68.2 –
TNS Opinion & Social. Accessed March 09, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_ 295_en.
pdf.
Eurostat 2011. “Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment.” Special Eurobarometer 365/Wave 75.2 –
TNS Opinion & Social. Accessed March 09, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/EB_summary_EB752.pdf.
Gifford, R., and A. Nilsson. 2014. “Personal and Social Factors That Influence Pro-Environmental Concern and
Behaviour: A Review.” International Journal of Psychology 49 (3): 141–157. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 11

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
IPCC, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014.Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R. Sokona, Y. E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S.
Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B., eds. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, B., and C. Manoli. 2008. “Using Bogner and Wiseman’s Model of Ecological Values to Measure the Impact
of an Earth Education Programme on Children’s Environmental Perceptions.” Environmental Education Research
14 (2): 115–127. doi:10.1080/13504620801951673.
Kaiser, H. F. 1970. “A Second Generation Little Jiffy.” Psychometrika 35 (4): 401–415. doi:10.1007/BF02291817.
Kaiser, H. F. 1974. “An Index of Factorial Simplicity.” Psychometrika 39 (1): 31–36. doi:10.1007/BF02291575.
Kaiser, F. G. 2006. “A Moral Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior: Norms and Anticipated Feelings of Regret
in Conservationism.” Personality and Individual Differences 41 (1): 71–81. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.028.
Kibbe, A., F. X. Bogner, and F. G. Kaiser. 2014. “Exploitative vs. appreciative Use of Nature – Two Interpretations of
Utilization and Their Relevance for Environmental Education.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 41: 106–112. doi:
10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.11.007.
Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers
to Pro-Environmental Behavior?” Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 239–260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401.
Leeming, F. C., W. O. Dwyer, B. E. Porter, and M. K. Cobern. 1993. “Outcome Research in Environmental Education.”
The Journal of Environmental Education 24 (4): 8–21. doi:10.1080/00958964.1993.9943504.
Leeming, F. C., W. O. Dwyer, and B. A. Bracken. 1995. “Children’s Environmental Attitude and Knowledge Scale:
Construction and Validation.” The Journal of Environmental Education 26 (3): 22–31. doi:10.1080/00958964.1995.
9941442.
Leopold, A. 1949. Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford.
Liefl€ander, A. K., and F. X. Bogner. 2014. “The Effects of Children’s Age and Sex on Acquiring Pro-Environmental
Attitudes through Environmental Education.” The Journal of Environmental Education 45 (2): 105–117. doi:10.
1080/00958964.2013.875511.
Manoli, C. C., B. Johnson, A. C. Hadjichambis, D. Hadjichambi, Y. Georgiou, and H. Ioannou. 2014. “Evaluating the
Impact of the Earthkeepers Earth Education Program on Children’s Ecological Understandings, Values and
Attitudes, and Behaviour in Cyprus.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 41: 29–37. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.09.008.
Marsh, H., K. Hau, and Z. Wen. 2004. “In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to
Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler‘s (1999) Findings.”
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 11 (3): 320–341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.
Marshall, B. K. 2004. “Gender, Race, and Perceived Environmental Risk.” Sociological Spectrum 24 (4): 453–478. doi:
10.1080/02732170490459485.
McLeod, S. A. 2018. . “Questionnaire”. Accessed December 13, 2018. https://www.simplypsychology.org/question-
naires.html.
Milfont, T. L., and J. Duckitt. 2004. “The Structure of Environmental Attitudes: A First- and Second-Order Confirmatory
Factor Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (3): 289–303. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.09.001.
Muir, J. 1916. A Thousand-Mile Walk to the Gulf. Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Munoz, F., F. X. Bogner, P. Clement, and G. S. Carvalho. 2009. “Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature and Environment in
16 Countries.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (4): 407–413. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.007.
Pirages, D. C., and P.R. Ehrlich. 1974. Ark II: Social Response to Environmental Imperatives. San Francisco: Freeman.
Rokeach, M. 1968. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1093/sw/14.4.115.
Schneller, A. J., B. Johnson, and F. X. Bogner. 2015. “Measuring Children’s Environmental Attitudes and Values in
Northwest Mexico: Validating a Modified Version of Measures to Test the Model of Ecological Values (2-MEV).”
Environmental Education Research 21 (1): 61–75. doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.843648.
Scho €nfelder, M. L., and F. X. Bogner. 2017. “Two Ways of Acquiring Environmental Knowledge: By Encountering
Living Animals at a Beehive and by Observing Bees via Digital Tools.” International Journal of Science Education
39 (6): 723–741. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1304670.
Schultz, P. W. 2000. “New Environmental Theories: Empathizing with Nature: The Effects of Perspective Taking on
Concern for Environmental Issues.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 391–406. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00174.
Schultz, P. W. 2001. “The Structure of Environmental Concern: Concern for Self, Other People, and the Biosphere.”
Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (4): 327–339. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0227.
Schultz, P. W., V. V. Gouveia, L. D. Cameron, G. Tankha, P. Schmuck, and M. Fran ek. 2005. “Values and Their
Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36 (4):
457–475. doi:10.1177/0022022105275962.
Schultz, P. W., C. Shriver, J. J. Tabanico, and A. M. Khazian. 2004. “Implicit Connections with Nature.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 24 (1): 31–42. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00022-7.
Schultz, P. W., and L. Zelezny. 2003. “Reframing Environmental Messages to Be Congruent with American Values.”
Human Ecology Review 10: 126–136.
12 G. TORKAR AND F. X. BOGNER

Schwartz, S. H. 1973. “Normative Explanations of Helping Behavior: A Critique, Proposal, and Empirical Test.” Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology 9 (4): 349–364. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(73)90071-1.
Schwartz, S. H., and J. A. Howard. 1981. “A Normative Decision-Making Model of Altruism.” In: Altruism and Helping
Behavior: Social, Personality, and Developmental Perspectives, edited by P. J. Rushton and R. M. Sorrentino,
189–211. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, and L. Kalof. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern.” Environment and
Behavior 25 (5): 322–348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002.
Stern, P. C., and T. Dietz. 1994. “The Value Basis of Environmental Concern.” Journal of Social Issues 50 (3): 65–84.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x.
Torkar, G. 2016. “Secondary School Students’ Environmental Concerns and Attitudes toward Forest Ecosystem
Services: Implications for Biodiversity Education.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11
(18): 11019–11031.
Torkar, G., and U. Krasovec. 2019. “Students’ Attitudes toward Forest Ecosystem Services, Knowledge about Ecology,
and Direct Experience with Forests.” Ecosystem Services 37: 100916. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100916.
White Paper on Education in the Republic of Slovenia 2011. “National Education Institute of the Republic of
Slovenia”. http://www.belaknjiga2011.si/pdf/bela_knjiga_2011.pdf. Accessed February 08, 2015
Wiseman, M., and F. X. Bogner. 2003. “A Higher-Order Model of Ecological Values and Its Relationship to
Personality.” Personality and Individual Differences 34 (5): 783–794. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00071-5.
Xiao, C., and A. M. McCright. 2015. “Gender Differences in Environmental Concern: Revisiting the Institutional Trust
Hypothesis in the USA.” Environment and Behavior 47 (1): 17–37. doi:10.1177/0013916513491571.
Yu, X. 2014. “Is Environment ‘a City Thing’ in China? Rural–Urban Differences in Environmental Attitudes.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 38: 39–48. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.009.