تحلیل نگرش کارکنان یگان حفاظت از جنگل ها نسبت به پارادایم جدید زیست محیطی: مطالعه موردی استان گلستان

Extended Abstract:Introduction: Today's environmental issues are deeply socialized and consequently, a responsible view of the environment is one of the hallmarks of many societies for moving towards sustainable development. Environmental attitudes are defined as a set of friendly (positive) and unfriendly (negative) feelings towards the environment and related topics. Environmental attitudes are strong predictors of environmental behaviors. Therefore, solving environmental crises depends on changing one’s attitude and perceived value to the environment. Two perspectives can be identified in terms of two paradigms regarding attitudes towards the environment. One view is referred to as the dominant social paradigm and the other is the new environmental paradigm. The new environmental paradigm points to the limitations that must inevitably be placed on human (economic) growth, namely the importance of maintaining a balance between nature and the development of a sustainable economy, or the need to rethink the belief that nature exists solely for the sake of human needs. This paradigm emphasizes the balanced relationship between humans and other species as well as sustainability in the use of natural resources. This paradigm consists of three dimensions, which include ‘growth restriction’, ‘rejecting anthropocentrism’, and accepting the ‘fragility of nature’s balance’. Given the importance of attitudes towards the environment and its role in dealing with nature, the question posed in this study is: which environmental perspective is common among societies? Some experts attribute environmental problems to people and believe that their views on the environment are not appropriate and their indifference to the environment is excessive and unjustifiable. But is this claim true, and is it just for ordinary people? In other words, do natural resource management and conservationists have a good view of the environment? This research was conducted to find the environmental views of forest guard staff in Golestan province. Methodology: This research was conducted using the survey research method. The study population consisted of the Forest Guard staff of the Golestan Province. Using the stratified random sampling method, 264 of them were selected in the counties of Golestan province. Data collection was done in 2018 using a questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire included questions about the demographic and occupational characteristics of staff including age, marital status, work experience, level of education, and place of residence. The second part consisted of 15 items related to the Environmental Attitude Index based on the new environmental paradigm. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were confirmed by face validity and Cronbach's test, respectively. Discussion: The results of the study showed that the average age of respondents was 40.36 years. They had an average of 14.26 years of work experience. The majority of them (92%) were married. Also, 60.2% of them lived in cities, and the rest in rural areas. The average educational level of the study samples was above the high school diploma. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the structure of Forest Guard staff’s attitudes towards the new environmental paradigm derives from five factors including ecological equilibrium, growth restriction, technology-oriented, optimism about the future, and anthropocentrism, which explained 56.32% of the variance of the dependent variable. Among these factors, ‘growth restriction’ is the first priority and ‘no optimism about the future’ is the last priority. Married participants reject more anthropocentrism than singles, but singles are more skeptical about the future of the environment than married. The attitudes of Forest Guard staff were independent of age, marital status, and place of residence, but with increasing levels of education, their attitude towards the new environmental paradigm became weaker. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed that the environmental attitude of the study population could be assessed at a relatively appropriate level. However, this attitude was not strong enough. In addition, attitudes towards the new environmental paradigm is a multidimensional phenomenon with five dimensions including ecological equilibrium, growth restriction, technology-oriented, optimism about the future, and anthropocentrism. The dimensions revealed in the present study are consistent with those introduced for the new environmental paradigm in other studies, namely the rejection of human dominance over nature, ecological balance, and limited development. Using re-training and in-service programs to improve the environmental attitudes of Forest Guard staff are suggested. Keywords: Environment, Attitude, Conservation, Natural Resources. References:- Ai-He, H., & Greenberg, S. (2008). Motivating in Sustainable Energy Consumption in the Home. Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary. 5 p.- Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E., & Nowak, P. (1982). Measuring Environmental Concern: The New Environmental Paradigm Scale. The Journal of Environmental Education, 13(3), 39-43.- Amburgey, J. W., & Thoman, D. B. (2012). Dimensionality of the New Ecological Paradigm Issues of Factor Structure and Measurement. Journal of Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 235-256.- Baar, S. (2003). A Cortical Mechanism for Triggering Top-Down Facilitation in Visual Object Recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(4), 600-609.- Barr, S. (2004). Are We All Environmentalists Now? Rhetoric and Reality in Environmental Action. Geoforum, 35(2), 231-249.- Bloom, J. W., & Trumbell, D. (2008). Evaluation of Environmental Attitudes: Analysis and Results of a Scale Applied to University Student. Journal of University of Zaragoza, 91(6), 988-1009.- Bord, R. J., O’Connor, R. E., & Fisher, A., (2000). In What Sense Does the Public Need to Understand Global Climate Change?. Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 205-218.- Catton Jr, W. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology. Journal of American Behavioral Scientist, 24(1), 15-47.- Cheng, T. M., Wu, H. C., & Huang, L. M. (2013). The Influence of Place Attachment on the Relationship between Destination Attractiveness and Environmentally Responsible Behavior for Island Tourism in Penghu, Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(8), 1166-1187.- Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2010). The Impact of Direct and Indirect Experiences on the Development of Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 379-392.- Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The New Environmental Paradigm. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.- Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The New Environmental Paradigm: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19 .- Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, G. A., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring Endorsement of the New Environmental Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.- Gomera, A., Villamandos, F., & Vaquero, M. (2013). Construcción de Indicadores de Creencias Ambientales a Partir de la Escala NEP. Acción Psicológica, 10(1), 149-160.- Grunert, S. C., & Juhl, H. J. (1995). Values, Environmental Attitudes and Buying of Organic Foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 39-62.- Hernandez, B., Suarez, E., Martinez-Torvisco, J., & Hess, S. (2000). The Study of Environmental Beliefs by Fact Analysis, Research in the Canary Islands, Spain. Journal of Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 612-636.- Hini, D., Gendall, P., & Kearnz, Z. (1995). The Link Between Environmental Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Marketing Bulletin, 6(3), 22-31.- Kaiser, F. G., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental Attitude and Ecological Behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1-19.- Kennedy, J. J., Hayens, R. W., & Zhou, X. (2005). Line Officers Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values and the Agency Reward System, General Technical Report. PNW: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.- Kil, N., Holland, S. M., & Stein, T. V. (2014). Structural Relationships between Environmental Attitudes, Recreation Motivations, and Environmentally Responsible Behaviors. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7-8, 16-25.- Kilbourne, W. E., Beckmann, S. C., Lewis, A., & Dam, Y. V. (2001). A Multinational Examination of the Role of the Dominant Social Paradigm in Environmental Attitudes of University Students. Journal of Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 209-228.- Lee, E. B. (2008). Environmental Attitudes and Information Sources among African American College Students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 29-42.- Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2015). The Effects of Recreation Experience, Environmental Attitude, and Biospheric Value on the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Nature-Based Tourists. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(7), 193-208.- Lou, Y., & Deng, J. (2007). The New Environmental Paradigm and Nature-Based Tourism Motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 392-402.- Milbrath, L. W., & Fisher, B. V. (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society. Suny Press.- Moyano, E., & Palomo, G. (2014). Propiedades Psicométricas de la Escala Nuevo Paradigma Ecológico (NEP-R) en Población Chilena. Psico, 45(3), 415-423.- Nordlund, A. M., & Gravill, J. (2003). Effects of Values, Problem Awareness, and Personal Norm on Willingness to Reduce Personal Car Use. Journal of Environmaental Psychology, 23, 339-347.- Ntanos, S., Kyriakopoulos, G., Skordoulis, M., Chalikias, M., & Arabatzis, G. (2019). An Application of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale in a Greek Context. Energies, 12(2), 1-18.- Rajput, N., & Bajaj, P. (2011). Pro Environmental Attitude and Green Buying: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Manag

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.