LiveDiverse
WP4: Public beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and
preferences
Belief Scales Review
In fulfilment of Task 4.1: Review and categorisation of existing
environmental and biodiversity belief scales and their use, especially in
developing countries
August 2009
Team CSIR
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
Purpose of the document ........................................................................................ 3
Approach ................................................................................................................ 3
Findings.................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Review of belief scales .................................................................................... 3
3.1.1
New Environmental Paradigm Scale ....................................................... 4
3.1.2
New Human Interdependence Paradigm Scale ........................................ 6
3.1.3
Social Axiom Belief Scale ....................................................................... 7
3.1.4
United Nations Value Scale ..................................................................... 7
3.1.5
Connectedness to Nature Scale ................................................................ 8
3.2 Key issues from the literature.......................................................................... 8
4. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 12
References .................................................................................................................... 13
2
1.
Purpose of the document
The purpose of this document is to review the existing literature on environmental
and biodiversity belief scales and their use, especially in developing countries. The
aim of this review is to determine how these scales, or elements of them, will be of
use in the construction of a belief scale within the context of the Live Diverse
project. In addition, the literature review has served to enable the research team to
come up with recommendations, which should be kept in mind when constructing a
belief scale.
2.
Approach
This document looks at different beliefs scales that are presented in literature. The
research method employed was a qualitative desktop literature study where the
project members, who have different academic backgrounds, did an individual
search on belief scales by means of focussing on their particular research interests
and using their preferred search methods.
The team then compiled a list of
potentially relevant sources. These sources were subsequently read and the
following information was extracted: the key message, the relevance of the article to
belief scales and potential links to any other articles on belief scales that had been
identified. The first draft of the literature review was then refined by means of
specifying what information had been found, what recommendations could be made
from the literature in constructing a belief scale for the purposes of the Live Diverse
project and what belief scales had thus far been identified in the literature.
3.
Findings
3.1
Review of belief scales
The belief scales identified in this section were selected on the basis that the authors
who designed them present them as a way of measuring people’s beliefs.
3
3.1.1 New Environmental Paradigm Scale
A useful theory to look at environmental belief systems is the theory of social
representations. This theory deals with shared belief systems that are tied to certain
social identities. Social representations are forms of knowledge (in the form of
attitudes, beliefs and practices) that are produced and sustained by certain groups or
populations.
Several varieties of environmental beliefs exist. These include
traditionalist environmental beliefs and modern (materialistic) environmental beliefs
(Raudsepp, 2001).
The orthodox, Western anthropocentric view of the human-nature relationship is
one in which humans are seen as above and exempt from the rest of nature, in
which there is a belief in economic growth and material abundance, and a faith in
science and technology. This set of beliefs has been termed the Dominant Social
Paradigm (DSP) (Pirages, 1974; Catton, 1978; Catton, 1980; Dunlap, 1984; Raudsepp,
2001) and is transmitted from generation to generation by institutions, socialisation
and through learning. While considerable research has been conducted into
examining Western paradigms, and significant work has been done by
anthropologists with a focus on human-nature relationships in some developing
countries, the combination of perceptions of ecological biodiversity, socio-economic
vulnerability and cultural-spiritual vulnerability that will be used in the LiveDiverse
project is innovative. After the upsurge of environmental awareness in 1970, social
scientists increased their efforts to examine the ecological attitudes connected with
this interest in the human-nature relationship. Early attempts to construct scales
aimed at measuring ecological attitudes (Maloney, 1975) used a large number of
questions in their scales, and often focused on specific aspects of environmental
issues.
The construction of the "New Environmental Paradigm Scale" (Dunlap, 1978)
represents an important although now somewhat dated step forward, in that it
attempts to explore "primitive beliefs" (Rokeach, 1973; Gray, 1985). The earth is
seen as being delicate and limited in resources, the possibilities for human economic
growth are restricted, and human efforts to dominate the physical environment are
4
believed to lead to serious environmental problems. Importantly, also,
environmental belief systems are linked to beliefs and attitudes about the social
world (especially in terms of economic growth and societal organisation) (Raudsepp,
2001).
The revised NEP scale focuses on the following five beliefs regarding the relationship
between human beings and the environment: reality of limits to growth, antianthropocentrism, fragility of nature’s balance, rejection of exemptionalism and the
possibility of an eco-crisis. The original NEP scale (and it would appear the new one
too) taps into “primitive beliefs” about the nature of the earth and humanity’s
relationship with it; the NEP items (both on the old and new scale) appear to
constitute a fundamental component of people’s belief systems in relation to the
environment. The NEP beliefs constitute a paradigm or worldview that influences
attitudes and beliefs towards more specific environmental issues, and a high score
on the NEP scale can be equated with pro-environmental beliefs and attitudes on a
wide range of issues, which may or may not influence human behaviour (Dunlap et
al., 2000).
Building on earlier work of Kluckholm and Strodtbeck (1961) and Ashmore and
Tumia (1975), Gray (1985) stresses the importance of primitive beliefs such as those
described by the NEP in his theoretical model of the "Ecological Attitude Domain".
The first of these primitive beliefs is that humankind is above and apart from nature,
and that nature should be utilised by humans. The second is that "progress and
growth are natural, inevitable, and good" (Gray, 1985). Primitive beliefs are "thought
to be some of our most deeply internalised and most determinative of behaviours"
(Gray, 1985). According to Gray (1985), these primitive beliefs, together with general
environmental concern, beliefs about the costs and benefits of individual or societal
actions on the environment and beliefs about individual responsibility and rights, are
"primary beliefs". These can be placed at the base of an environmental belief system
and can lead to derived beliefs concerning conservation, pollution and population,
and to general environmental attitudes. The importance of primary beliefs in a
person's belief hierarchy has also been stressed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and,
5
according to Heberlein (1981), a series of beliefs, which can be both cognitive and
evaluative, can combine to create an attitude. Beliefs are also important in the
formation of a value, which is an "enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or
end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable" (Rokeach, 1973).
While the NEP may provide a useful point of departure for the construction of the
LiveDiverse Biodiversity and Livelihoods Scale (BLS), it cannot be used as it stands
because it does not sufficiently take into account the necessity to achieve
livelihoods. Additional criticisms of the NEP scale include that the general attitudes
and beliefs measured by it do not reflect more specific attitudes and beliefs or
environmentally friendly behaviour. In terms of further research it might be
worthwhile to describe environmental belief systems in more detail on the individual
level and as shared representations in reflexive groups (Raudsepp, 2001). Noony et
al. (2003) go further and argue that the NEP scale only considers environmental
beliefs as unidirectional – not multi-dimensional. Their findings support the idea that
worldviews are multidimensional and that beliefs in these dimensions are held in
different ways across subgroups of the population, and as a result should be
approached as such.
3.1.2 New Human Interdependence Paradigm Scale
A new development that improves upon the NEP scale may possibly be the New
Human Interdependence Paradigm (NHIP) which combines eco-centric and
anthropocentric points of view into measuring beliefs and attitudes related to
Sustainable Development in the context of water conservation. The NHIP is found to
be superior to the opposing views of the NEP and Human Exception Paradigm (HEP)
because it measures the interdependence between human development and the
long-lasting functioning of ecosystems. On a cautionary note, it should be taken into
account that the application of such a measurement paradigm would have to take
full account of local contexts, and the cultural specificities of the population groups
being examined. The NHIP moves away from measuring an exclusively eco-centric
set of attitudes and beliefs (the NEP scale) to measuring a combination of eco-centric
6
and anthropocentric beliefs in line with the principles of Sustainable Development
(Corral-Verdugo et al., 2008).
3.1.3 Social Axiom Belief Scale
A social axiom is a generalised belief “about oneself, the social and physical
environment, or the spiritual world”. Social axioms usually take the form of “an
assertion about the relationship between two entities or concepts”. An axiomatic
belief is not the same as a normative belief because an axiomatic belief represents
ones view about how the world functions whereas a normative belief represents
what is regarded as a proper course of action. According to this distinction, five
dimensions of social axioms can be distinguished through which people understand
how the world works and which guide their behaviour. These five dimensions are:
cynicism, social complexity, reward for application, spirituality and fate control
(Leung et al. 2002).
What is significant about the way in which these authors approach beliefs (and thus
also important for a belief scale) is that beliefs that are characterised as “social
axioms” are assumed to be true because of experience and not because of scientific
validation. In this way social beliefs that fit under the social axiom label determine
the way in which people organise and survive in their social and physical
environments.
3.1.4 United Nations Value Scale
The authors refer to the United Nations (UN) values (freedom, equality, solidarity,
tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility) and propose a scale to
measure the values that underlie sustainable development. The scale development
process outlined in Nunally (1978), Churchill (1979), Schwab (1980), and Netemayer
et al. (2003) is followed to develop a sustainable development value (SDV) scale.
The resultant scale measures values that underlie freedom, equality, solidarity,
tolerance, respect for nature, and shared responsibility (Shepherd et al., 2009).
7
3.1.5 Connectedness to Nature Scale
It is becoming apparent that the magnitude of the environmental problems we face
necessitates a broader intervention aimed at changing our cultural worldview. The
Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) is a tool for activists and researchers alike to
monitor the extent to which they are effective in promoting these necessary
changes. This scale provides a measure of people’s emotional connection to nature
(Mayer and Frantz, 2004). The measure is designed to tap an individual’s affective,
experiential connection to nature. The scale consists of 14 items that are designed
to measure the extent to which participants generally feel part of the natural world.
Mayer and Frantz (2004) suggest that the CNS is effective, reliable, multi-scale, easy
to administer, predicts behaviour quite well and shows that a sense of feeling
connected to nature can predict the degree to which people feel satisfied with life.
This highlights the psychological significance of the human–nature relationship by
not only looking after the well-being of nature, but by also looking after the wellbeing of humans. Perrin and Benassi (2009) reviewed the CNS and say that the scale
measures cognitive beliefs and not emotional connections.
3.2
Key issues from the literature
Environmental beliefs are “subjective theories about the human-nature relationship
that form a conceptual basis for more specific attitudes, beliefs and behaviours
towards the environment”. Such beliefs are embedded in various cultural messages
(heterogeneous and rapidly changing), but are also a component of individual or
group level environmental mentality (Raudsepp, 2001).
A belief scale should not only reflect scientific terminology, but should also
accommodate concepts and language used by local communities (Fischer and Young,
2007). It is therefore very important for a belief scale that measures attitudes,
beliefs and perceptions about the environment and biodiversity to be locally
relevant in order for its results to be accurate and representative of the community
8
whose beliefs it is measuring and to ultimately aid in promoting sustainable
livelihoods and lifestyles and reducing vulnerability.
Another point that pertains to “local relevance” is that, when looking at biodiversity
conservation issues outside of the realm of protected areas, it is important to take
into account different sources of knowledge (ranging from modern approaches to
resource management as well as indigenous knowledge systems, which can be very
valuable) in order to ensure resource sustainability (Berkes et al. 2000, Deep
Narayan Pandi n.d.; Gadgil et al., 1993; Halladay and Allan, 1995; Hernandez 2000).
Other important factors that link nature with culture include beliefs and worldviews,
livelihoods and resource use practices, traditional knowledge bases and norms and
institutions (Pretty and Pilgrim 2008). People’s perceptions and beliefs around health
(Baud, 2004) can also be linked to their ability to maintain their livelihoods in a
sustainable manner. Keeping intact the knowledge and belief systems of local
communities is very important to sustaining livelihoods (http://www.sustrust.org/;
Pretty and Pilgrim, 2008).
In addition, when drawing up a belief scale, it might be good to determine who it is
targeted at. Are we differentiating according to age group, such as between children
(Mulder et al., 2009) and adults, within the population that we are determining the
environmental beliefs, attitudes and preferences of?
On another “people-specific” point, it is important to focus on the role of personal
beliefs and the internal motivations that characterise and drive those personal
beliefs so as to fully understand the behaviour of individuals and communities in
their use of natural resources (Hernandez, 2000). It is also important to take into
account people’s values and perceptions (dependent on culture, regional location,
age, gender, caste, class and urban exposure), which are reflected in their beliefs,
practices and preferences (Sinha et al., 1994). People’s behaviour and response to
biodiversity conservation imperatives are strongly influenced by multiple beliefs
arising from the socio-economic landscape in which they were raised and educated,
their life experiences and survival conditions, and the options that they have learnt
9
to believe in. This means that many contestations and conflicts need to be resolved
before resource sustainability can be ensured (McShane et al., 2008). It is also
necessary to include social context when trying to understand environmental
behaviour or concern because environmental and ecological attitudes may correlate
with social demographics such as gender and age, political attitudes, environmental
knowledge and social context (Olli et al., 2001). Understanding the way in which
people behave towards their environment is strongly linked to what they believe
about the environment and their positionality in relation to it. It is possible that
examining the efforts made at understanding and /or measuring people’s
environmental behaviour may help to establish belief scales.
Particular attention should also be paid to the degree of poverty which the
respondents to the belief scale live in, and what their diverse, dynamic and complex
realities are (Bauman, 2002).
Taking the above factors into consideration is
especially important as often a lack of understanding of the mental models and
beliefs held by communities can contribute to inadequate communication of issues
around climate change (and problems related to managing the environment in
general) and ways to mitigate it (Moser and Dilling, 2007). This which can lead to
ineffective policy decisions being made (Njenga and Fernando, 2007).
Furthermore, situational factors have to be taken into account when looking at
environmental attitudes, values and beliefs because these will directly impact on
environmental action, and in the case of this project, will impact on people’s ability
to manage their livelihoods in a sustainable manner. Linked to situational factors is the
ability or willingness of people to pay for ecological “commodities” such as water. People
may believe that they do not need to pay for water because it is something that comes from
heaven and should therefore be their human right to have. This phenomenon adds to the
complexity of the issue of the relationship between biodiversity and sustainable livelihoods
(Jorgenson et al., 2001) and needs to be well understood and taken into consideration when
constructing a belief scale. Economic values also play an important role in environmental
beliefs, and can override human intent and behaviour when it comes to taking care of the
environment (Hodgkinson and Innes, 2000). Although there is growing support for pro-
10
environmental policy, this is not always reflected in government policy, and although
individuals believe in the principles of ecology, they do not necessarily believe that
traditional economic processes should be interrupted to save the environment (Hodgkinson
and Innes, 2000). A concern for the environment thus seems to be separate and
independent from a commitment to saving the environment and this concern seems to be
moderated by fundamental political and economic beliefs (Hodgkinson and Innes, 2000). In
addition to economic values, it is also important to consider people’s political affiliations and
values, and their relation to environmental groups. These factors may influence their beliefs
and attitudes towards the environment (Rohrschneider, 1993).
Another important point that should be taken into consideration when constructing
a belief scale is not to necessarily adhere to fixed dimensions of space, time and
knowledge as far as a specific paradigm is concerned (e.g. that of sustainable
development), but to be open to the idea of expanding these (by, for instance,
looking at a never-ending story as opposed to fixed goals and measurable,
achievable objectives within a set timeframe) (Hedren and Linner, 2009). Linked to
this “open-minded” way of seeing the world, is the notion of introducing
experimentation, learning and change as factors that can influence the world views
and belief systems of local communities when it comes to conservation efforts and
the sustainable management of their livelihoods (Dietz et al., 2003).
When it comes to long-term uncertain environmental problems, the likelihood of
both specific risk perceptions and general environmental beliefs influencing proenvironmental behaviour increases (O’Connor et al. 1999). It might therefore be
relevant to incorporate the notion of perceptions about environmental risk when
constructing a belief scale for the purposes of LiveDiverse, as differences in
environmental norms and beliefs can shape perceptions about ecological risk (Willis
and DeKay, 2007).
11
4.
Conclusions
This document has identified some of the major existing belief scales from the
available literature and includes suggestions about how these belief scales, or
elements of them, could be used for the purposes of the Live Diverse belief scale
that is to be constructed. In addition, it also includes references to literature that
deals with beliefs and belief systems, and recommendations are made from this
literature which could be useful in the construction of a belief scale for Live Diverse.
Not many belief scales were identified in the literature. Those that were can be
placed in two categories: belief scales that categorise beliefs across all societies and
belief scales that make use of a social context or situational approach to characterise
beliefs in order to accommodate aspects such as cultural, spiritual and
epistemological differences. It is the research team’s contention that the latter
approach would be best suited to the aims and goals of the LiveDiverse project. At
the same time, however, this approach brings with it a number of challenges, which
include:

Understanding and possibly redefining the concept “scale”. It might be that
the concept of a “belief scale” as proposed in the initial description of work
for the LiveDiverse project needs revision in order to encapsulate different
approaches to the characterisation of beliefs. In other words how can one
characterise beliefs or belief systems and importantly how does one capture
the meaning derived from this characterisation for action or impact;

Shifting the focus from a “scale” oriented approach to that of a
“characteristic” oriented approach in the methodology of Work Package 4.
This means that beliefs and belief systems will not just be understood in
terms of and in comparison to one another but in terms of its own context;
and

Enabling the inclusion of the key issues as presented in this document when
considering the above two points.
12
References
Ashmore, R. D. and Tumia, M.L.A. 1975. A preliminary social psychological analysis of
how Americans orient toward the physical environment. Annual Fall Psychology
Symposium, Westminster College, New Wilmington, Pa.
Baud, I.D.S, 2004. “Health, livelihoods and governance” Amsterdam institute for
Metropolitan and International Development Studies , Amsterdam.
Bauman P. 2002. “Improving access to natural resources for the rural poor: A critical
analysis of central concepts and emerging trends from a sustainable livelihoods
perspective.” FAO LSP Working Paper 1, July 2002, Access to Natural Resources SubProgramme, Rome
Berk. Colding, J. and Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge
as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5): 1251-1262.
Catton, W. R. J. R. E. D. 1978. Environmental sociology: a new paradigm. The
American Sociologist, 13: 41-49.
Catton, W. R. J. R. E. D. 1980. A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant
sociology. American Behavioural Scientist, 24(1): 15-47.
Churchill, G. A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16: 64–71.
Corral-Verdugo, V. Carrus, G. Bonnes, M. Moser, G. and Sinha, J.B.P. 2008.
Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principles in
water conservation: toward a New Human Interdependence Paradigm Scale.
Environment and Behaviour, 40(5): 703-725.
Corraliza, J.A. and Berenguer, J. 2000. Environmental values, beliefs and actions: a
situational approach. Environment and Behaviour, 32: 832-849.
Deep Narayan Pandey. n.d. Traditional Knowledge Systems for Biodiversity
Conservation. Indian Institute of Forest Management Bhopal
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_es_pande_conserve.htm
Dietz, T. Ostrom E. & Stern P. 2003. The Struggle to Govern the Commons Science,
302(5652): 1907-1912
Dunlap, R. E. K. D. V. L. 1978. The New Environmental Paradigm. Journal of
Environmental Education, 9: 10-19.
Dunlap, R. E. K. D. V. L. 1984. Commitment to the Dominant Social Paradigm and
concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 66: 1013-1027.
13
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G. and Jones, R.E. 2000. Measuring
endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social
Issues, 56(3): 425-442.
Fischer, A. and Young, J.C. 2007 Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity:
Implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation
136(2): 271-282.
Gadgil, M. Berkes, F. and Folke, C. 1993. Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity
Conservation. Ambio, 22 (2/3): 151-156
Gray, D. B. 1985. Ecological beliefs and behaviours: assessment and change.
Westport, Greenwood Press.
Halladay, A. and Allan, D. 1995. Conserving biodiversity outside protected areas: the
role of traditional agro-ecosystems, IUCN, Cambridge
Heberlein, T. A. 1981. Environmental attitudes. Zeitschrift Für Umweltpolitik 4: 241270.
Hedren, J. and Linner, B. 2009. Utopian thought and the politics of sustainable
development. Futures, 41 (4): 210-219
Hernandez, B. 2000. The Study of Environmental Beliefs by Facet Analysis.
Environment and Behaviour, 32(5): 612-636
Hodgkinson, S. P. and Innes, J. M. 2000. The prediction of ecological and
environmental belief systems: the differential contributions of social conservatism
and beliefs about money. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20: 285-294.
Jorgenson, B. S., Wilson, M . A. and Heberlein, T. A. 2001. Fairness in the contingent
valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental
improvements at two levels of scope. Ecological Economics 36: 133-148.
Kluckholm, F. R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. 1961. Variations in value orientations. Evanston,
Ill, Row, Peterson.
Leung, K. Bond, M. H. de Carrasquel, S.R. Muñoz, C. Hernández, M. Murakami, F.
Yamaguchi, S. Bierbrauer, G. and T. M. Singelis 2002. Social axioms: the Search for
universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33 (3): 286-302.
Maloney, M. P. M. P. W. G. N. B. 1975. A revised scale for the measurement of
ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, July: 787-790.
14
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of
individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
24: 503–515.
McShane, T., Songorwa, A., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Thang, H., Dammert B, Juan., P.
M., Brosius, P., Coppolillo, P., O'Connor, S. and Trung, T. 2008. Hard Choices:
Understanding the Trade-offs Between Biodiversity Conservation and Human Wellbeing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Congress for
Conservation Biology, Convention Center, Chattanooga, TN, Jul 10, 2008.
Http://www.allacademic.com/meta/ p243423_index.html
Moser, S.C. and Dilling, L. (eds.) 2007. Creating a climate for change: communicating
climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press.
Mulder, M.B., Schacht, R., Caro, T., Schacht, J. and Caro, B. 2009. Knowledge and
attitudes of children of the Rupununi: Implications for conservation in Guyana.
Biological Conservation, 142(4): 879-887
Netemayer, R. G., Bearden, W. O. and Sharma, S. 2003. Scaling procedures. London:
Sage.
Njenga, P. and Fernando, P. 2007. Local Transport Systems - Key links to sustainable
livelihoods International Forum for Rural Transport and Development
http://practicalaction.org/?id=t4sl_localtransportapproaches
Noony, J. Woodrum, E. Hoban, T.J. Clifford, W.B. 2003. “Environmental Worldview
and Behaviour Consequences of Dimensionality in a Survey of North Carolinians”,
Environment and Behaviour, 35 (6), 763-783.
Nunally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Connor, R.E., Bord, R.J. and Fisher, A. 1999. Risk perceptions, general
environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis,
19(3): 461-471.
Olli E, Grendstad G, and Wollebaek D, 2001. Correlates of Environmental Behaviours:
Bringing Back Social Context, Environment and Behaviour, 33: 181-208
Perrin J.L. and Benassi V.A. 2009. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of
emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, In Press,
Corrected Proof.
Pirages, D. C. P. R. E. 1974. Ark 2: Social response to environmental imperatives. W.H.
Freeman & Co.
Pretty J. and Pilgrim S. 2008. Nature and Culture, Centre for Environment and
Society, University of Essex
15
Raudsepp, M. 2001. Environmental belief systems: empirical structure and a
typology. TRAMES, 5(55/50) (3): 234-254.
Rokeach, M. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York, The Free Press.
Thompson, M. R. and Ellis, et al. 1990. Cultural Theory. Boulder, SF, Westview Press.
Rohrschneider, R. 1993. Environmental belief systems in Western Europe: a
hierarchical model of constraint. Comparative Political Studies, 26: 3-30.
Schwab, D. P. 1980. Construct validity in organization behaviour. In B. M. Staw and L.
L. Cummings (eds.) Research in organizational behaviour (pp. 3–43). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Shepherd D.A., Kuskova, V. and Patzelt, H. 2009. Measuring the values that underlie
sustainable development: The development of a valid scale. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 30 (2): 246-256
The Sustainable Livelihoods Trust, http://www.sustrust.org/
Sinha, J.B.P. Daftaur, C.N. Gupta, R.K. Mishra, R.C. Jayseetha, R. Jha, S.S. Verma, J.
Vijayakumar, V.S.R. 1994. Regional Similarities and Differences in People’s Beliefs,
Practices and Preferences, Psychology and Developing Societies, 6: 131-149.
Willis, H. H., and DeKay, M. L. 2007. The roles of group membership, beliefs, and
norms in ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 5: 1365 - 1380
16