=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper69
|storemode=property
|title=Investigation of the Relationship Between Ecological Sensitivity and Renewable Energy Investment Acceptance by Using the NEP Scale
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper69.pdf
|volume=Vol-2030
|authors=Stamatios Ntanos,Garyfallos Arabatzis,Stavros Tsiantikoudis
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/NtanosAT17
}}
==Investigation of the Relationship Between Ecological Sensitivity and Renewable Energy Investment Acceptance by Using the NEP Scale==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper69.pdf
Investigation of the relationship between ecological
sensitivity and renewable energy investment acceptance
by using the NEP scale
Stamatios Ntanos1, Garyfallos Arabatzis1, Stavros Ch. Tsiantikoudis1
1
Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources,
Agricultural Sciences and Forestry School, Democritus University of Thrace, Orestiada,
68200, Greece, sdanos@ath.forthnet.gr
1
Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources,
Agricultural Sciences and Forestry School, Democritus University of Thrace, Orestiada,
68200, Greece, garamp@fmenr.duth.gr
1
Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources,
Agricultural Sciences and Forestry School, Democritus University of Thrace, Orestiada,
68200, Greece, stsianti@fmenr.duth.gr
Abstract. The aim of this study is to investigate the relation between
ecological sensitivity and renewable energy acceptance. A questionnaire
known as the NEP scale was used to measure ecological sensitivity, by using a
sample of 360 respondents from the area of Evia, Greece. Statistical analysis
revealed the existence of a positive relationship between ecological sensitivity
and willingness to pay more for renewable energy. Furthermore, a statistical
significant relation was found between ecological sensitivity and citizens’
views concerning the contribution of renewable energy sources to
environmental improvement.
Keywords: environment, renewable energy, ecological sensitivity, green
investments, NEP scale
1 Introduction
Public perception towards renewable energy has positively changed during recent
years. People are becoming more sensitive towards environmental degradation
motivated by increased energy consumption, which is linked to economic
development. Also there is a growing concern on the limitation of traditional energy
sources and the climate change phenomenon (Tsantopoulos et al, 2014; Ntanos et al,
2015; Kyriakopoulos et. al 2010a, b; Chalikias et.al. 2010a, b; Kolovos et., al 2010;
Kyriakopoulos et al., 2015; Papageorgiou et al., 2015). These facts make sustainable
development an absolutely essential approach for businesses in order for them to
grow and keep up with new technologies (Tsekouropoulos et al, 2015).
A noticeable shift towards green development has already been recorded, which is
further motivated by broad public access to environmental information (Coburn and
561
Farhar, 2004; Vasseur and Kemp, 2015). Ecological sensitivity is in the epicenter of
environmental research during the last 40 years. Moreover, green marketing is of
high importance and plays a crucial role in contemporary societies, since it improves
the quality of products and satisfies the customers’ needs (Skordoulis et al., 2013;
Armira et al., 2016; Tsekouropoulos, 2016). Also, social responsibility towards the
environment and ecologically conscious citizens should be integrated in marketing
and economics policies (Tsekouropoulos et al, 2013). The most widely used
questionnaire to measure ecological sensitivity is the New Environmental Paradigm
scale (known as the NEP scale) suggested by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) in an
attempt to measure people’s view towards the natural environment. The original tool
includes 12 Likert type questions in an attempt to measure the degree to which
people perceive themselves as part of nature and the degree of awareness concerning
human impact on earth’s ecosystem (ecological worldview). The NEP scale was
conceptualized because of the authors’ recognition that a measurable system of
environmental beliefs exists among other personality characteristics (Dunlap and
Van Liere, 1984). Since then, the original NEP scale was revised several times
(Dunlap et al, 1992; Dunlap et al, 2000). The latest revision was performed in order
to include the idea of “human exemptionalism” suggesting that humans can
overcome natural constrains. The revised scale also includes questions on the
possibility of an ecocrisis (Dunlap et al, 2000). The revised NEP questionnaire
includes a total of 15 items that are set on the 5-point Likert scale. According to
Dunlap et al. (2000), the seven even numbered items (questions 2,4,6,8,10,12 and 14)
are meant to represent statements endorsed by the dominant social paradigm (DSP).
The Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) is a more anthropocentric view, supporting
the ideas of economic interest, technological progress and self-government (Pirages
and Ehrlich, 1974). The eight odd items (questions 1,3,5,7,9,11,13, and 15) are
meant to reflect endorsement of the new environmental paradigm (NEP), therefore
representing a proactive, increased ecological sensitivity of the respondents.
Moreover, the scale is further broken down into five sub-scales consisting of three
elements per sub-scale. These sub-scales and their respective questions are: the
perception of the limits of growth (q1, q6, q11), non-anthropocentrism (q2, q7, q12)
the fragility of nature, q13), non-acceptance of human supremacy (q4, q9, q14) and
the possibility of ecological crisis (q5, q10 and q15).
The main research aim of this study is to estimate the NEP and DSP subscales for
the island of Evia in Greece, in order to examine if there is a correlation between
ecological views of people and public acceptance of renewable energy investments.
2 NEP scale applications
In a multidimensional study on environmental attitudes, including 14 countries,
the revised NEP scale was used. It was found that the average reliability varied
among countries, with the alpha coefficient to be between 0.47 – 0.81 with an
average reliability of 0.70. The average NEP scale score was reported to range
between 3.67 (United States) and 4.11 (Canada). It is mentioned that personal values
like universalism and tradition influence environmental attitudes (Schultz and
562
Zelezny, 1999). In an interesting review paper on the NEP scale, results from 139
studies (58,279 participants) were normalized and compared. It is reported that the
NEP scale may be used in various formats, including 5-point scale, 7-point or 10-
point and also 12–point versions. It concludes that although the NEP Scale has been
widespread used, this has not been done systematically but in varying ways
(Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010). A recent research review by Krosnick et al. (2005)
suggests that data quality improves when 7–point scales are used. In a study
performed on students a positive relationship was found between environmental
knowledge and environmental attitudes of the students (Pe'er et al., 2007). In another
review paper for the period 1988-1998 reports that women exhibit stronger
environmental attitudes than men (Zelezny et al, 2000). In a recent study using the
NEP scale on urban design professionals, the mean score was 3.68/5. It is mentioned
that age, gender, and profession did not correlate with ecological view (Wallhagen
and Magnusson, 2017). In an interesting study concerning the use of NEP scale in
Nigera, a test of reliability was conducted and Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.61 was
obtained. In the same study, it is reported that a NEP score of 3 out of 5 is the
boundary between an anthropocentric and a pro-ecological worldview (Ogunbode,
2013).
3 Methodology
The survey was conducted in the Greek island of Evia during the period of
September 2016 to October 2016, using random stratified sampling. For the
calculation of the sample size, a pre-study was conducted in the area with a sample of
size n = 50 subjects. By using this pivot sample, the standard deviation (s) was
calculated for each quantitative variable, and the ratio (p) for each qualitative
variable research. Appropriate sample size was estimated at 360 respondents, by
using the proportions equation, with an error e = 0,05. The questionnaire is divided
into two sections. The first section contains the revised NEP scale questionnaire,
under the 7-point form. The mean scores on the subscales of the dominant social
paradigm (DSP) and the new ecological paradigm (NEP) were calculated. The
second section of the questionnaire contains questions about renewable energy
sources. The questions concentrate on the degree of public knowledge and
acceptance for various forms of renewable sources. The questions were drawn from
similar surveys on social acceptance of RES (Arabatzis and Myronidis, 2011;
Chalikias 2013; Chalikias and Kolovos 2013; Kyriakopoulos and Chalikias, 2013;
Arabatzis and Malesios, 2013; Zografakis et al. 2010). Research hypotheses to be
tested include: 1) statistical significance of relationship between willingness to pay
for renewable energy and mean score on the NEP scale and 2) RES contribution to
environmental protection and mean score on the NEP scale. Statistical analysis
includes descriptive statistics, independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA.
563
4 Analysis
The average age of the sample is 38.6 years and the predominant age group
category is 41-44 years, including 30.0% of the respondents. The predominant level
of education is high school (43.3%). A percentage of 48% of the sample declared an
individual annual income up to € 10.000, while it should be noted that about 1/5 of
the sample has an annual income below € 5000. Concerning occupational status,
employees in both public and private sectors account for 51.4% of the sample, while
a percentage of 22.5% is occupied by the categories of unemployed, students and
housekeepers. With regard to the area of residence, the majority of the sample
(40.1%) resides in suburban areas, a percentage of 32.8% in urban areas and the
remaining 27.1% in rural areas. As described in the introduction section, the NEP
scale is used to measure environmental and ecological sensitivity of the respondents.
The scale is divided into two subscales, measuring ecological sensitivity of the
respondents (variable NEP proactive) and the more anthropocentric view of the
dominant social paradigm (variable DSP dominant), supporting the belief of human
superiority over all other species, the belief that the earth can offer unlimited
resources and that progress is an inherent part of human history.
As we can see from the mean scores in Table 1, the sample exhibits a proactive
attitude since the mean score of the NEP scale (5.3 out of 7) is significant higher
then their score on the anthropocentric approach DSP dominant (4.24 out of 7).
Table 1. Mean score on the NEP scale, depicting the subscales of the new ecological
paradigm (NEP Proactive) and the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP dominant)
Mean score of the two dimensions of the NEP scale (proactive/dominant)
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
NEP proactive 360 2.63 7.00 5.34 0.78
DSP dominant 360 1.29 6.57 4.25 0.99
Concerning the contribution of renewable energy systems, there is a positive
public attitude as about 51% responded that renewable energy sources contribute to
the improvement of living standards while 65.5% answered that they contribute to
environmental improvement. Approximately 30% of the sample agreed or strongly
agreed on the statement that renewable energy is an economically efficient and
socially acceptable investment area. When asked about factors contributing towards
the spread of renewables, 71% of the respondents agreed on the increasing need for
environmental protection.
To test research hypothesis, the NEP proactive scale mean score was used. Before
the hypotheses tests, a test of normality was performed to variable “NEP proactive”
by using 1-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Variable “NEP proactive” was found
to be normally distributed. In a dichotomous question concerning willingness to
accept a higher electricity cost for renewable energy, a percentage of 40% of the
sample gave a positive answer (145 out of 356 respondents), while 60% gave a
564
negative answer. Those who answered positively, exhibit a higher mean score (5.46
out of 7) in the NEP scale of ecological sensitivity than those who do not want to
share the extra cost, as can be seen in table 2. By using the Independent Samples t-
test, this difference between the mean score was found to be statistically significant
at the 99.9 % level, meaning that ecological sensitivity is positively associated with
willingness to pay for more for electricity coming from renewable energy sources, as
can be observed in table 3.
Table 2. Difference of mean score on the NEP proactive scale, for the categories of people
who are willing to pay more for RES (yes) and those who are not willing to pay more (no).
Willingness to pay
more Mean score Std. Std. Error
N
for Renewable (NEP proactive) Deviation Mean
Energy
yes 145 5.46 .69 .058
no 211 5.24 .82 .057
Table 3. Independent samples t-test for the statistical significance of the mean difference on
the NEP scale score between the categories yes/no on variable WTP, as depicted in table 2.
Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
Sig. Mean
F Sig. t df
(2-tailed) Difference
4.889 .028 2.612 354.0 .009 .218
nep_proactive
2.695 339.4 .007 .218
On a question about the contribution of renewable energy sources on
environmental improvement, the majority of the sample also answered positively. A
hypothesis test was performed between this question and the NEP scale score by
using the one-way ANOVA. As it can be seen in table 4 and fig. 1, a statistical
significant relation was found at the 95% level. As the score on the ecological
sensitivity scale increases, a person seems to be more positive towards RES
contribution to the environment.
565
Table 4. One-way ANOVA hypothesis test for the relationship between the variables of NEP
proactive and public perception on the contribution of RES to environment
Hypothesis test between NEP proactive mean score and RES contribution to environment
Mean
Sum of Squares df Square F Sig.
Between Groups 7.677 5 1.535 2.546 .028
Within Groups 174.906 290 .603
Total 182.583 295
Fig. 1. Mean plots between the NEP scale and respondents opinion on the contribution of
renewable energy systems to environmental improvement, depicting a positive relation
5 Conclusions
Ecological sensitivity was estimated by using the NEP scale for the region of Evia
in Greece. The results revealed a positive ecological attitude among the respondents
and are comparable to similar samples from other countries as the UK and Turkey
(Pahl et al, 2005; Erdoğan, 2009). Hypothesis tests were performed in order to
investigate the relationship of ecological sensitivity and acceptance of renewable
energy sources. A statistical significant relationship was found between willingness
to pay for RES and ecological sensitivity as measured by the NEP scale. Also a
566
positive relation was found between the NEP scale mean score and public perception
on renewable sources contribution to environmental improvement. It therefore
appears that public attitude towards green investments becomes more positive as
ecological sensitivity increases. The results of this study suggest that an evaluation of
the ecological sensitivity between the residents of local communities, amongst other
personality characteristics, may be useful in order to determine the degree of public
acceptance in the area of renewable energy investments.
References
1. Arabatzis, G. and Malesios, Ch. (2013) Pro-environmental attitudes of users and
non-users of fuelwood in a rural area of Greece. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 22: 621 - 630.
2. Arabatzis, G. and Myronidis, D. (2011) Contribution of SHP Stations to the
development of an area and their social acceptance. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 15 (8): 3909-3917.
3. Armira, A., Armira, E., Drosos, D., Skordoulis, M. and Chalikias, M. (2016)
Determinants of consumers behavior toward alcohol drinks: the case of Greek
millennials. International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship
Management. 10(1): 14-27.
4. Chalikias, M.S, Kalaitzidis, I., Karasavvidis, G. and Pechlivanis, E.F. (2010)
Relationship between sustainable farming and agricultural training: The case of
Pella prefecture (Northern Greece), Journal of Food, Agriculture and
Environment 8 (3-4 Part 2): 1388-1393.
5. Chalikias, M.S. and Kolovos, K.G. (2013) Citizens’ views in Southern Greece
PART II: The contribution of forests to quality of life, Journal of Environmental
Protection and Ecology 14 (2): 629-637.
6. Chalikias, M.S. (2013) Citizens’ views in Southern Greece PART I: The forests’
threats, Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 14(2): 509-516.
7. Chalikias, M.S., Kyriakopoulos, G. and Kolovos K.G. (2010) Environmental
sustainability and financial feasibility evaluation of woodfuel biomass used for
a potential replacement of conventional space heating sources. Part I: A Greek
case study, Operational Research 10 (1): 43-56.
8. Coburn, T. C. and Farhar, Β. (2004) Public Reaction to Renewable Energy
Sources and Systems, In Encyclopedia of Energy, edited by Cutler J. Cleveland,
Elsevier, New York: 207-222.
9. Dunlap, R. and Van Liere, K. (1978) The “new environmental paradigm”: A
proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of
Environmental Education, 9: 10–19.
10. Dunlap, R. and Van Liere, K. (1984) Commitment to the dominant social
paradigm and concern for environmental quality, Social Science Quarterly, 65:
1013–1028.
567
11. Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A. and Jones, R. (2000) New Trends in
Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New
Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56: 425–
442.
12. Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., and Howell, R. (1992) Measuring
endorsement of an ecological worldview: a revised NEP scale. Paper presented
in the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociology Society, PA.
13. Erdoğan, N. (2009) Testing the new ecological paradigm scale: A Turkish case,
African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4: 1023–1031.
14. Hawcroft, L. and Milfont, T. (2010) The use (and abuse) of the new
environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis, Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 30 (2): 143-158.
15. Kolovos, K.G., Kyriakopoulos, G. and Chalikias, M.S. (2011) Co-evaluation
of basic woodfuel types used as alternative heating sources to existing energy
network, Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 12 (2): 733-742.
16. Kortenkamp, K. V. and Moore, C. F. (2006) Time, uncertainty, and individual
differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 603–615.
17. Krosnick, J. A., Judd, C. M. and Wittenbrink, B. (2005) The measurement of
attitudes. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Handbook of
attitudes and attitude change: Basic principles, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates: 21-76.
18. Kyriakopoulos, G. and Chalikias, M.S. (2013) The Investigation of Woodfuels’
Involvement in Green Energy Supply Schemes at Northern Greece: The Model
Case of the Thrace, Procedia Technology 8: 445 – 452.
19. Kyriakopoulos, G., Chalikias, M.S., Kalaitzidou, O., Skordoulis, M. and
Drosos, D. (2015) Environmental viewpoint of fuelwood management. In:
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on ICT in Agriculture, Food
and Environment (HAICTA 2015). Kavala, September 2015. Athens: HAICTA:
416-425.
20. Kyriakopoulos, G., Kolovos, K.G., and Chalikias, M.S. (2010) Environmental
sustainability and financial feasibility evaluation of woodfuel biomass used for
a potential replacement of conventional space heating sources. Part IΙ: A
combined Greek and the nearby Balkan Countries case study , Operational
Research 10 (1): 57-69.
21. Kyriakopoulos, G.L., Kolovos, K.G. and Chalikias, M.S. (2010) Woodfuel
prosperity towards a more sustainable energy protection, in Lytras et al.,
Communications in Computer and Information Science 112 CCIS (Part 2): 19-
25.
22. Ntanos, S., Arabatzis, G., Milioris, K., Chalikias, M.S. and Lalou, P. (2015)
Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions on a Global Level, Proceedings of the
4th International Conference: Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies in the
Economic and Administrative Sciences (I.C.Q.Q.M.E.A.S. 2015): 251-260.
568
23. Ogunbode, C.A. (2013) The NEP scale: measuring ecological attitudes and
worldviews in an African context, Environment, Development and
Sustainability 15 (6): 1477–1494.
24. Pahl, S., Harris, P., Todd, H. A. and Rutter, D. (2005) Comparative optimism
for environmental risks, Journal of Environmental Psychology,25: 1–11.
25. Papageorgiou, A., Skordoulis, M., Trichias, C., Georgakellos, D. and
Koniordos, M. (2015) Emissions trading scheme: evidence from the European
Union countries. In: Communications in Computer and Information Science.
535: Proceedings of Creativity in Intelligent Technologies and Data Science
Conference, Eds., Kravets et al. Volgograd, September 2015. Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing: 222-233.
26. Pe'er, S., Goldman, D. and Yavetz, B. (2007) Environmental Literacy in
Teacher Training: Attitudes, Knowledge, and Environmental Behavior of
Beginning Students, The Journal of Environmental Education, 39 (1): 45-59.
27. Pirages, D.C. and Ehrlich, P.R. (1974) Ark II: social response to environmental
imperatives. San Francisco: Freeman.
28. Schultz, P. W. and Zelezny, L. (1999) Values As Predictors Of Environmental
Attitudes: Evidence For Consistency Across 14 Countries, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Volume 19 (3): 255-265.
29. Skordoulis, M., Tsoulfas, A., Kornelaki, E. and Samanta, I. (2013) The effect of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions on consumers’ behaviour. In:
Proceedings of eRA-8 International Scientific Conference. Economy Session.
Piraeus, September 2013. Piraeus: T.E.I. of Piraeus: 47-58.
30. Tsantopoulos, G., Arabatzis, G. and Tampakis, S. (2014) Public attitudes
towards photovoltaic developments: Case study from Greece, Energy Policy,
71: 94-106.
31. Tsekouropoulos, G., Andreopoulou, Z. and Misso, R. (2015) Green business,
Integrated marketing communications and green marketing strategy for food
sustainability, Book- GOingREEN –A Strategic Tool for the Green Society in
Campania Region, Franco Angeli s.r.l., Milano, Italy: (3): 123-143.
32. Tsekouropoulos, G., (2016) Green Marketing and Entrepreneurship: The Strong
Environmental Value For sustainable Development, Book of Economics and
Governance of Sustainability Tourism and New Media, 378(9): 37-45.
33. Tsekouropoulos, G., Andreopoulou, Z., Koliouska, C. and Katsonis, N., (2013)
Marketing and organizational evaluation of rural firms in the Internet,
International Journal of Technology Marketing, 8 (3): 272-286.
34. Vasseur, V. and Kemp, R. (2015) The adoption of PV in the Netherlands: A
statistical analysis of adoption factors, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 41: 483–494.
35. Wallhagen, M., and Magnusson, P. (2017) Ecological Worldview among Urban
Design Professionals, Sustainability, 9: 498.
569
36. Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P. and Aldrich, C. (2000) New Ways of Thinking
about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in
Environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56: 443–457.
37. Zografakis, N., Sifaki, E., Pagalou, M., Nikitaki, G., Psarakis, V. and
Tsagarakis, K. (2010) Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay
for renewable energy sources in Crete, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 14 (3):1088-1095.
570