Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8 (2014) 16–25

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jort

Structural relationships between environmental attitudes, recreation

motivations, and environmentally responsible behaviors
Namyun Kil a,n, Stephen M. Holland b,1, Taylor V. Stein c,2
a
School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 304 Hardin Hall, 3310 Holdrege Street, Lincoln, NE 68583-0973, USA
b
Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, University of Florida, P.O. Box 118209, Gainesville, FL 32611-8209, USA
c
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, 345 Newins-Ziegler Hall, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110410, Gainesville, FL 32611-0410, USA

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examines the relationship between environmental attitudes, outdoor recreation motivations,
Received 18 June 2014 and environmentally responsible behaviors. Little has been reported about whether motivation
Received in revised form can serve as a mediator to better understand environmental attitude–behavior relationships. On-site
24 September 2014
responses collected from Florida National Scenic Trail hikers were utilized in a structural equation
Accepted 26 September 2014
model. Structural model results indicated significant relationships between attitudes, motivations, and
behaviors. Environmental attitudes influenced motivations and environmental behaviors, and motiva-
Keywords: tions were significantly related to environmental behaviors. Further analyses found that motivation
Environmentally responsible behaviors served as a partial mediator of the attitude–behavior linkage. These results suggest that environmental
Nature-based outdoor recreation benefits
attitudes and motivations substantially shape environmentally responsible behaviors. Managerial
New ecological paradigm
implications are discussed, including maintaining natural aspects of environments and increasing
Recreation activity categories
Recreation motivations awareness about natural environments through educational programs. Further studies utilizing
Structural equation modeling participants in other outdoor recreation activities at various settings are recommended.

M a n a g e me n t i m p l i ca t i on s

Publically owned natural areas depend on public support for political buttressing and financial resources
to sustain and increase public services. Environmental attitudes are nurtured in those settings through
the fulfillment of motivations and benefits sought that drive visitors' participation in nature-based
recreation. Well-managed natural environments help foster pro-environment attitudes and environ-
mentally responsible behaviors. Those who hold strong environmental attitudes tend to behave in more
environmentally responsible ways, including political and educational actions. Natural environments
that provide opportunities to recreate generate support for those areas. This means that public land
managers shape more than just the immediate experiences visitors attain in an area. It follows that
strategies initiated by managers of increasing awareness about and appreciation for their natural areas
through outlets such as mass media, internet, and on-site interpretive programs can influence
pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction outdoor recreation activities such as hiking, horseback riding and

Understanding motives for visiting natural areas is an important
aspect of establishing appropriate planning objectives to optimize
nature-based recreation benefit opportunities (Driver, 2008). From a
benefits-oriented perspective, individuals who visit nature-based
recreation and tourism destinations choose to participate in certain
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 1 402 314 2458.
E-mail addresses: nkil2@unl.edu (N. Kil), sholland@ufl.edu (S.M. Holland),
tstein@ufl.edu (T.V. Stein).
1
Tel.: þ1 352 294 1669.
2
Tel.: þ1 352 846 0860.
camping in order to satisfy internal recreational needs and obtain
benefits (Driver, 2008). Recreational benefits vary, ranging from
tangible to intangible such as stress reduction, learning more about
natural/cultural environments, personal or community identity, envir-
onmental stewardships, and engaging in environmentally responsible
behaviors (e.g., donating money to environmental organizations,
reading environment-related publications) (Anderson, Nickerson,
Stein, & Lee, 2000; Driver, 2008; Kil, Holland, & Stein, 2012a; Thapa,
2010). Nature-based outdoor recreation and tourism relies on natural
environments to be ecologically, socio-culturally, and economically
sustainable (Newsome, Moore, & Dowling, 2002) for such benefits to
accrue.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2014.09.010
2213-0780/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N. Kil et al. / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8 (2014) 16–25
As rising environmental threats (e.g., natural resource deple-
tion, increasing population and pollution rates, increasing green-
house effects) to ecosystems deteriorate natural area benefits, the
relevance of environmental attitudes and behavior becomes pro-
gressively more pertinent (Kaiser, Ranney, Hartig, & Bowler, 1999;
Milfont & Duckitt, 2004) both with the American public (Gagnon-
Thompson & Barton, 1994) as well as for people around the world
(Speth & Haas, 2006; Wapner, 1996). Perhaps as a corollary to this
trend, a linkage between environmental attitudes and environ-
mentally responsible behaviors has been observed. Some scholars
have confirmed a significant relationship (Choi & Fielding, 2013;
Milfont & Duckitt, 2004; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Stern, Dietz, &
Guagnano, 1995), while others report a non-significant (Cottrell,
2003; Wearing, Cynn, Ponting, & McDonald, 2002) or low-modest
association (Tarrant & Cordell, 1997). This ambiguous outcome of
an indeterminate environmental attitude–behavior relationship,
suggests a continued need to contribute to this body of work to
attempt to tease out relevant details and specific instances for
varied situations.
The influence of environmental attitudes on recreational moti-
vations (i.e., experiential benefits sought) has been examined in
only a few studies in varying contexts such as nature-based
settings (Luo & Deng, 2008) and a nature themed festival (Kim,
Borges, & Chon, 2006) where most findings revealed a substantial
attitude–behavior relationship. Recreationists with strong envir-
onmental attitudes were more likely to engage in appreciative
activities, and in turn, those participants had more frequent
environmentally responsible behaviors such as green consumer-
ism (e.g., buying recycled products) (Thapa, 2010). Another study
found that people who recreate parks in that are perceived to have
a level of mutual benefit and co-management generate more
support toward conservation (Buta, Holland, & Kaplanidou, 2014).
Although the information from these studies is illustrative, a need
endures to better understand the complicated attitude–behavior
relationship among specific outdoor and nature-based recreation
activity groups (Teisl & O'Brien, 2003; Thapa, 2010). In addition, a
structured environmental attitude–behavior relationship utilizing
nature-based recreation motivations of particular user groups as a
mediator has not been examined in previous research. Thus, it is
posited that environmental attitudes are likely to directly influence
environmentally responsible behavior. In addition, environmental
attitudes likely induce individuals to visit natural areas, which could
foster value-added pro-environmental behaviors such as financial,
political, and educational contributions. Identifying how individuals'
environmental behaviors are formed, particularly the intermediate
role of their motivations for visiting nature-based recreation areas
would be useful information for natural resource recreation planners
to better incorporate strategies for effectively managing these areas
and potentially affect visitors' future environmental attitudes and
behaviors. The purpose of this study is to scrutinize the mediating
role of nature-based recreation motivations on the relationship
between environmental attitudes and environmentally responsible
behaviors among recreationists, specifically hikers. These results could
improve our understanding of the attitude–behavior relationship and
how behavior can be shaped to be more ecologically accommodating,
and assist policymakers and environmental managers in develop-
ing more sustainable and eco-friendly recreation resource
management plans.
2. Literature review
2.1. Recreation motivations
Recreation motivations (i.e., experiential benefits sought) have
been studied in various academic fields such as sociology,
17
(environmental) psychology, and leisure sciences. Maslow's
(1970) hierarchy of human needs model with five progressions
from physiological to self-actualization provides a basis for under-
standing why visitors with a long history of recreation and tourism
behavior are more likely to seek higher levels of needs than those
with a shorter history of those kinds of experiences. Iso-Ahola's
(1982) leisure motivation model demonstrates that some recrea-
tional participants select particular recreation activities to escape
personal and/or interpersonal situations (e.g., stress, social inter-
actions), while others seek more intrinsic personal and/or inter-
personal rewards (e.g., self-determination, challenge, exploration,
novelty, learning, relaxation) through engagement in recreation
and tourism activities. From another perspective, recreation and
tourism motivation refers to push and pull factors (Dann, 1977).
The push aspect of motivation as a central aspect of human
behavior (Iso-Ahola, 1982) represents a set of internal needs
(e.g., escape, learning) that drive visitors to be involved in leisure
and recreation activities (Brooker & Joppe, 2013). Concurrently,
certain attractive destination attributes (e.g., accessibility, conve-
nient facilities, and pristine natural settings) pull individuals to
visit a particular area to satisfy their push factors (Dann, 1977).
However, other evidence indicates that benefits attained by
visitors are stronger predictors of overall positive responses to
park visits than basic visitor service quality ratings (Crilley, Weber,
& Taplin, 2012).
The recreation experience preference (REP) scale has been
systematically utilized to understand nature-based/outdoor
recreation motivations (Anderson, Wilhelm Stanis, Schneider, &
Leahy, 2008; Kil, Holland, Stein, & Ko, 2012b; Luo & Deng, 2008).
The REP scale was developed using numerous outdoor settings
(Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996), based on expectancy-valence
motivation ideas that individuals engage in outdoor activities (e.g.,
hiking, camping, and fishing) in specific settings to realize certain
socio-psychological and physical experiences and benefits (Driver,
Brown, & Peterson, 1991; Lawler, 1973). Various motives for
visiting natural environments have emerged ranging from escape
to adventure, relaxation and social bonding. Seeking nature, social
interaction, and physical/mental health were reported to be core
nature-based recreation benefit domains (Anderson et al., 2008).
2.2. Environmental attitudes
Another aspect of nature-based recreation participation is the
attitudes that actors may have (and form during a park visit) about
the outdoor environment. Attitudes are defined as “a psychological
tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with
some degree of favor or disfavor” (p. 1, Egaly & Chaiken, 1993).
Attitudes are beliefs and feelings about an object that cause one to
behave consistently toward the object (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974) and
beliefs are information one holds about the object (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1981). Thus, as applied here, beliefs are nested within
the concept of attitudes. The new ecological paradigm (NEP) scale,
a revised new environmental archetype, is a widely accepted
measure that evaluates a set of human beliefs and attitudes toward
the natural environment (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones,
2000). The NEP scale assesses general beliefs about outcomes
of environmental behaviors such as resource use and pollution.
The scale thus reflects general environmental attitudinal milieu
(Mobley, Vagias, & DeWard, 2010; Stern, 1992; Tarrant & Cordell,
1997).
Unlike viewpoints that humans are exempt from or indepen-
dent of environmental conditions (e.g., the Human Exemptional-
ism Paradigm, Dunlap & Catton, 1994), the NEP scale was created
in the 1970s (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978) to focus on interdepen-
dence between humans and environments and assess attitudes
toward natural environments. It utilized 12 items measuring three
18 N. Kil et al. / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8 (2014) 16–25
aspects of environmental attitudes: humanity's ability to upset the
balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth for human
societies, and humanity's right to rule over the rest of nature. That
first NEP scale was redesigned by Dunlap et al. (2000) by utilizing
15 statements tapping five dimensions of ecological attitudes: the
reality of limits to growth, anti-anthropocentrism (human domina-
tion), the fragility of nature's balance, rejection of exemptionalism, and
the possibility of an ecocrisis. This updated NEP scale has been utilized
in varied disciplines such as psychology, political science, sociology,
and geography (Lundmark, 2007) and in diverse settings around the
word (Dunlap, 2008). While various scale dimensions have been
employed (e.g., Dunlap et al., 2000; Ewert, Place, & Sibthorp, 2005;
Luo & Deng, 2008; Noblet, Anderson, & Teisl, 2013; Ogunbode, 2013;
Thapa, 2010), in most cases, scale reliability and validity have been
demonstrated to be acceptable (Dunlap et al., 2000).
Across many past studies, only weak correlations have been
found between attitudes and behaviors (Dunlap et al., 2000;
Tarrant & Cordell, 1997; Tarrant & Green, 1999). In more recent
studies, predicting environmental behaviors was somewhat more
successful incorporating other variables within more well-
established models (Dunlap, 2008). For example, Louisiana natural
area visitors' decisions to participate in nature-based recreation
settings were influenced by their environmental attitudes (Luzar,
Diagne, Gan, & Henning, 1998). In another study, environmental
attitudes were useful in predicting interest in participating in eco-
friendly activities (Juric, Cornwell, & Mather, 2002). Increasingly,
carefully measured environmental attitudes are being shown to be
associated with environmentally responsible behaviors (Polonsky,
Vocino, Grimmer, & Miles, 2014; Takahashi & Selfa, 2014).
2.3. Environmentally responsible behavior
Environmentally responsible behavior is defined as an inten-
tional action of an individual or group to directly or indirectly
affect changes in the environment or to benefit the environment
(Stern, 2000). For example, different types of environmentally
responsible behavior were posited including environmental acti-
vism (e.g., committed participation in environmental organiza-
tions), non-activist political behaviors (e.g., petitioning on
environmental problems, voting and writing to government offi-
cials), and private environmentalism (e.g., buying green products)
(Stern, 2000). These behaviors promote resource protection and
conservation, or actions which support the sustainable use of
natural environments (Cottrell, 2003; Lee, 2011).
A variety of environmentally friendly actions have been operatio-
nalized under the umbrella of an environmentally responsible (aka:
eco-friendly, pro-environmental, etc.) behavior label (Halpenny, 2010).
Kaiser, Wolfing, and Fuhrer (1999) utilized 11 items (e.g., support
raising parking fees in cities or automobile-free inner cities) for a
single environmental behavior dimension which specifically assessed
transportation-related environmentally responsible behavior inten-
tions. Smith-Sebasto (1995) measured environmentally responsible
behavior with six dimensions: civic action, educational action, finan-
cial action, legal action, persuasive action, and physical action. Adopt-
ing items from Smith-Sebasto (1995) and other researchers, Thapa
(2010) assessed environmentally responsible behaviors using five
factors: political activism, recycling, educational activities, green con-
sumerism, and community activism (e.g., subscribing to environmen-
tal publications, recycling glass bottles, watching environment-related
programs, buying products made from recycled materials, and car-
pooling). Van Riper and Kyle (2014) found that biospheric-altruistic
values geared toward non-human species and concern for other
people positively predicted environmental worldview and environ-
mentally responsible behavior.
2.4. Environmental attitudes associated with environmentally
responsible behaviors
Studies have shown the effects of environmental attitudes on
environmentally responsible behaviors in various contexts. For
example, in an outdoor recreation context, Jurowski, Uysal,
Williams, and Noe (1995), while studying visitors to Biscayne
Bay National Park, found that visitors with stronger pro-
environmental attitudes expressed more support for allocating
park resources to environmental protection. Floyd, Jang, and Noe
(1997) found that U.S. national park visitors with higher levels of
environmental attitudes expressed less acceptance of environ-
mental impacts such as developed facilities and traffic congestion
in/around the park. The strong environmental attitudes of
Australian Gold Coast tourists was a significant predictor of
support for environmentally responsible and sensitive tourism
such as intentions to buy green accredited products and services
and to consider personal impacts on environments when travel
choices are made (Perkins & Brown, 2012).
In addition, pro-environmental attitudes significantly influ-
enced self-reported engagements in environmentally responsible
behaviors (e.g., recycling newspaper and cans, encouraging friends
to recycle), while a more utilitarian theme significantly affected
economic attitudes among New Zealand university students
(Milfont & Duckitt, 2004). Furthermore, willingness to support
environment-oriented actions (e.g., supporting tougher environ-
mental laws, paying more taxes to preserve forests, writing letters
to political entities for environmental resource preservation) was
successfully predicted when strong environmental attitudes were
present (Stern et al., 1995). More recently, self-reported willing-
ness to behave pro-environmentally was also predicted by ecological
attitudes among children involved in (natural vs. urban setting)
summer camps in Spain (Collado, Staats, & Corraliza, 2013). Corre-
spondingly, awareness of environmental impacts in marine settings
was influenced by environmental attitudes and place attachment
(Wynveen, Kyle, & Sutton, 2013).
Other scholars reported that environmental attitudes did not
substantially affect environmentally responsible behavior. Self-
reported responsible environmental behavior among registered
recreational boaters on the Chesapeake Bay was not significantly
predicted by environmental attitudes (Cottrell, 2003). Also, envir-
onmental attitude and tourism-related environmental purchasing
behavior were not significantly related in a study of international
backpackers in Australia (Wearing et al., 2002).
2.5. Environmental attitudes and recreation motivation
The attitude–behavior relationship is fostered by several
social–psychological theories such as the theory of reasoned action
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991)
and value-belief-norm (VBN) theory (Kaiser, Hübner, & Bogner,
2005; Stern, 2000) among others. The VBN theory derives from
value theory (Schwartz, 1992), norm-activation theory (Schwartz,
1973, 1977), and the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap &
Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap et al., 2000). These theories indicate that
individuals with eco-friendly attitudes are more likely to be
motivated to experience natural environments and have a pro-
pensity to behave in a more environmentally responsible manner
(Chiu, Lee, & Chen, 2014; Luo & Deng, 2008). Luo and Deng (2008)
found that, in general, humans' positive attitudes toward natural
environments affected their outdoor recreation motivations. For
example, visitors with more ‘humans over nature’ attitudes were
more likely to visit a place for novelty/self-development benefits
(e.g., experiencing new things and developing new skills), while
visitors with the ecocentric views (i.e., limits to growth, portend-
ing ecocrisis) had a stronger predilection to visit nature for more
 N. Kil et al. / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8 (2014) 16–25
appreciative experiences such as returning to nature, nature
learning, and escape (solitude, stress relief) (Luo & Deng, 2008).
Kim et al. (2006) examined the association between environmen-
tal attitudes and motivation for attending a film and video-related
international festival in Goias city, Brazil. The authors demon-
strated that respondents with higher environmental attitude
levels were more likely to visit the festival only for the eco-
oriented aspects (rationales such as enjoying an environment-
related film, being concerned with environmental problems,
wanting to learn more about nature). Other studies (e.g., Dunlap
& Heffernan, 1975; Tarrant & Green, 1999; Thapa, 2010) demon-
strated that environmental attitudes can vary by different recrea-
tion activities. Environmental attitudes were related to
appreciative outdoor recreation activities more strongly than
consumptive and motorized activities. Crilley et al. (2012) suggest
greater attention should be paid to the benefits people desire from
their visits and learning what benefits are dependent on the
environment (biophysical, social, and managerial), the activities
visitors participate in, or a combination of both. Therefore, it is
likely that general attitudes toward the natural environment are
an antecedent to outdoor recreation motivation.
2.6. Recreation motivation and environmentally responsible
behavior
Green travel motivations (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) have been
positively correlated with environmental behaviors such as recy-
cling, purchasing and energy conservation behaviors (Pelletier,
Tuson, Green-Demers, & Noels, 1998). Self-reported motivations
(e.g., enjoyment and interest) predicted increased engagement in
environmentally responsible behaviors, and also future intentions
toward enacting additional responsible environmental behaviors
(Osbaldiston & Sheldon, 2003). Eco-related travel motivations (e.g.,
close connection with ecological landscapes, learning about nat-
ural settings) influenced environmentally responsible behaviors
among Taiwanese natural area visitors (Kerstetter, Hou, & Lin,
2004). Similarly, visitors who sought nature-oriented benefits
placed significantly higher value on environmentally responsible
behaviors than those who were less nature-oriented (Andereck,
2009). Furthermore, such recreational motivations positively influ-
enced attitudinal judgments about a setting (e.g., attachment)
(Kyle, Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004) and other recurring behaviors
toward the environment (e.g., intentions to revisit) (Kil et al.,
2012b).
2.7. The mediating influence of recreation motivations
A few studies have initially explored the mediating role of
motivation on attitude–behavior relationships in a recreational
use context. Luo and Deng (2008) and Orams (1997) posited that
individuals' awareness about and appreciation of nature may
infuse more positive environmental attitudes, which, in turn,
may drive their willingness to experience natural environments
and then lead them to behave more responsibly. Thapa (2010)
Recreation
Motivations
H2
Environmental
Attitudes
Fig. 1. A proposed partial mediation model and its hypotheses.
19
found a significant mediating association where forest recreation-
ists with ecocentric and dual centric attitudes engaged in appre-
ciative activities more often, which in turn fostered green
consumer behaviors (e.g., buying goods produced from recycled
materials). On the other hand, recreationists with higher techno-
centric attitudes and lower ecocentric/dualcentric attitudes were
more involved in motorized activities, and reported lower parti-
cipation in eco-friendly political and educational behaviors. A
study by Tarrant and Green (1999) supports the mediating role
of participation in appreciative outdoor recreation activities (e.g.,
backpacking, hiking, and nature viewing) on the attitude–behavior
relationship. Similarly, visitors with higher interests in eco-
friendly activities and experiences were more likely to consider
these experiences as opportunities for feeling increased connec-
tion with nature, broadening on-site knowledge about nature, and
forming resource protection-oriented behaviors (Perkins & Grace,
2009). Thus, it is also proposed here that motivation for partici-
pating in outdoor recreation activities is likely to be a mediator in
the attitude–behavior relationship, which has received little direct
attention in the literature, while the mediating role of recreation
activities in the relationship has been examined in past research.
2.8. Hypotheses
The contrasting results above signal a need to continue exam-
ining the relationship between environmental attitudes and envir-
onmentally responsible behavior. To that end, this study posits and
proposes to test the following hypotheses (Fig. 1):
H1. Environmental attitudes will significantly influence environ-
mentally responsible behavior.
H2. Environmental attitudes will significantly affect recreation
motivations.
H3. Recreation motivations will significantly influence environ-
mentally responsible behavior.
H4. Recreation motivations will significantly mediate the relation-
ship between environmental attitudes and environmentally
responsible behavior.
3. Methods
3.1. Study area
The Florida National Scenic Trail (FNST), designated as one of
eleven National Scenic Trails by the United States Congress,
constituted a well-suited study area. The FNST stretches about
1,000 miles across Florida, and begins at Big Cypress National
Preserve in the south and ends at Gulf Islands National Seashore in
the north (Florida Trail Association, 2011, 2013; USDA Forest
Service, 2011). The FNST and supplementary loops and side trails
exist on state park, state forest, wildlife and water management,
county park, and other public and private lands and are main-
tained by volunteers directed by the non-profit Florida Trail
H3
Environmentally
Responsible
H1 Behaviors
20 N. Kil et al. / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8 (2014) 16–25
Association in collaboration with USDA Forest Service, state/local
land management agencies, private landowners, and other orga-
nizations and stakeholders (Florida Trail Association, 2011, 2013;
USDA Forest Service, 2011).
Although the FNST features Florida's diverse scenic, cultural,
and historic resources for hikers and other compatible recreation-
ists, portions of the FNST are not entirely protected from urban
development. Some FNST sections provide more difficult accessi-
bility and natural trail conditions, while others offer more con-
venient accessibility and developed facilities. These diverse
conditions have resulted in the provision of diverse recreation
and tourism opportunities ranging from primitive to roaded-
natural settings (e.g., Brown, 1984). Non-motorized appreciative
recreation activities such as, hiking/walking, backpacking, camping,
scenery/wildlife viewing, and self-guided nature study, are facilitated
along most FNST segments.
3.2. Variable measurement
3.2.1. Environmental attitudes (NEP)
Environmental attitudes were measured with the revised NEP
scale (Dunlap et al., 2000) which captures respondents' beliefs and
attitudes toward the environment. This study included items
representing three pre-specified dimensions: ecocentric (e.g.,
“When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous
consequences”), dualcentric (e.g., “Plants and animals have as
much right as humans to exist”), technocentric (e.g., “The earth
has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop
them”), as tested by Thapa (2010). Nine items were included for a
minimum of three items for each, which was sufficient for
construct verification (Kline, 2005). Items were rated on a five-
point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
3.2.2. Recreation motivations
Recreational motivations were selected from the recreation
experience preference (REP) scale, which measures a set of
benefits recreationists seek to realize from outdoor recreation
activities and experiences (Manfredo et al., 1996). Benefit dimen-
sions related to enjoyment (e.g., seeking nature), learning, and
mental/physical health embody central aspects of recreation and
tourism benefits sought by recreation visitors (Iso-Ahola, 1982,
1999), and past research has shown these to be among nature-
based recreationists' more highly desired motivations (e.g.,
Anderson et al., 2008; Kil et al., 2012b; Kil, Stein, Holland, &
Anderson, 2012c; Luo & Deng, 2008). Thus, we included items
measuring three benefit dimensions: nature enjoyment (e.g., “Be
close to nature”), solitude and mental health (e.g., “Experience
solitude”), and learning and novelty (e.g., “Experience new and
different things”). Respondents were asked about their reasons
(i.e., motivations) for choosing particular FNST areas for their
outdoor recreation activities. Three items for each dimension were
coded on five-point scales ranging from (1) not at all important to
(5) very important.
3.2.3. Environmentally responsible behaviors
Environmentally responsible behavior measures were chosen from
concomitant studies (e.g., Cottrell, 2003; Smith-Sebasto, 1995; Tarrant
& Green, 1999; Thapa, 2010). The items that represent political and
personal educational behaviors (e.g., political activism – “Written to
your elected officials expressing your opinions on environmental
issues” and “Donated money or paid membership due to an environ-
mental/conservation organization”; educational activities – “Read
books/magazines about the environment”) were included as measures
of environmentally responsible behaviors. The two behavioral dimen-
sions related to behavioral support for funding and conservation
efforts were among the more important and focused environmental
behaviors reported in prior research (e.g., Nooney, Woodrum, Hoban,
and Clifford 2003; Stern, 2000) and were considered more indicative
than other behaviors (e.g., recycling – recycled newspapers) for
nature-based outdoor recreation planners working with stakeholders
to identify willingness to act for the benefit of the environment.
Respondents were asked how often they have performed six environ-
mental behavior items (i.e., 3 items for each dimension) on five-point
scales ranging from (1) never to (5) a great deal. Additionally,
respondents were asked about their sociodemographic (e.g., gender,
age) and visit characteristics (e.g., number of trips made in the
previous 12 months).
3.3. Data collection and sampling
On-site exit interviews with visitors to hiking areas with
varying use levels were conducted between January 2011 and
June 2012. Visitor groups were selected at random, stratified by
sites and weekend/weekdays to obtain a representative sample of
trail users. In addition to varying trail use levels, we chose trail
interview sites at locations with different managing settings such
as national forests, state parks, state forests, and state fish and
wildlife property trails. When a group of visitors was approached,
one visitor (over age 18) from each group whose birthday was
closest to the survey date was asked to participate in the survey.
A total of 235 visitors were approached and 199 questionnaires
were completed, while 31 refused interviews and 5 provided
incomplete questionnaires (85% response rate).
3.4. Data analysis
To determine the psychometric properties of the constructs
and explore the proposed models, we utilized SPSS 18 and AMOS
18. Data analyses were performed with the two steps; one
comprehensive measurement model and the structural model(s).
First, following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was implemented to estimate a comprehensive full
measurement model with the pre-specified constructs of NEP (e.g.,
ecocentric, dualcentric, technocentric dimensions, Thapa, 2010),
nature-based recreation and tourism motivations, and self-
reported environmentally responsible behaviors. Model fit was
determined to be acceptable using goodness-of-fit indices and
values such as normed chi-square (χ2/df r3.0, Kline, 2005), root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (r .08, Browne &
Cudeck, 1993, Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005), standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR) ( o.08, Browne & Cudeck, 1993), and
comparative fit index (CFI) (Z .90, Bentler, 1992; Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson, & Tatham, 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005). Also,
Cronbach's alpha coefficient values ( Z.60, Cortina, 1993) for each
factor were checked for acceptable internal consistency. Factor
loadings ( Z.50) and t-values ( Z1.96) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981;
Hair et al., 2006) for each item within respective factors were
examined to evaluate for acceptable convergent validity. Second,
structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses were utilized to test
the hypothesized associations between the latent constructs (i.e.,
environmental attitudes, recreation motivations, and environmen-
tally responsible behaviors) with observed individual items of
each latent construct dimension rather than with summated
scores of the individual items of each dimension. These second-
order factors in structural models maintain information about the
relative importance of individual items as well as the original
associations between the individual items and latent construct
dimensions (e.g., Bollen & Lennox, 1991; Shevlin, Miles, & Bunting,
1997). Finally, the mediating relationship between environmental
attitudes and environmental behaviors via nature-based tourism
motivations was assessed with SEM tests (see Fig. 1).
 N. Kil et al. / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8 (2014) 16–25 21

To test for mediation influence, we examined whether the Table 1

independent variable (attitude) significantly affects the dependent Sociodemographic and visit characteristics of respondents.
variable (behavior) in a direct effect model. Also, we compared the
Variable n Percentage (%)
partial mediation model showing the relationship between atti-
tude and behavior via the mediator (motivation) with the full Gender (n¼ 199)
mediation model linking the relationship between the two vari- Male 130 65.3
ables only through the mediator to determine a best fitting model. Female 69 34.7

In both full and partial mediation models, the effect of the Age in years (n¼ 192)
independent variable on the mediator and the influencing path 18–29 51 26.6
30–39 31 16.1
from the mediator to the dependent variable must be and were
40–49 41 21.4
significant (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986). The same goodness-of-fit 50–59 41 21.4
indices mentioned above were checked in the SEM results. 60 or more 28 14.6
Additionally, to determine whether a heightened role of motiva- Highest educational level attained (n ¼199)
tion existed, either as a partial or full mediator, we checked the High school diploma/GED or less 14 7.0
indices, and checked for a lower Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) Some college-College graduate 131 65.8
between the two models which indicated a better fitting parsi- Some graduate-Graduate degree or beyond 54 27.1
Annual household income before taxes (n¼ 189)
monious model (Akaike, 1987).
$39,999 or below 60 31.7
$40,000 to $79,999 60 31.7
$80,000 or more 69 36.5
4. Results
Type of user (n¼ 199)
First-time user 124 62.3
4.1. Sociodemographic and visit characteristics Repeat user 75 37.7

Number of years visited (n¼ 195)

A total of 65% of respondents were male, with an average age 0–5 159 81.5
of 43 years (Table 1). A total of 66% had some college or college 6–10 12 6.2
graduate degree, followed by 27% with some graduate classes or 11–15 6 3.1
beyond. More than 35% of respondents earned annual household 16 or more 18 9.2

incomes of US$80,000 or more. A total of 62% were first-time Number of visits in the previous 12 monthsa (n¼ 62)
visitors to the locales where they were interviewed and 18% were 1–6 45 72.6
7–30 9 14.5
associated with the site for 6 or more years. A total of 73%
31 or more 8 12.9
(excluding first-time users) visited the sites between 1 and 6 times
Number of hours spent on trails for this trip (n ¼199)
in the previous 12 months. About two-thirds of respondents (67%)
1 hour or less 65 32.7
spent a few hours or more on trails and more than half (54%) hiked A few hours 59 29.6
at least 4 miles or more during the interviewed trip. Respondents Half a day or more 75 37.7
visited the sites for appreciative activities such as hiking/walking
Number of miles hiked (n¼199)
(70%), viewing scenery/cultural resources or bird-watching (11%), 3 or less 92 46.2
backpacking/camping (11%), and nature study/photography (4%) as 4–5 35 17.6
their primary activities. 6 or more 72 36.2

Primary activity (n¼ 199)

4.2. Measurement model testing Hiking/walking 140 70.4
Viewing scenery-cultural resources/bird watching 22 11.1
Backpacking/camping 21 10.6
The comprehensive measurement model with all latent dimen- Nature study/photography 7 3.5
sions was performed to determine whether the data facilitate an Others 9 4.5
acceptable fit of the constructs (Table 2). The CFA result demon-
strated the stated acceptable values of goodness-of-fit indices (χ2/
a
First-time visitors were excluded from the analysis.

df¼ 334.788/224¼ 1.495, RMSEA¼ .050, SRMR¼.056, CFI ¼.930).

Cronbach's alpha values ranged from .67 to .78, meeting the
suggested internal consistency value (Z.60). All factor loading
values except for one technocentric item (λ ¼.41 for “The earth has
plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them”)
exceeded the suggested threshold (Z .50) with t-values above 1.96
(p o.05), endorsing the convergent validity (see Table 2). For
descriptive results, the composite means of dualcentric and eco-
centric attitudes were 3.82 and 3.70, respectively. The summated
means of motivation were 4.64 (nature enjoyment) and 4.16
(learning and novelty). The means of environmental behaviors
were 3.54 (educational action) and 2.89 (political activism).
4.3. Structural model testing
To determine mediator effects, we examined the following
results. First, in the direct effect model linking environmental
attitudes to environmental behaviors without the mediating
motivation construct, the overall fit of the direct model showed
a good data fit (χ2/df¼130.056/84¼1.548, RMSEA¼.053, SRMR¼ .084,
CFI¼.950) (Table 3) and environmental attitude had a significant
direct effect (β ¼.50, t¼4.23, po.001) (Fig. 2). These findings
portended further analyses for detecting mediation presence. Second,
the overall fit of the full mediation effect model proved to be
acceptable (χ2/df¼ 360.248/241¼1.495, RMSEA¼.050, SRMR¼.066,
CFI¼.925) (see Table 3). In the full mediation model, environmental
attitudes had a significant influence on motivation (β ¼.28, t¼2.86,
po.01) and motivation significantly affected environmental behavior
(β ¼.41, t¼ 3.28, po.01). These results support the complete media-
tion presence. Third, in the partial mediation effect model a direct path
between environmental attitude and environmental behavior was
added to the full mediation model (see Fig. 2). The results of the
proposed SEM analysis demonstrated a better model fit to the data
(χ2/df¼360.248/241¼1.495, RMSEA¼.050, SRMR¼ .066, CFI¼ .925)
(see Table 3). The path coefficient estimates were examined to
determine the proposed causal relationships between the constructs
(see Fig. 2). Environmental attitudes had a significant positive effect on
environmental behaviors (β ¼ .42, t¼ 3.80, po.001) and nature-based
motivations (β ¼ .25, t¼2.62, po.01), which supports hypotheses H1
and H2. The path coefficient between motivations and environmental
22 N. Kil et al. / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8 (2014) 16–25

Table 2
Item means, factor loadings (λ), and reliabilities (α) for measurement model.

Variables Mean SD λ t-value

Environmental attitudesa
Ecocentric (α ¼.76) 3.70 .90
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support 3.62 1.16 .72 –
2. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences 3.87 .99 .63 7.85
3. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe 3.60 1.13 .82 9.37
Dualcentric (α¼ .67) 3.82 .85
1. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist 4.10 1.01 .56 –
2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needsd 3.60 1.03 .68 6.55
3. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of naturead 3.75 1.22 .66 6.45
Technocentric (α ¼ .67) 3.38 .88
1. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop themd 2.83 1.15 .41 –
2. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nationsad 3.69 1.06 .61 5.03
3. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggeratedd 3.63 1.17 .90 5.46

Recreation motivationsb
Nature enjoyment (α¼ .72) 4.64 .50
1. Enjoy the scenery 4.76 .44 .64 –
2. Experience nature 4.64 .66 .69 7.63
3. Be close to nature 4.54 .72 .76 8.11
Solitude and mental health (α¼ .78) 3.74 1.01
1. Be on my own 3.44 1.35 .58 –
2. Be away from people 3.72 1.24 .72 7.46
3. Experience solitude 4.05 1.05 .89 7.65
Learning and novelty (α¼ .73) 4.16 .72
1. Explore the area 4.44 .76 .73 -
2. Learn more about the nature 3.98 .97 .76 8.98
3. Experience new and different things 4.05 .95 .59 7.31

Environmentally responsible behaviorsc

Political activism (α ¼.69) 2.89 1.03
1. Written to your elected officials expressing your opinions on environmental issues 2.00 1.09 .50 –
2. Donated money or paid membership due to an environmental/conservation organization 3.03 1.39 .79 6.03
3. Voted for a public official due to his/her record on protecting the environment 3.32 1.43 .68 5.81
Educational action (α¼ .76) 3.54 .93
1. Subscribed to environmental publications 2.87 1.32 .78 –
2. Watched TV programs about the environment 4.11 .98 .60 7.79
3. Read books/magazines about the environment 3.65 1.08 .77 9.64

a
Measured using a 5-point scale format (1 ¼strongly disagree, 3¼ neutral, 5¼strongly agree).
b
Measured using a 5-point scale format (1 ¼ not at all important, 3¼ neutral, 5¼very important).
c
Measured using a 5-point scale format (1 ¼ never, 3¼ occasionally, 5¼ a great deal).
d
Reversed coded before data analysis, so that agreement indicates a pro-environmental view. Model: χ2/df ¼ 334.788/224 ¼1.495, RMSEA ¼ .050, SRMR¼ .056, CFI ¼.930.

Table 3
Goodness-of-fit indexes.

Models χ2 df p χ2/df RMSEAa SRMRa CFIa AIC

Direct effect model 130.056 84 o .001 1.548 .053 .084 .950

Partial mediation model (Proposed model) 360.248 241 o .001 1.495 .050 .066 .925 478.25
Full mediation model 382.127 242 o .001 1.579 .054 .090 .912 498.13

a
RMSEA representing root mean square error of approximation, SRMR representing standardized root mean square residual, CFI representing comparative fit index, and
AIC representing Akaike information criterion.

R2 = .06

Recreation
.25** Motivations .30**
(t = 2.62) (t = 3.05) R2 = .33

Environmentally
Environmental .42*** Responsible
Attitudes (t = 3.80) Behaviors

nn nnn
Fig. 2. Results of structural model. Note: p o .01, po .001
 N. Kil et al. / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8 (2014) 16–25
behaviors was also significant (β ¼.30, t¼3.05, po.01), which con-
firms hypothesis H3. These indicated a significant indirect effect of
attitude on behaviors through motivation (β ¼ .07, t¼1.99, po.05),
supported by the Sobel (1982) test result. Thus, a partial mediation of
motivation was found, and hypothesis H4 was accepted.
Finally, the AIC value of the partial mediation model (478.25)
was also lower than that of the full mediation model (498.25),
which demonstrates further evidence that the partial mediation
model proved a better fit to the data (see Table 3). In the partial
mediation model, a minor amount of the variance in motivation
was explained by attitude (R2 ¼.06), while about one-third of the
variance in behaviors was accounted for by attitude and motiva-
tion (R2 ¼.33) (see Fig. 2).
5. Discussion
This study proposed a theory-based structural model to ratio-
nalize the structural relationships tested. However, as noted above,
other theories such as the value-belief-norm theory were also
helpful to ascertain the relationship between environmental
attitudes and environmentally responsible behaviors using
nature-based outdoor recreation motivations as a mediator. The
results support our hypotheses. First, the environmental attitudes
of nature-based hikers had a significant influence on their self-
reported environmentally responsible behaviors (i.e., political and
educational actions), confirming the results of previous studies on
various environmental behaviors such as destination-specific
behaviors (Jurowski et al., 1995), sustainable actions (Perkins &
Brown, 2012), and political actions (Stern et al., 1995). Thus, these
results suggest a positive association between environmental
attitudes and behaviors. Second, environmental attitudes signifi-
cantly influenced nature-based motivations, indicating that
nature-based recreation area hikers with strong pro-
environmental attitudes are likely motivated toward nature
oriented experiential outcomes (i.e., nature enjoyment, learning
and novelty, solitude and mental health) when utilizing trail
related outdoor activities. This result is consistent with previous
findings that strong environmental attitudes propel people to
participate in appreciative activities (e.g., hiking, camping) (e.g.,
Tarrant & Green, 1999; Thapa, 2010) or to seek out experiential
benefits such as nature learning and escape in nature-based
recreation settings (Luo & Deng, 2008). These overall empirical
verifications strengthen the conceptual proposition about humans'
transition from environmental attitudes to internal motivations,
grounded in the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior
(Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
An additional finding about the significant effect of nature-
based motivations on environmentally responsible behaviors was
also consistent with previous studies (e.g., Kerstetter et al., 2004;
Osbaldiston & Sheldon, 2003; Pelletier et al., 1998). Visitors who
were motivated to visit natural settings engaged in similar self-
reported ecological behaviors towards the environment in their
daily lives. Our final hypothesis tested whether motivations sought
during the activity engagement had a mediating effect on the
environmental attitude–behavior relationship. Our results are
similar to previous studies with on-site recreation activity cate-
gories as mediating variables in that relationship (Tarrant & Green,
1999; Thapa, 2010). Nature-based motivations (e.g., nature enjoy-
ment, learning and novelty) sought extensively by most respon-
dents in our study are also reflected by the appreciative activities
(e.g., hiking, scenery-viewing, bird-watching) rated as most impor-
tant to them. The analysis revealed that motivations significantly
mediate the connection between environmental attitudes and
behaviors (i.e., educational actions, political activism), while
appreciative activity participation was not a significant mediator
23
for the behaviors but was for other behaviors such as recycling
and green consumerism (Thapa, 2010). Although environmental
attitudes account for most of the variance in behaviors, with
little effect on motivation, further analysis ascertained a partial
mediating effect of motivation on the attitude–behavior rela-
tionship, which confirms the importance of specifically moti-
vated behaviors. Overall, these results reinforce the attitude–
behavior connection, as conceptualized in the theories of rea-
soned action and planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980).
5.1. Management implications
This study confirms that making recreation opportunities
available in natural environments can have long-term and impor-
tant implications for visitors and the overall environment. Speci-
fically, recreation and tourism activities tend to transmute into
support for environmentally responsible behaviors. It is important
for policy makers to understand environmental attitudes and
motivations for outdoor recreation participation as key determi-
nants affecting natural area visitors' environmentally responsible
behaviors in order to facilitate the initiation and sustaining of
visitors' ecologically friendly behaviors in natural environments
and in people's daily lives.
In general, those who hold strong environmental attitudes
tend to behave in more environmentally responsible ways. More
notably, environmental attitudes shape environmental behaviors
partially through the motivations that drive visitors' participation
in nature-based recreation. This means that public land managers
affect more than just the immediate experiences visitors might
attain in an area. In other words, this study shows that people
seeking to recreate in natural environments also foster pro-
environment attitudes and environmentally responsible beha-
viors. Strategies initiated by nature-oriented recreation and tour-
ism agencies that increase humans' awareness about and
appreciation of nature through direct and indirect experiences
(i.e., formal and informal educational programs and services such
as mass media, internet sources, and interpretive programs) can
shape pro-environmental attitudes (Cottrell, 2003; Dunlap, 2008;
Orams, 1997; Tubb, 2003).
Stakeholders who hold environmental attitudes and perform
environmentally responsible behaviors can be strong advocates
for public land management agencies. In the case of the FNST, a
diversity of county, state, and federal agencies manage the lands in
which the trail moves through, but it is not clear if visitors know
and understand the agencies that are providing this proven valued
opportunity to achieve their desired recreation motivations. If
agencies would improve their communication about their envir-
onmental goals and how they manage the environment to the
visitors, then these agencies will likely increase their support
among the constituents and users.
In addition to improving communication with existing users,
agencies adjacent to urban areas might increase the number of
nature-based recreation opportunities to attract new clients.
As indicated in our findings, the benefits-driven demand from
individuals with strong environmental attitudes can potentially
contribute to financial or political support for resource protection.
This study has demonstrated that existing FNST visitors are likely
to provide their support, however agencies can enlist new support
from individuals living in built environments who live close to
natural environments, might have strong ecocentric attitudes,
and have strong preferences for natural amenities in outdoor
recreation areas, including the FNST for experiential benefits
(Kil et al., 2012c).
24 N. Kil et al. / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8 (2014) 16–25
5.2. Limitations and future research suggestions
The sample in this study is not representative of the overall US
population. It could be that the trail attracts people who are
environmentally responsible but not those who are not. By and
large, the trail attracts those for whom it is managed, which seems
to indicate that the trail is marketed well. Similar studies should
be conducted using other recreational settings, perhaps those that
attract a wider variety of recreationists who may not be as nature
oriented as those hiking on a national scenic trail, to see if similar
findings occur.
While a construct of outdoor recreation motivations (which can
also be thought of as experiential benefits sought) was utilized as a
sequel to environmental attitudes, attainment of experiential
benefits in diverse settings might be alternatively examined as
an antecedent that could affect environmental attitudes and
behaviors. For example, Byrka, Harting, and Kaiser (2010) reported
psychological restoration experiences in nature to be a significant
antecedent to environmental attitudes and environmentally
responsible behaviors. In our study, previous self-reported educa-
tional actions (e.g., subscribing to magazines about the environ-
ment) as forms of environmentally responsible behavior were
utilized as an aftermath of environmental attitudes and motiva-
tions. However, the educational action dimension could likewise
be treated in an educational–attitudinal–environmental behavior
relationship (e.g., Collado et al., 2013; Cottrell, 2003; Mobley et al.,
2010), and other additional specific and general environmental
behavior items (e.g., utilizing additional green technologies, utiliz-
ing mass transportation, implementing conservation strategies at
home, etc.) could be employed to ascertain differences or refine-
ments in intended actions.
6. Conclusions
The relationship between environmental attitudes, motiva-
tions, and environmentally responsible behaviors was examined
among national scenic trail hikers as participants in appreciative
recreation activities. In particular, motivation was the primary
construct in understanding recreation behaviors and was utilized
as a mediator for attitude–behavior correspondence. Overall,
motivations served as a partial mediator of the relationship
between environmental attitudes and environmentally responsi-
ble behaviors. Our findings show that environmental attitudes and
motivations are key constructs of environmentally responsible
behaviors (at least among trail hikers), which can be applied to
sustainable planning for other nature-based recreation and tour-
ism destinations where appreciative activity opportunities are
available.
7. Conflict of Interest
We don't have any conflict of interests for this manuscript.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by National Forests in Florida (13-CS-
11080500-025). The authors thank research assistants including
Justin Fisch and Evan Bild for their assistance in data collection.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.
Andereck, K. L. (2009). Tourists' perceptions of environmentally responsible
innovations at tourism business. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17, 489–499.
Anderson, D. H., Nickerson, R. G., Stein, T. V., & Lee, M. E. (2000). Planning to provide
community and visitor benefits. In: W. C. Gartner, & D. W. Lime (Eds.), Trends in
Outdoor Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism (pp. 197–211). Wallingford, UK: CABI
Publishing.
Anderson, D. H., Wilhelm Stanis, S. A., Schneider, I. E., & Leahy, J. E. (2008).
Proximate and distant visitors: Differences in importance ratings of beneficial
experiences. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 26(4), 47–65.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
411–423.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considera-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariance and methodology to the
bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400–404.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural
equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.
Brooker, E., & Joppe, M. (2013). Trends in camping and outdoor hospitality: An
international review. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 3-4, 1–6.
Brown, P. J. (1984). Benefits of outdoor recreation and some ideas for valuing
recreation opportunities. In: G. L. Peterson, & A. Randall (Eds.), Valuation of
Wildland Resource Benefits (pp. 209–220). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K.
A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buta, N., Holland, S., & Kaplanidou, K. (2014). Local communities and protected
areas: The mediating role of park attachment for pro-environmental civic
engagement. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 5-6, 1–10.
Byrka, K., Harting, T., & Kaiser, F. G. (2010). Environmental attitude as a mediator of
the relationship between psychological restoration in nature and self-reported
ecological behavior. Psychological Review, 107, 847–859.
Chiu, Y. T. H., Lee, W. I., & Chen, T. H. (2014). Environmentally responsible behavior
in ecotourism: Antecedents and implications. Tourism Management, 40,
321–329.
Choi, A. S., & Fielding, K. S. (2013). Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A
case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics, 89, 24–32.
Collado, S., Staats, H., & Corraliza, J. A. (2013). Experiencing nature in children's
summer camps: Affective, cognitive and behavioural consequences. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 33, 37–44.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and
applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.
Cottrell, S. P. (2003). Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes
on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters.
Environment and Behavior, 35, 347–375.
Crilley, G., Weber, D., & Taplin, R. (2012). Predicting visitor satisfaction in parks:
Comparing the value of personal benefit attainment and service levels. Visitor
Studies, 15, 217–237.
Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 4, 184–194.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in
Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Driver, B. L. (2008). What is outcomes-focused management?. In: B. L. Driver (Ed.),
Managing to Optimize the Beneficial Outcomes of Recreation (pp. 19–37). State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1991). Benefits of Leisure. State College,
PA: Venture Publishing.
Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to
worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 3–18.
Dunlap, R. E., & Catton, W. R. (1994). Struggling with human exemptionalism: The
rise, decline and revitalization of environmental sociology. The American
Sociologist, 25(1), 5–30.
Dunlap, R. E., & Heffernan, R. B. (1975). Outdoor recreation and environmental
concern: An empirical examination. Rural Sociology, 40, 18–30.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The ‘new environmental paradigm’: A
proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environ-
mental Education, 9, 10–19.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56, 425–442.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.
Ewert, A., Place, G., & Sibthorp, J. (2005). Early-life outdoor experiences and an
individual's environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 27, 225–239.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and
multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59–74.
Florida Trail Association. (2011) Hike Florida on Florida's own national scenic trail.
Retrieved from 〈http://www.floridatrail.org〉.
Florida Trail Association. (2013) What is the Florida National Scenic Trail? Retrieved
from 〈http://www.floridatrail.org〉.
 N. Kil et al. / Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7-8 (2014) 16–25
Floyd, M., Jang, H., & Noe, F. P. (1997). The relationship between environmental
concern and acceptability of environmental impacts among visitors to two US
national park settings. Journal of Environmental Management, 51, 391–412.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 39–50.
Gagnon-Thompson, S. C., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric
attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14,
149–157.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect
of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 409–421.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Iso-Ahola, S. (1982). Towards a social psychology of tourism motivation: A
rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 256–261.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1999). Motivational foundations of leisure. In: E. L. Jackson, & T.
L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure Studies: Prospect for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 31–35).
State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Juric, B., Cornwell, T. B., & Mather, D. (2002). Exploring the usefulness of an
ecotourism interest scale. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 259–269.
Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., Williams, D. R., & Noe, F. P. (1995). An examination of
preferences and evaluations of visitors based on environmental attitudes:
Biscayne Bay National Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3, 73–86.
Kaiser, F. G., Hübner, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). Contrasting the theory of planned
behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3510, 2150–2170.
Kaiser, F. G., Ranney, M., Hartig, T., & Bowler, P. A. (1999). Ecological behavior,
environmental attitude, and feelings of responsibility for the environment.
European Psychologist, 4(2), 59–74.
Kaiser, F. G., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitudes and ecological
behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1–19.
Kerstetter, D. L., Hou, J., & Lin, C. (2004). Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a
behavioral approach. Tourism Management, 25, 491–498.
Kil, N., Holland, S. M., & Stein, T. V. (2012a). Identifying differences between off-
highway vehicle (OHV) and non-OHV user groups for recreation resource
planning. Environmental Management, 50, 365–380.
Kil, N., Holland, S. M., Stein, T. V., & Ko, Y. J. (2012b). Place attachment as a mediator
of the relationship between nature-based recreation benefits and future visit
intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20, 603–626.
Kil, N., Stein, T. V., Holland, S. M., & Anderson, D. H. (2012c). Understanding place
meanings in planning and managing the wildland-urban interface: The case of
Florida trail hikers. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107, 370–379.
Kim, H., Borges, M., & Chon, J. (2006). Impacts of environmental values on tourism
motivation: The case of FICA, Brazil. Tourism Management, 27, 957–967.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place
meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and
place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 439–454.
Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivations in Work Organization. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Lee, T. H. (2011). How recreation involvement, place attachment and conservation
commitment affect environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism, 19, 895–915.
Lundmark, C. (2007). The new ecological paradigm revisited: Anchoring the NEP
scale in environmental ethics. Environmental Education Research, 13, 329–347.
Luo, Y., & Deng, J. (2008). The new environmental paradigm and nature-based
tourism motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 392–402.
Luzar, E. J., Diagne, A., Gan, C., & Henning, B. R. (1998). Profiling the nature-based
tourist: A multinomial logit approach. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 48–55.
Manfredo, M. J., Driver, B. L., & Tarrant, M. A. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation:
A meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of
Leisure Research, 28, 188–213.
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first-
and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 289–303.
Mobley, C., Vagias, W. M., & DeWard, S. L. (2010). Exploring additional determinants
of environmentally responsible behavior: The influence of environmental
literature and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 42, 420–447.
Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Natural Area Tourism: Ecology,
Impacts and Management. Clevedon, England: Channel View Publications.
Noblet, C. L., Anderson, M., & Teisl, M. F. (2013). An empirical test of anchoring the NEP
scale in environmental ethics. Environmental Education Research, 19, 540–551.
Nooney, J. G., Woodrum, E., Hoban, T. J., & Clifford, W. B. (2003). Environmental
worldview and behavior: Consequence of dimensionality in a survey of North
Carolinians. Environment and Behavior, 35, 763–783.
25
Ogunbode, C. A. (2013). The NEP scale: Measuring ecological attitudes/worldviews
in an African context. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15,
1477–1494.
Orams, M. B. (1997). The effectiveness of environmental education: Can we turn
tourists into ‘greenies’? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3, 295–306.
Osbaldiston, R., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Promoting internalized motivations for
environmentally responsible behavior: A prospective study of environmental
goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 349–357.
Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green-Demers, I., & Noels, K. (1998). Why are you doing
things for the environment?: The motivation toward the environment scale
(MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 437–468.
Perkins, H., & Brown, P. R. (2012). Environmental values and the so-called true
ecotourist. Journal of Travel Research, 51, 793–803.
Perkins, H. E., & Grace, D. (2009). Ecotourism: Supply of nature or tourist demand?
Journal of Ecotourism, 8, 223–236.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and persuasion: Classic and contempor-
ary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Polonsky, M. J., Vocino, A., Grimmer, M., & Miles, M. P. (2014). The interrelationship
between temporal and environmental orientation and pro‐environmental
consumer behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies. Advance online
publication, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12131.
Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between
environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal
of Business Research, 40, 79–89.
Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique,
proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9,
349–364.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10 (pp. 221–279). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 1–65). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Shevlin, M., Miles, J. N. V., & Bunting, B. P. (1997). Summated rating scales: A Monte
Carlo investigation of the effects of reliability and collinearity in regression
models. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 665–676.
Smith-Sebasto, N. (1995). The effects of an environmental studies course on
selected variables related to environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal
of Environmental Education, 26(4), 30–34.
Speth, J. G., & Haas, P. M. (2006). Global Environmental Governance. New York, NY:
Island Press.
Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental change.
Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 260–269.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant
behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in
social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723–743.
Takahashi, B., & Selfa, T. (2014). Predictors of pro-environmental behavior in rural
American communities. Environment and Behavior (Advance online publication
doi: 0013916514521208).
Tarrant, M. A., & Cordell, H. K. (1997). The effect of respondent characteristics on
general environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. Environment and
Behavior, 29, 618–637.
Tarrant, M. A., & Green, G. T. (1999). Outdoor recreation and the predictive validity
of environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 21, 17–30.
Teisl, M. F., & O'Brien, K. (2003). Who cares and who acts? Outdoor recreationists
exhibit different levels of environmental concern and behavior. Environment
and Behavior, 35, 506–522.
Thapa, B. (2010). The mediation effect of outdoor recreation participation on
environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 41, 133–150.
Tubb, K. N. (2003). An evaluation of the effectiveness of interpretation within
Dartmoor National Park in reaching the goals of sustainable tourism develop-
ment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11, 476–498.
USDA Forest Service (2011) The Florida Trail. Retrieved from 〈http://www.fs.fed.us/
r8/florida/fnst〉.
van Riper, C. J., & Kyle, G. T. (2014). Understanding the internal processes of
behavioral engagement: A latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-
norm theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 288–297.
Wapner, P. K. (1996). Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Wearing, S., Cynn, S., Ponting, J., & McDonald, M. (2002). Converting environmental
concern into ecotourism purchases: A qualitative evaluation of international
backpackers in Australia. Journal of Ecotourism, 1, 133–148.
Wynveen, C. J., Kyle, G. T., & Sutton, S. G. (2013). Environmental worldview, place
attachment, and awareness of environmental impacts in a marine environment
(Advance online publication). Environment and Behavior, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0013916513484325.