Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 634e641

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Attitudes of preservice teachers: Design and validation of an attitude

scale toward environmental education
Uxío Pe


rez-Rodríguez a, *, Mercedes Varela-Losada a, Francisco-Javier Alvarez-Lires a
,
Pedro Vega-Marcote b
a
Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo (Spain), A Xunqueira s/n, 36005, Pontevedra, Spain
b ~ a (Spain), Campus Elvin
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of A Corun ~ a, 15071, A Corun
~ a, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A scale has been built and validated for Environmental Education in Spain which allows to explore
Received 28 October 2016 teachers’ attitudes regarding two topics: i) their responsibility and commitment to sustainability; and ii)
Received in revised form their involvement in Environmental Education. It was validated with Spanish preservice teachers
26 June 2017
(N ¼ 889). Its internal consistency is good (a ¼ .804, glb ¼ .875, U ¼ .810). Principal component analysis
Accepted 30 June 2017
found a structure with five interrelated factors (with the limitation of having one factor with only two
items). Confirmatory factor analysis confirms these results (c2/gl ¼ 1.47; AIC ¼ 312.16; CFI ¼ .955;
^ as de
Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo RMSEA ¼ .033). Therefore, this scale could be a good instrument of measuring attitudes toward Envi-
Almeida ronmental Education that contributes to sustainability and providing innovative information, especially
in connection with the most critical attitudes toward the current socioeconomic and educational model.
Keywords: © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Environmental Education
Attitude scale
Teacher training
Design
Validation

1. Introduction
Recent reports by prestigious international bodies (GEO-5,
2012; Worldwatch Institute, 2015) are warning about the rapid
environmental damage that our planet is experiencing. The causes
are linked to the dominant socioeconomic model and to human
actions that are unsustainably based on continuous growth, all of
which are increasing rapidly in a globalised, industrialised and
consumeristic world (Alperovitz, 2014; Bardi, 2011; Stiglitz, 2015).
Achieving Sustainable Development (UNITED NATIONS, 1987;
UNESCO, 2014) requires changes in policies, in companies’ pro-
duction methods and in people’s lifestyles, especially regarding
consumption (Ra €thzel and Uzzell, 2009). Facing this challenge,
schools and universities are greatly influenced by prevailing
political-educational rhetoric in such a way that promotes limited
sustainability models and continually replicating established ways


of life (Alvarez and Vega, 2009; Feinstein and Kirchgasler, 2015;
Lozano et al., 2013; Winter, 2007). Therefore, after decades of EE,
we have made advances in raising social awareness about envi-
ronmental problems but no progress in achieving sustainable ways
of life (Gifford, 2014). New initiatives are needed to address the
interconnected challenges of economic development, ecological
integrity, and social justice (Luederitz et al., 2016).
In this context, educational institutions need to undergo a
transformation process as part of broader social change (Schelly
et al., 2012). Thus, EE of a transformative nature and oriented to
Sustainability is necessary, encouraging the training of individuals
capable of analysing their lifestyles and evolving towards fairer
communities that are more responsible and more environmentally
friendly. The change must happen through the empowerment of
people and the formation of informed and environmentally active
citizens, which should lead to the behavioural transformation of
entire communities and societies (Ferreira, 2013). But this requires
teachers to critically and imaginatively reflect on their own life-
styles and teaching (Ferreira, 2013; Jickling and Wals, 2012).

Acronyms: EE, Environmental Education.

* Corresponding author.

rez-Rodríguez).
E-mail address: uxio.perez@uvigo.es (U. Pe

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.245
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 U. P
erez-Rodríguez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 634e641
2. Environmental education aimed at promoting
sustainability
Promoting sustainable lifestyles is an enormously complex
objective (Stern, 2000). After forty years of research in the field of
EE, there are still unanswered questions, aspects that require
further study, and notable gaps (Reid and Scott, 2013). There are, in
addition, differing pedagogical tendencies and models that are
sometimes even contradictory. Heimlich and Ardoin (2008), in
their well-known literature review, indicate that, facing behav-
ioural tendencies, new models have emerged based on autonomy
and the development of competence.
In a world as complex and changing as ours, it is required a
conceptualization of education as based on offering opportunities
to teach people to adapt themselves and improve (Nussbaum,
2011). Therefore, many authors (Ferreira, 2009; Huckle, 2008;
Jensen and Schnack, 2006; Mogensen and Schnack, 2010; Stables
and Scott, 2002) argue that EE should be action-oriented,
strengthened and qualified by critical thinking on the part of the
student body, an educational ideal from a democratic perspective.
For this reason, it is necessary to introduce the culture of
complexity in the classroom, favouring understanding of complex
problems, participation and visibility of different points of view as
well as the relationships between environment-society-economy
(Corneya and Reid, 2007), paying special attention to the socio-
economic framework that defines the current unsustainable trends


(Alvarez and Vega, 2009). In this line, people should be encouraged
to reflect on their everyday experience and to understand it. This
can uncover structural relationships and ways in which they take
part in the perpetuation of these relationships through their actions
(Ra€thzel and Uzzell, 2009).
Therefore, recent studies in this field suggest that EE which
would facilitate the transition towards sustainable lifestyles must:
- Be based on research into sustainability and problem solving,
with approaches based on information processing, reflection on
the complexity of environmental issues, and its relationship
with the socioeconomic model; and making autonomous,
reflective and responsible decisions towards the environment


and people (Alvarez and Vega, 2009; Mogensen and Mayer,
2005; Stevenson and Stirling, 2010; UNECE, 2005).
- Encourage the development of critical thinking, especially
regarding the role of people in the system and the influence of
socio-cultural and economic factors on their lifestyles (Jickling
and Wals, 2012; Kyburz-Graber, 2013; Varela-Losada et al.,
2016).
- Be based on a socio-constructivist approach, to encourage self-
construction of knowledge in a social setting and the students’
actual participation in the process (Disterheft et al., 2015; Lave
and Wenger, 1991; Mogensen and Schnack, 2010; Wals, 2007).
- Be inclusive, so that it involves the community, encourages
participation and enables the creation of learning networks that
facilitate the transfer of learning to the lives of individuals and
their communities (Hart, 1997; Vosniadou, 2001; Wals, 2007).
Thus, we need to look for educational models based on these
findings that allow us to contribute to the development of an
autonomous citizenry, capable of understanding the world, making
mindful decisions and acting in a sustainable and democratic way.
3. Teachers’ role
Consequently, forward-looking EE requires teaching staff that
are committed to sustainability, who understand the interdisci-
plinary and globalised nature of environmental issues and share the
635
goal of action using non-traditional teaching methods. The role of
the university in the achievement of this target, as the figure
responsible for the proper training of teachers, is quite significant.
Teacher training should become a means of information and
communication for Sustainable Development, also making it
possible to implement. However, the effect of higher education on
student environmental literacy shows that it is normally very
limited (Rideout, 2005; Yavetz et al., 2009). Consequently, most of
the members of the university community (including future
teachers) are not trained and involved in the principles that Sus-
tainable Development preaches, and therefore, they are neither
aware nor prepared to act sustainably (Tilbury, 2012). More ini-
tiatives are necessary in universities to overcome the problems
encountered by the students and graduates in the implementation
of pro-environmental strategies and lifestyles (Fern
andez-
Manzanal et al., 2015; Hesselbarth and Schaltegger, 2014; Lozano,
2006).
In order to improve teacher training and change the teachers’
role, we should consider attitudes as important factors. In fact, at-
titudes are a crucial construct in environmental psychology, and a
large proportion of research literature focuses on them (Ajzen,
2001; Milfont, 2007; Milfont et al., 2010). They can be defined as
“a summary evaluation of a psychological object captured in such
attribute dimensions as good-bad, harmful-beneficial, pleasant-
unpleasant, and likable-dislikeable (Ajzen, 2001, p. 28).”, which
has its roots in the development of cognitive, affective, and
behavioural components (Albarracín et al., 2014; Eagly and
Chaiken, 1993).
Studying attitudes is relevant, above all, because of the possible
influence they have on human conduct (Ajzen, 2001; Stern and
Deitz, 1994). It may help us understand the way people see the
world (Dunlap, 2008; Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978) and they can
provide a good understanding of the set of beliefs, interests, feel-
ings or rules that influence pro-environmental action (Ajzen, 2001;
Ferna
ndez-Manzanal et al., 2007; Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010).
However, it needs to be taken into account that attitudes are
complex entities that can change depending on the context, and
their influence on behaviour is dependent on the obstacles and
difficulties associated with implementing environmental behav-
iour (Ajzen, 2001; Gardner and Stern, 2002). Thus, one cannot say
that this is a cause-and-effect relationship, since environmentally
significant behaviour is dauntingly complicated, both in its variety


and in its causal influences (Alvarez and Vega, 2009; Stern, 2000).
Therefore, researching this requires a complex approach that takes
into account these aspects.
Among the tools that are used to assess attitudes, the Likert-
type scales are the most common because they allow us to obtain
information quickly with a large number of people, are easy to
assess and, if they are made with the established requirements,
they can play the role for which they were designed (DeVellis,
1991). In the field of EE, there are already some valuables scales,
like the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale (Dunlap, 2008),
which has been used in a variety of contexts and with different
kinds of participants, the Environmental (2-MEV) Scale question-
naire (Bogner and Wiseman, 2006) or the Motivation Toward the
Environment Scale (METS) (Pelletier et al., 1998). In connection
with the teaching staff, there is also an important line of research
that uses this type of tools for the assessment of their environ-
mental attitudes, beliefs, and their self-efficacy in teaching (Biasutti
and Frate, 2016; Boubonari et al., 2013; Moseley and Utley, 2008;
Yang et al., 2010; Yavetz et al., 2009).
However, there is a lack of research focused on teaching staff
and their teaching style as seen from a critical approach (Varela-
Losada et al., 2016). There needs to be further research on teach-
ers’ stances or opinions, their compressive cultural models of social
636 U. P
erez-Rodríguez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 634e641

realities, and their approaches to learning (Hart, 2007) in order to
understand cultural, socioeconomic and political influences on
their behaviours, as stated by authors like Gifford (2014) or Uzzell
and Ra €thzel (2009). Instrumental to this is the design and valida-
tion of more tools to assess education that contributes to Sustain-
able Development (Biasutti and Frate, 2016; UNESCO, 2014).
In this context, it is relevant to wonder if teachers are aware of
environmental problems, if they partake in critical reflection on the
current socioeconomic and educational model, or if they defend
informed decision-making, since all of these are essential elements
to promote a commitment to sustainability, mindful decision-
making and critical thinking. Therefore, this work is aimed at
building and validating a scale of attitudes toward EE that allows us
to discover and associate teachers’ attitudes in two areas:
i) Their responsibility and commitment to sustainability, focusing
on their attitudes toward environmental problems, their indi-
vidual responsibility and their socioeconomic ideology. This
field can be useful in exploring their way of seeing the world and
environmental issues.
ii) EE based on developing skills, seeking to shape citizens and
communities that can deal with current and future problems.
This area may contribute to uncovering their way of under-
standing EE in practice.
4. Method
4.1. Participants
The sample used to carry out this study consisted of 889 un-
dergrad students in Early Childhood Education (45.5% of the total)
and Primary Education (54.5%) from the Spanish universities of
Vigo and A Corun ~ a. 83.4% of the preservice teachers were women.
Of them, 0.9% were under the age of 18; 71.5% were between 18 and
22; 23.3%, between 22 and 30; and 4.3%, over 30. Regarding the
course of study they had previously taken in high school, 2.8% had
chosen the Arts option; 27.9%, Sciences and Technology; and 69.3%,
Humanities and Social Sciences. The majority were from urban
areas (65.8%), while 34.2% were from rural ones.
4.2. Tool
Finally, we arrived at a version of the scale that consisted of 43
items (with options from 1 to 5, indicating whether they agree or
disagree with each item, as well as the magnitude of their agree-
ment or disagreement), which complied with the recommenda-
tions of the experts in the field (DeVellis, 1991; Ferna
ndez-
Manzanal et al., 2007). This compilation was three times larger
than the final version. It had a similar number of items presented
positively and negatively, and it included redundant issues posed in
different ways.
(iv) Administration procedure phase. It was administered in
December 2014. The questionnaire was answered anony-
mously in the presence of professors or collaborating staff.
The recognition of the answers was carried out by the SDAPS
programme, and the automatic processing was afterwards
reviewed. For the development of the scale in paper format,
the optical mark recognition software SDAPS version 1.1.7 for
Linux was used.
(v) Statistical analysis phase. For the descriptive, internal con-
sistency and exploratory analysis, SPSS™ 20 programme for
Windows was used. The Factor 9.3 programme was also used
for the study of the number of factors to be extracted and the
calculation of the glb and U coefficients. Confirmatory factor
analysis was carried out with AMOS™ 21 software.
(vi) Finally, the process of drafting the scale was completed with
a small portion of the sample (30 students) being asked to
read and answer the questionnaire carefully, noting those
items that could be ambiguous or confusing. In this last
phase, no problems were detected so none of the items were
deleted
5. Results
5.1. Selected items and reliability study
After administrating the questionnaire and analysing the reli-
ability and the factorial solutions obtained, 18 items were selected
for the final version of the instrument (See Table 1 and Appendix).
The answers to the negative questions were re-coded by reversing
their order, and the wording of certain items was modified to bal-
ance the number of favorable and unfavorable issues.
The alpha coefficient of the scale is a ¼ .804, which shows that

The development of the Attitudes Scale toward Environmental

Education (ASEE) was carried out in different stages: Table 1
Descriptive statistics and internal consistency analysis.

(i) Initial literature review phase, where the current conceptual Item M SD r awi
framework on EE was studied in formal contexts. In addition, i1 4.48 .70 .419 .794
a number of areas of interest were marked for inclusion, such i2 3.65 1.11 .302 .800
as EE’s objective, methodological approaches, socioeconomic i3 3.98 .96 .286 .800
i4 4.05 1.05 .524 .785
model, responsibility and concern about climate change.
i5 4.09 1.10 .409 .793
(ii) Collecting questionnaires and items of interest phase, where i6 4.60 .64 .416 .795
the scales used with teachers were taken into special account i7 4.48 .93 .550 .785


(for example, Vega and Alvarez, 2011; Yang et al., 2010; i8 4.32 .76 .435 .793
Yavetz et al., 2009). i9 4.38 .78 .382 .795
i10 3.26 1.14 .266 .803
(iii) Scale building phase, where a previous qualitative validation i11 3.20 1.04 .385 .794
was carried out with eight participating experts from the i12 3.57 1.07 .340 .797
Psychology and Teaching fields, who were selected for their i13 3.52 1.21 .341 .798
knowledge on the context and for their extensive experience i14 3.65 1.14 .313 .800
i15 3.89 1.19 .356 .797
in EE. This phase included several expert meetings, where,
i16 4.25 1.05 .451 .790
based on the collected items taken from the literature and i17 4.09 .98 .501 .787
others of our own, the clearest and most relevant questions i18 4.08 1.00 .424 .792
were selected. In addition, with the help of the experts, some Note. M ¼ mean; SD ¼ standard deviation; r ¼ correlation coefficient between the
items were scrutinized and reformulated to allow for further item and the rest of the scale; awi ¼ Cronbach’s alpha coefficient if the item was
probing into the dimensions of interest. eliminated.
 U. P
erez-Rodríguez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 634e641 637

its internal consistency is good. There is no item whose omission Table 3

increased the tool’s reliability. Configuration matrix after carrying out the analysis of main components and Pro-
max rotation.
In order to study the internal consistency of the scale, apart from
the a calculation, we have also calculated the coefficients U Item Factor
(McDonald, 1999) and glb (Woodhouse and Jackson, 1977), finding TEE ENP PCT IER SEM
the following: glb ¼ .875 and U ¼ .810.
i1 .861
i8 .636
i6 .636
i9 .633
5.2. Dimensional analysis i3 .496
i15 .868
i16 .769
The original sample (n ¼ 889), including students from all the
i18 .534
groups involved, was divided into two random subsamples i17 .439
(n1 ¼ 444 and n2 ¼ 445) to support the factor-structure reliability i5 .789
and the validity of the scale (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006). i2 .715
With the first, an exploratory analysis was done to develop a model i4 .561
i7 .458
of the main dimensions involved, and the second was used to i13 .754
perform a confirmatory factorial analysis. i14 -.336 .701
We performed a principal component analysis with Promax i10 .586
rotation. The measure of KMO sampling adequacy .828 and Bar- i12 .779
i11 .774
tlett’s sphericity test has a significance level of .000, which supports
the relevance to proceed to variable factorization. Note. Only the factorial weights greater than |.300| are shown, and those over |.400|
Following the standard criteria of Kaiser-Guttman (eigen- are highlighted in bold. Test of sphericity ¼ .000; KMO ¼ .828.

values>1), from the exploratory analysis, 5 factors are proposed
which explain 52.2% of the total variance. Its eigenvalues and the
common variance explained are presented in Table 2. The Factor 9.3
programme was also used to carry out the MAP test (Velicer, 1976)
and the Parallel Analysis based on the factorial analysis of mini-
mum range (Timmerman and Lorenzo-Seva, 2011) on the matrix of
correlations, which indicated that a factor had to be retained. This
circumstance shall be taken into consideration when carrying out
the confirmatory analysis to assess whether the option chosen (5
factors) is appropriate opposite the single factor option.
Table 3 shows the configuration matrix and makes clear every
item in each factor, which satisfy the following criteria:
- Item saturation in the main factor > .400.
- Item saturation in the other factors < .350.
- Saturation difference between the main factor and the
rest > .150.
Therefore, the results of the exploratory analysis show a factorial
structure with five well-defined factors:
- The first factor (TEE) is composed of 5 items and explains 24.7%
of the variance. It includes items related to the need to cover EE
at school, the involvement of the community and the develop-
ment of skills that will enable the transfer of learning toward
communities (such as participation or decision-making).
Table 2
Internal structure of the scale.
- The second factor (ENP) is composed of 4 items that explain 8.5%
of the common variance. Its items refer to the attitudes towards
a complex environmental problem.
- In the third factor (PCT), we can appreciate 4 items that explain
6.8% of the variance. In this case, the items relate to attitudes
toward complex environmental problems.
- Considering the fourth factor (IER), 6.4% of the common variance
is explained by its 3 items related to individual responsibility for
environmental problems and the way in which decision-making
takes place.
- Finally, the fifth factor (SEM) is comprised of 2 items that explain
5.9% of the variance, all of them referring to socioeconomic
ideology.
With regard to the number of items comprising each factor, it is
recommended to use at least four whenever possible, but the use of
three is acceptable (Hair et al., 2010). In this respect, it should be
noted that the last factor (SEM) is composed of only two items,
which is not the most desirable, particularly because this may cause
under-identification problems when carrying out the confirmatory
analysis. However, Worthington and Whittaker (2006, p. 821)
indicate that it is possible to retain a factor with only two items if
they are highly correlated with each other (i.e. r > .70) and rela-
tively uncorrelated with other variables, as is currently the case.
Under these circumstances, it may be appropriate to consider other
criteria in deciding whether to retain a factor. Given the clarity with
which it appears and its ease of interpretation, the decision is to
keep it.

Factor ATTITUDE TOWARD Code Number Eigenvalue % Common

of items variance 5.3. Confirmatory analysis
explained

Environmental Education, TEE 5 4.44 24.7

which would facilitate the
transfer of learning
Environmental problems
Methodology based on
participation and critical
thinking
Individual environmental
responsibility
Prevailing socioeconomic
model
The second subsample (n2 ¼ 445) was used to carry out the
confirmatory factor analysis. This analysis was performed with the
AMOS 21 software using the method of maximum likelihood esti-
ENP 4 1.52 8.5 mations with raw data. The covariance matrix is clearly explained
PCT 4 1.22 6.8
in Table 4.
Thus, three models were taken in consideration, and they are
IER 3 1.16 6.4 explained as follows:
SEM 2 1.06 5.9 - M1 is aligned with a single factor, as indicated by the result of
the Parallel Analysis and the MAP test.
638 U. P
erez-Rodríguez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 634e641

Table 4
Covariance matrix (significant p < .01). Subsample 2 (n2 ¼ 445).

TEE ENP PCT IER SEM

TEE .174 .101 .071 .072

ENP .137 .135 .145
PCT .063 .109
IER .091
SEM

- M2 refers to five interrelated factors (following the standard

criteria).
- M3 addresses five non-related factors (following the standard
criteria).

In this regard, it is also recommended to use various adjustment

indexes (Hooper et al., 2008). Thus, this study has involved a
combination of absolute and relative indicators (Table 5).
The value of the chi-squared (c2) test, which is used to reduce the
sensitivity of c2 to the sample size by dividing it between the degrees
of freedom, is considered perfect if its value is 1. There is no
consensus on what would be the maximum acceptable value for this
heuristic; stricter criterion consider values under 2 as correct
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007) and those more lax, values under 5 (Hu
and Bentler, 1999). By employing this heuristic, the M2 would clearly
have a good fit (c2M2 ¼ 1.47), that of the M1 model being more
questionable (c2M1 ¼ 2.99), the worst model being M3 (c2M3 ¼ 4.29).
The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) is used to estimate the
relative quality of a model with respect to the other, based on the
relative amount of information that is lost when using a given
model (Akaike, 1974). Lower values indicate better fit and a more
parsimonious model. In the case of the models studied, the AIC is
lower in M2 (AICM1 ¼ 512.06; AICM2 ¼ 312.16, AICM3 ¼ 690.93),
which indicates that it is the model with better fit.
For the calculation of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), it is
assumed that all the latent variables are uncorrelated and the
covariance matrix of the sample is compared with this null model.
It takes values between 0 and 1, indicating the higher the value as
the best fit. Hu and Bentler (1999) indicate that the value must be
.950. The CFI value calculated for M2 is adequate (CFIM2 ¼ .955),
while it is not so for the M1 (CFIM1 ¼ .794) and M3 (CFIM3 ¼ .658) Fig. 1. ASEE Confirmatory factor analysis (n ¼ 445). c2/gl ¼ 1.47; AIC ¼ 312.16;
models. CFI ¼ .955; RMSEA ¼ .033 [.022.042].
The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) index
reflects the adequacy of the model, with unknown parameters but
estimated in an optimal way to the covariance matrix of the pop- literature review and on the work accomplished at the expert
ulation (Byrne, 1998). Therefore, it favours low models. For good meetings.
values, Hu and Bentler (1999) propose those lower than .05, and - Construct validity: for its study, we have analysed the regression
acceptable those which are lower than .10. Using these criteria, the coefficients of the dimensions in the prediction of the items
RMSEA value is acceptable in M1 (RMSEAM1 ¼ .067) and M3 scores that make it up (Hair et al., 2010). In all cases, they are
(RMSEAM3 ¼ .086) and good in M2 (RMSEAM2 ¼ .033). significantly different from zero (p < .001), which indicates that
Taking into account the above, the best model of those presented the items for each factor share a significant proportion of
is that of 5 interrelated factors (Fig. 1), so this is the one to keep. common variance. In this way, half of the items have factor
loading higher than .700, and only three items do not reach the
5.4. Validity evidence minimum value of .500 recommended by Hair et al. (2010), one
of them by a small margin. Furthermore, the absence of crossed
- Content validity: the appropriateness of the selected items to saturations in the factorial structure proposed is evidence of this
the domain of interest, as well as the representativeness type of validity, because items should represent only one latent
and technical correction of the items, is based on the construct (Hair et al., 2010).
Table 5
Adjustment index of the models. Subsample 2 (n2 ¼ 445). 6. Discussion
Model Adjustment indexes
The results of the scale analysis shows that the instrument has
c2/gl AIC CFI RMSEA 90% CI
good internal consistency (a ¼ .804, glb ¼ .875 and U ¼ .810).
M1 One factor 2.99 512.06 .794 .067 [.060 .075] Moreover, the exploratory and confirmatory analysis show a
M2 Five interrelated factors 1.47 312.16 .955 .033 [.022 .042] factorial structure with five defined interrelated factors (with the
M3 Five non-related factors 4.29 690.93 .658 .086 [.079 .093]
limitations of having a factor with only two items), where the two
 U. P
erez-Rodríguez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 634e641
fields described are well represented.
Thus, the commitment to sustainability is reflected in:
- The ENP factor, whose items refer to participants’ attitudes to-
ward a complex environmental problem, climate change, since
it gives information on a fundamental aspect of transformative
EE: self-analysis of environmental issues (Mogensen and Mayer,
2005; UNECE, 2005). This stance is important because of the key
role of teachers in teaching students to deal with these problems
(Skamp et al., 2013).
- The IER factor includes items relating to individual re-
sponsibility and the way in which decision-making occurs. In
this way, it provides data on teachers’ involvement with
responsible decisions, an essential element in promoting
mindful decision-making that leads to responsible actions
(Stevenson and Stirling, 2010; UNECE, 2005).
- The SEM factor refers to socioeconomic ideology in that it helps
uncover their point of view on relations of environment, society,
and economy as well as their stance toward the prevailing
model of development, which must be addressed in lessons


(Alvarez and Vega, 2009; Jiclikng and Wals, 2012).
Likewise, the involvement with EE is represented by:
- The TEE factor, whose items provide data on attitudes toward
the basic features of EE, including the need to cover EE in school
(UNECE, 2005), community involvement (Hart, 1997; Wals,
2007) and the development of skills such as participation or
decision-making, which allows for the transfer of knowledge to
communities (Mogensen and Schnack, 2010; Stevenson and
Stirling, 2010).
- The PCT factor, which offers information on transformative
educational practices, with items related to the teachers’ role
(Skamp et al., 2013; Stern et al., 2014), the structure of knowl-
edge itself, and the self-analysis of environmental issues
(Vosniadou, 2001; Mogensen and Mayer, 2005; Frisk and
Larson, 2011), as well as the need to address the socioeco-
nomic model in the classroom (Ra €thzel and Uzzell, 2009;
Jickling and Wals, 2012).
With these features, the scale offers innovative information
about the attitudes of teachers in initial training for dealing with
transformative EE based on the development of skills and on
participation. Thus, the formulation of this scale is in line with the
new trends in the development of research instruments within the
framework of sustainability, which take into account the di-
mensions involved (environment, society, economy, education) as
well as the studies of Yang et al. (2010) or Biasutti and Frate (2016).
This subject is little explored, in such a way that ASEE can create a
starting point for future studies.
However, in future research on this scale and in its imple-
mentation in diverse contexts, it would be interesting to introduce
improvements during the development of certain items. In addition
Attitudes Scale toward Environmental Education (ASEE).
Item Item content (Spanish)
i1 Ante los problemas ambientales de nuestro tiempo, es prioritario

n ambiental en la escuela
integrar la educacio
i2 Considero que no es prioritario que la educacio
n ambiental trate el
modelo socioecono
mico actual basado en el consumo
i3 La educacio
n ambiental debería trabajar especialmente el desarrollo de
habilidades como el pensamiento crítico, la toma de decisiones

n
reflexivas y la participacio
639
to this, studying in depth the factors found should be considered,
too (with more items that characterize them). It is of special in-
terest to study in detail the influence of the socioeconomic model
on teachers’ attitudes. In the case of this scale, its use only allowed
us to obtain a two-item factor related to this issue. Therefore, future
research should focus on this in order to improve the instrument.
7. Conclusions
Educational institutions may contribute to developing sustain-
able lifestyles if it includes EE with transformative foundations.
Teachers are essential in this process, because of their direct re-
sponsibility in the process of EE teaching and learning and because of
their influence as role models for students (Rickinson, 2001; Stern
et al., 2014). It is therefore essential to study and improve the
involvement of teachers in the quest for sustainability and the use of
transformative pedagogical methods. In view of the results, the ASEE
can be a good instrument of measuring attitudes toward EE that
contributes to sustainability and providing innovative information.
However, it should also be noted that its use must take into
account that environmental action is a complex process (Wals et al.,
2014). Therefore, it would be relevant to carry out more qualitative
and quantitative studies that will help deepen the significance of
the results obtained, as well as refine the psychometric character-
istics of the scale. Although evidence of reliability and validity have
been obtained, some aspects could be improved, the amount of
common variance explained by the model or the number of items
per factor. These improvements would require carrying out more
research in this regard.
In any case, it must also be highlighted that, due to its content,
this scale can be of innovative value in this field, and it could be
used in other contexts (although this would require prior validation
for said contexts and different languages). It would be especially
interesting to use this scale in the framework of planning and
evaluating educational models in the EE field, in pursuit of attitu-
dinal and behavioural changes in the framework of a competition
for sustainable action.
Finally, we hope to contribute to the study of teachers’ opinions
on sustainability and approaches to teaching, the need for which
has been identified in the literature (Hart, 2007; Varela-Losada
et al., 2016), in order to help improve how we train teachers in
EE with a transformative perspective.
Acknowledgments
This research has been conducted within the EDU2015-68617-
C4-1R project (Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain) and
the EDU2015-6643-C2-2-P project (Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness of Spain).
Appendix
Item content (English)
Facing the current environmental problems, it is a priority to integrate
environmental education at school
I consider that it is not a priority for environmental education to address
the current socioeconomic model based on consumption
Environmental education should especially work on the development of
skills such as critical thinking, reflexive decision-making, and
participation
(continued on next page)
640 U. P
erez-Rodríguez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 634e641

(continued )

Item Item content (Spanish) Item content (English)

i4 Considero que analizar problemas ambientales y buscar soluciones es I believe that analysing environmental problems and finding solutions is
demasiado complejo para alumnado de Primaria too complex for primary school students
i5 El alumnado pierde demasiado tiempo en buscar y analizar la Students waste too much time searching and analysing information. It is
informacio
n. Es mucho ma
s provechoso facilitarles la informacio

n ya much more useful to provide them with already selected and analysed
seleccionada y analizada information
i6 Para que la educacio
n ambiental sea lo ma
s efectiva posible, debería For environmental education to be as effective as possible, there should
existir un compromiso de toda la comunidad educativa be a commitment from the entire educational community
i7 Me parece que el comportamiento del profesorado es un factor muy I think teachers’ behaviour is a very important factor in the education of
importante en la educacio
n de valores ambientales environmental values.
i8 Creo que incluir la educacio
n ambiental en la escuela puede contribuir a I believe that including environmental education at school can
cambiar el comportamiento ambiental de toda la comunidad contribute to changing the environmental behaviour of the whole
community
i9 Me parece importante que todo el profesorado reciba formacio
n I think it is important that all teachers receive environmental training
ambiental
i10 Creo que individualmente no tengo poder para solucionar los problemas I think that individually I have no power in solving environmental
ambientales problems
i11 El mejor indicador de la prosperidad de un país es su crecimiento The best indicator of a country’s prosperity is its economic growth
econo
mico
i12 Creo que el factor que ma
s determina el bienestar de las personas es su I think the factor that most determines people’s welfare is their income
renta
i13 Prefiero saber co
mo se han producido todos los bienes que consumo I would prefer to know how the goods that I consume have been
produced
i14 Prefiero un producto ma
s barato aunque piense que se ha producido de I prefer a cheaper product although I think that it has been produced in
forma irresponsable an irresponsible manner
i15 La gravedad del cambio clima
tico ha sido exagerada The seriousness of climate change has been exaggerated
i16 Considero que el efecto del cambio clim
atico sobre mi vida es I think climate change’s effect on my life is important
importante
i17 La contaminacio
n debida a la produccio
n de energía es un mal menor, Pollution due to energy production is a lesser evil compared to the
frente a los beneficios que reporta benefits it generates
i18 Me parece que utilizar el coche en desplazamientos privados supone un It seems to me that using a car for personal purposes means a large
gran aumento de los gases que producen el cambio clim
atico increase in the gases which contribute to climate change

Notes. The scale was build and validated in Spanish.

References Fern
andez-Manzanal, R., Serra, L.M., Morales, M.J., Carrasquer, J., Rodríguez-
Barreiro, L.M., Del Valle, J., Murillo, M.B., 2015. Environmental behaviours in
initial professional development and their relationship with university educa-
Ajzen, I., 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 27e58.
tion. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 116e125.
Akaike, H., 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans.
Ferreira, J., 2009. Unsettling orthodoxies: education for the environmental for
Autom. Control 19 (6), 716e723.
sustainability. Environ. Educ. Res. 5 (5), 607e620.
Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P., 2014. The Handbook of Attitudes. Psy-
Ferreira, J., 2013. Transformation, empowerment, and the governing of environ-
chology Press, Sussex.
mental conduct: insights to be gained from a “history of the present” approach.
Alperovitz, G., 2014. The political-economic foundations of a sustainable system. In:
In: Stevenson, R.B., Brody, M., Dillon, J., Wals, A.E.J. (Eds.), International Hand-
Worldwatch Institute. Governing for Sustainability. Island Press, Washington.

book of Research on Environmental Education. Routledge, New York, pp. 63e73.
Alvarez, P., Vega, P., 2009. Actitudes ambientales y conductas sostenibles. Implica-

n ambiental. Rev. Psicodidact 14 (2), 245e260. Frisk, E., Larson, K.L., 2011. Educating for sustainability: competencies and practices
ciones para la educacio
for transformative action. J. Sustain. Educ. 2, 2151e7452.
Bardi, U., 2011. The Limits to Growth Revisited. Springer, London.
Gardner, G.T., Stern, P.C., 2002. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior,
Biasutti, B., Frate, S., 2016. A validity and reliability study of the Attitudes toward
second ed. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Sustainable Development scale. Environ. Educ. Res. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
GEO-5, 2012. Fifth Global Environment Outlook: Summary for Policy Makers. Nai-
13504622.2016.1146660.
robi: United Nations Environment Programme. Available at: http://www.unep.
Bogner, F.X., Wiseman, M., 2006. Adolescents’ attitudes towards nature and envi-
org/geo/geo5.asp.
ronment: quantifying the 2-MEV model. The Environmentalist 26 (4), 247e254.
Gifford, R., 2014. Environmental psychology matters. Psychology 65 (1), 541e579.
Boubonari, T., Markos, A., Kevrekidis, T., 2013. Greek pre-service teachers’ knowl-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048 79.
edge, attitudes, and environmental behavior toward marine pollution.
Hair, F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis.
J. Environ. Educ. 44 (4), 232e251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
00958964.2013.785381.
Hart, R., 1997. Children’s Participation: the Theory and Practice of Involving Young
Byrne, B., 1998. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS:
Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. Earthscan,
Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
London.
New Jersey.
Hart, P., 2007. Desires and resistances as drivers and barriers to environmental
Corneya, G., Reid, A., 2007. Student teachers’ learning about subject mat ter and
learning and sustainability: a Canadian perspective. In: Bjo €rneloo, I., Nyberg, E.
pedagogy in eclucation for sustainable development. Environ. Educ. Res. 13 (1),
(Eds.), Drivers and Barriers for Implementing Learning for Sustainable Devel-
33e54.
opment in Pre-school through Upper Secondary and Teacher Education.
DeVellis, R., 1991. Scale Development. Theory and Applications. Sage, Newbury Park.
UNESCO, París, pp. 31e36.
Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Azeiteiro, U.M., Leal Filho, W., 2015. Sustainable uni-
Hawcroft, L.J., Milfont, T.L., 2010. The use (and abuse) of the new environmental
versitiesea study of critical success factors for participatory approaches.
paradigm scale over the last 30 years: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 30
J. Clean. Prod. 106, 11e21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.030.
(2), 143e158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., 1978. The “new environmental paradigm”. J. Environ.
Heimlich, J., Ardoin, N., 2008. Understanding behavior to understand behavior
Educ. 9 (4), 10e19.
change: a literature review. Environ. Educ. Res. 14 (3), 215e237.
Dunlap, R.E., 2008. The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to
Hesselbarth, C., Schaltegger, S., 2014. Educating change agents for sustainability
worldwide use. J. Environ. Educ. 40 (1), 3e18.
learnings from the first sustainability management master of business admin-
Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S., 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Braxe Jovano-
istration. J. Clean. Prod. 62 (1), 24e36.
vich, Orlando.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M.R., 2008. Structural equation modelling:
Feinstein, N.W., Kirchgasler, K.L., 2015. Sustainability in science education? How the
guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6 (1), 53e60.
Next Generation Science Standards approach sustainability, and why it matters.
Hu, L., Bentler, P., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure anal-
Sci. Educ. 99 (1), 121e144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21137.

ndez-Manzanal, R., Rodríguez-Barreiro, L., Carrasquer, J., 2007. Evaluation of ysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6, 1e55.
Ferna
Huckle, J., 2008. An analysis of new labour’s policy on education for sustainable
environmental attitudes: analysis and results of a scale applied to university
development with particular reference to socially critical approaches. Environ.
students. Sci. Educ. 91 (6), 988e1009.
Educ. Res. 14 (1), 65e75.
 U. P
erez-Rodríguez et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 164 (2017) 634e641
Jensen, B.B., Schnack, K., 2006. The action competence approach in environmental
education. Environ. Educ. Res. 12, 471e486.
Jickling, B., Wals, A.E.J., 2012. Debating education for sustainable development 20
years after Rio: a conservation between Bob Jickling and Arjen Wals. J. Educ.
Sustain. Dev. 6 (1), 49e57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097340821100600111.
Kyburz-Graber, R., 2013. Socioecological approaches to environmental education
and research: a paradigmatic response to behavioral change orientations. In:
Stevenson, R.B., Brody, M., Dillon, J., Wals, A.E.J. (Eds.), International Handbook
of Research on Environmental Education. Routledge, New York, pp. 23e32.
Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lozano, R., 2006. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:
breaking through barriers to change. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 787e796.
Lozano, R., Lozano, F.J., Mulder, K., Huisingh, D., Waas, T., 2013. Advancing higher
education for sustainable development: international insights and critical re-
flections. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 3e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048.
Luederitz, C., Scha €pke, N., Wiek, A., Lang, D.J., Bergmann, M., Bos, J.J., Burch, S.,
Davies, A., Evans, J., Ko €nig, A., Farrelly, M.A., Forrest, N., Frantzeskaki, N.,
Gibson, R.B., Kay, B., Loorbach, D., McCormick, K., Parodi, O., Rauschmayer, F.,
Schneidewind, U., Stauffacher, M., Stelzer, F., Trencher, G., Venjakob, J.,
Vergragt, P.J., von Wehrden, H., Westley, F.R., Farrelly, M.A., 2016. Learning
through evaluation e a tentative evaluative scheme for sustainability transition
experiments. J. Clean. Prod. (in press) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.
09.005.
McDonald, R.P., 1999. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mah-
wah, New Jersey.
Milfont, T.L., 2007. Psychology of Environmental Attitudes: a Crosscultural Study of
Their Content and Structure. University of Auckland, New Zealand. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation.
Milfont, T.L., Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., 2010. The higher order structure of environ-
mental attitudes: a cross-cultural examination. Interam. J. Psychol. 44 (2),
263e273.
Mogensen, F., Mayer, M., 2005. Eco-schools: Trends and Divergences. A Comparative
Study on ECO-school Development Processes in 13 Countries. Austrian Federal
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Viena.
Mogensen, F., Schnack, K., 2010. The action competence approach and the ‘new’
discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality
criteria. Environ. Educ. Res. 16 (1), 59e74.
Moseley, C., Utley, J., 2008. An exploratory study of preservice teachers’ beliefs
about the environment. J. Environ. Educ. 39 (4), 15e30.
Nussbaum, M.C., 2011. Creating Capabilities. Harvard University Press.
Pelletier, L., Tuson, K., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K., Beaton, A., 1998. Why are you
doing things for the environment? The Motivation toward the Environment
Scale (MTES). J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28, 437e468.
R€athzel, N., Uzzell, D., 2009. Transformative environmental education: a collective
rehearsal for reality. Environ. Educ. Res. 15 (3), 263e277.
Reid, A., Scott, W., 2013. Identifying needs in environmental education research. In:
Stevenson, R.B., Brody, M., Dillon, J., Wals, A.E.J. (Eds.), International Handbook
of Research on Environmental Education. Routledge, New York, pp. 427e439.
Rickinson, M., 2001. Learners and learning in environmental education: a critical
review of the evidence. Environ. Educ. Res. 7 (3), 207e320.
Rideout, B.E., 2005. The effects of a brief environmental problems module on
endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm in college students. J. Environ.
Educ. 37 (1), 3e11.
Schelly, C., Cross, J., Franzen, W., Hall, P., Reeve, S., 2012. How to go green: creating a
conservation culture in a public high school through education, modelling and
communication. J. Environ. Educ. 43 (3), 143e161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00958964.2011.631611.
Skamp, K., Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M., 2013. Beliefs and willingness to act about
global warming: where to focus science pedagogy? Sci. Educ. 97 (2), 191e217.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21050.
Stables, A., Scott, W., 2002. The quest for holism in education for sustainable
development. Environ. Educ. Res. 8 (1), 53e60.
641
Stern, P., Deitz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues. 50,
65e84.
Stern, M.J., Powell, R.B., Hill, D., 2014. Environmental education program evaluation
in the new millennium: what do we measure and what have we learned?
Environ. Educ. Res. 20 (5), 581e611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13504622.2013.838749.
Stern, P., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
J. Soc. Issues. 50 (3), 65e84.
Stevenson, R., Stirling, C., 2010. Environmental learning agency in diverse cultural
contexts. In: Stevenson, R., Dillon, J. (Eds.), Engaging Environmental Education:
Learning, Culture and Agency. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 219e237.
Stiglitz, J.E., 2015. The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About
Them. WW Norton and Company.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. Allyn and Bacon,
New York.
Tilbury, D., 2012. Higher education for sustainability: a global overview of
commitment and progress. High. Educ. World 4, 18e28.
Timmerman, M.E., Lorenzo-Seva, U., 2011. Dimensionality assessment of ordered
polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol. Methods 16, 209e220. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023353.
UNECE, 2005. UNECE strategy for education for sustainable development. Available
at: http://www.unece.org.
UNESCO, 2014. What is the Purpose of the Decade? Available at: http://www.
unesco.org/education/tlsf/extras/desd.html?panel¼1#top.
UNITED NATIONS, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Devlopment: Our Common Future. Available at: http://www.un-documents.
net/wced-ocf.htm.
Uzzell, D., R€ athzel, N., 2009. Transforming environmental psychology. J. Environ.
Psychol. 29 (3), 340e350.
Varela-Losada, M., Vega-Marcote, P., Pe


rez-Rodríguez, U., Alvarez Lires, M., 2016.
Going to action? A literature review on educational proposals in formal Envi-
ronmental Education. Environ. Educ. Res. 22 (3), 390e421. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/13504622.2015.1101751.


Vega, P., Alvarez, P., 2011. Environmental Education and consumption. A study di-
dactic strategy to consume sustainably. In: Proceedings of the 6th World
Environmental Education Congress (WEEC), Explore, Experience, Educate,
Brisbane, Australia, 19e23 June 2011.
Velicer, W.F., 1976. Determining the number of components from the matrix of
partial correlations. Psychometrika 41, 321e327.
Vosniadou, S., 2001. How Children Learn. International Academy of Education,
Brussels.
Wals, A. (Ed.), 2007. Social Learning towards a Sustainable World. Wageningen
Academic, Wageningen.
Wals, A.E., Brody, M., Dillon, J., Stevenson, R.B., 2014. Convergence between science
and environmental education. Science 344 (6184), 583e584.
Winter, C., 2007. Education for sustainable development and the secondary cur-
riculum in english schools: rhetoric or reality? Camb. J. Educ. 37 (3), 337e354.
Woodhouse, B., Jackson, P., 1977. Lower bounds to the reliability of the total score on
a test composed of nonhomogeneous items: II. A search procedure to locate the
greatest lower bound. Psychometrika 42, 579e591.
Worldwatch Institute, 2015. State of the World: Confronting Hidden Threats to
Sustainability. The Worldwatch Institute, Washington.
Worthington, R.L., Whittaker, T.A., 2006. Scale development research. A content
analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns. Psychol. 34 (6),
806e838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127.
Yang, G., Lam, C.C., Wong, N.Y., 2010. Developing an instrument for identifying
secondary teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development in
China. J. Environ. Educ. 41 (4), 195e207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00958960903479795.
Yavetz, B., Goldman, D., Pe’er, S., 2009. Environmental literacy of preservice teachers
in Israel: a comparison between students at the onset and end of their studies.
Environ. Educ. Res. 15 (4), 393e415.