New Ecological Paradigm Scale – Revised (NEP-R)

1. Abstract

The New Ecological Paradigm Scale – Revised (NEP-R) is the preeminent psychometric instrument in environmental sociology, conservation psychology, and human ecology for assessing an individual’s endorsement of a pro-ecological worldview. Originally introduced by Riley E. Dunlap and Kent D. Van Liere in 1978 as a 12-item instrument (the New Environmental Paradigm) to capture the emerging transition away from the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP), the scale underwent comprehensive psychometric revision in 2000 by Dunlap, Van Liere, Angela G. Mertig, and Robert Emmet Jones. The revised instrument consists of 15 self-report items designed to capture five hypothesized facets of an ecological worldview: the limits to growth, anti-anthropocentrism, the fragility of nature’s balance, rejection of exemptionalism (human exceptionalism), and the possibility of an eco-crisis.

Respondents evaluate each statement using an authentic 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”), with an explicit “Unsure” midpoint (3). The instrument features a balanced design alternating between eight pro-ecological statements (odd items) and seven anthropocentric or exemptionalist statements (even items) to control for acquiescence response bias. Scores on the reversed items are inverted so that higher total or mean scores reflect a stronger endorsement of an ecocentric worldview. Psychometrically, the NEP-R demonstrates robust internal consistency, with reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely ranging from .75 to .88 across diverse populations, alongside demonstrated predictive, convergent, and construct validity. It serves as a core predictor of pro-environmental behaviors, policy support, willingness to pay green premiums, and sustainable consumer choices globally.

2. Keywords

New Ecological Paradigm, NEP Scale, NEP-R, Environmental Worldview, Anthropocentrism, Human Exemptionalism Paradigm, Ecocentrism, Environmental Sociology, Environmental Attitudes, Psychometrics, Pro-Environmental Behavior, Conservation Psychology, Environmental Values

3. Authors

The revised scale was authored by a team of prominent environmental sociologists:

• Riley E. Dunlap, Ph.D. — Regents Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. Dr. Dunlap is widely recognized as a founding figure in environmental sociology, past chair of the American Sociological Association’s Environment and Technology Section, and past president of the International Sociological Association’s Research Committee on Environment and Society (RC24).
• Kent D. Van Liere, Ph.D. — Co-developer of the original 1978 scale, previously affiliated with the Department of Sociology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA; subsequently a senior research executive in survey methodology and consumer research.
• Angela G. Mertig, Ph.D. — Professor of Sociology at Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA; specialist in environmental movements, public opinion, and human-wildlife interactions.
• Robert Emmet Jones, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA; expert in environmental sociology, social inequality, and environmental justice.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale – Revised (NEP-R) is to measure the degree to which individuals endorse an ecological worldview—a coherent cognitive framework recognizing that human beings are fundamentally embedded within, constrained by, and dependent upon the biosphere. Dunlap and colleagues engineered the scale to track the broad cultural shift occurring across industrialized societies: the departure from the long-standing Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) toward an emerging New Ecological Paradigm.

The Dominant Social Paradigm, rooted in Western industrial philosophy, posits that nature exists primarily as a limitless storehouse of resources for human exploitation, that science and technological ingenuity can overcome any physical constraint, and that economic expansion can continue indefinitely without systemic ecological ruin. Conversely, the New Ecological Paradigm asserts that human societies are constrained by fundamental biological and physical laws, that natural balances are delicate and vulnerable to human disruption, that economic growth faces planetary boundaries, and that non-human species possess intrinsic value independent of their utility to humans.

Research Applications

In academic research, the NEP-R serves several analytical functions:

• Predictor of Pro-Environmental Action: It functions as a foundational primitive belief component within integrated sociopsychological frameworks, particularly Paul C. Stern’s Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory. In VBN theory, general ecological worldviews (measured by the NEP) mediate the relationship between stable core values (biospheric, altruistic, egoistic) and specific environmental beliefs (adverse consequences, per-person responsibility), which ultimately drive behavioral norms and actual behaviors.
• Sociological and Longitudinal Polling: The NEP-R is deployed in repeated cross-sectional population surveys to monitor shifts in public consciousness regarding climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion across generational cohorts and socioeconomic classes.
• Market Segmentation and Consumer Behavior: In consumer psychology, hospitality, and tourism research, NEP-R scores are widely utilized to segment markets based on ecological orientation. The instrument reliably predicts willingness to pay price premiums for organic products, certified sustainable accommodations, carbon-offset programs, and green energy tariffs.
• Policy Evaluation: Environmental economists and political scientists employ the scale to explain voting patterns, public acceptance of regulatory mandates (such as carbon taxes or plastic bans), and support for conservation funding.

Educational and Organizational Applications

Beyond academic research, the NEP-R is employed in educational institutions to evaluate the efficacy of environmental education curricula, assess shifts in student environmental literacy, and evaluate organizational sustainability interventions aimed at fostering corporate ecological responsibility.

5. Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the NEP-R is environmental worldview, conceptualized as a cluster of fundamental, generalized primitive beliefs about the relationship between humans and the natural environment. While specific attitudes (e.g., attitudes toward electric vehicles) are context-dependent and subject to situational fluctuations, an environmental worldview operates as an overarching, deep-seated cognitive schema that shapes perceptions, evaluations, and decisions across diverse environmental domains. Dunlap et al. (2000) structured the revised instrument to incorporate five theoretical facets:

1. Limits to Growth

This facet assesses beliefs regarding the carrying capacity of the Earth and the impossibility of unchecked demographic and industrial expansion. Rooted in systems ecology and the classic limits-to-growth paradigms, it evaluates whether respondents recognize that Earth has finite physical boundaries. It is tapped by:

• Item 1: “We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.” (Pro-NEP)
• Item 6: “The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.” (Anti-NEP / DSP)
• Item 11: “The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.” (Pro-NEP)

2. Anti-Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism posits that humans are the center of moral consideration and possess an innate right to exploit nature purely for human ends. Anti-anthropocentrism, conversely, asserts the intrinsic value of non-human organisms and biological communities. It is operationalized through:

• Item 2: “Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.” (Anti-NEP / DSP)
• Item 7: “Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.” (Pro-NEP)
• Item 12: “Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.” (Anti-NEP / DSP)

3. Fragility of Nature’s Balance

This facet measures beliefs regarding the equilibrium of ecosystems and their vulnerability to anthropogenic disruption. It contrasts the view that natural systems are robust and forgiving with the understanding that ecological networks are intricately linked and easily destabilized. Measured by:

• Item 3: “When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.” (Pro-NEP)
• Item 8: “The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.” (Anti-NEP / DSP)
• Item 13: “The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.” (Pro-NEP)

4. Rejection of Exemptionalism

The Human Exceptionalism Paradigm (HEP) or exemptionalism holds that human ingenuity, culture, and technological innovation exempt our species from natural ecological constraints. Rejecting exemptionalism entails acknowledging that human beings remain biological organisms constrained by the thermodynamic and biophysical laws of nature. This facet is captured by:

• Item 4: “Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable.” (Anti-NEP / DSP)
• Item 9: “Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature.” (Pro-NEP)
• Item 14: “Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.” (Anti-NEP / DSP)

5. Possibility of an Eco-Crisis

This dimension examines perceptions of imminent global ecological degradation and catastrophic destabilization resulting from unsustainable industrial practices. It contrasts ecological realism with environmental skepticism or denial. Measured by:

• Item 5: “Humans are severely abusing the environment.” (Pro-NEP)
• Item 10: “The so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.” (Anti-NEP / DSP)
• Item 15: “If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.” (Pro-NEP)

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundation of the NEP-R emerges from the pioneering sociological work of William R. Catton, Jr. and Riley E. Dunlap during the late 1970s. In their seminal critiques of mainstream sociology (Catton & Dunlap, 1978), the authors argued that modern social scientific thinking had been dominated by the Human Exceptionalism Paradigm (HEP)—often referred to interchangeably as the Human Exemptionalism Paradigm. The HEP rested on four implicit assumptions: humans are unique among Earth’s creatures because of culture; human affairs are determined largely by social and psychological factors; social and cultural environments are the crucial contexts for human affairs, with the biophysical environment largely irrelevant; and culture is cumulative, meaning technological progress can continue without bound to solve all physical resource problems.

Catton and Dunlap posited that ecological realities—such as the oil crises of the 1970s, toxic waste emergencies, acid rain, ozone depletion, and global climate change—rendered the HEP obsolete. They proposed an alternative sociological lens, the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), which recognized that while humans have exceptional characteristics, they remain one of many species interdependently embedded within global biotic communities. Biophysical limits constrain human social organizations, and human social actions produce unintended feedbacks within biogeochemical cycles that can disrupt the conditions necessary for human well-being.

Within contemporary psychological theory, the NEP-R is integrated within the cognitive hierarchy model of human behavior. In this model, values form the most stable, abstract cognitive foundations. Below values sit primitive beliefs or worldviews (such as the NEP), which in turn inform general attitudes, which inform specific attitudes and intentions, culminating in overt behavior. In Paul C. Stern’s Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) framework, the NEP serves as the direct operational bridge connecting Schwartz’s biospheric-altruistic value orientations to specific beliefs regarding an individual’s adverse impact on the environment (Awareness of Consequences, AC) and their perceived ability to alleviate that harm (Ascribed Responsibility, AR). Consequently, the NEP-R operates as an essential cognitive link translating abstract human values into actionable environmental stewardship norms.

7. Validity

The New Ecological Paradigm Scale – Revised has undergone extensive empirical evaluation to establish its construct, criterion, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity across thousands of empirical studies worldwide.

Construct and Known-Groups Validity

In the primary validation study conducted by Dunlap et al. (2000) using a representative sample of 676 Washington State residents, known-groups validity was firmly established by comparing the general public’s responses with members of prominent environmental interest groups. Environmental organization members scored significantly higher across every single NEP-R item and facet (with sample mean scores approaching 4.6 on a 5-point scale) compared to the representative public sample (mean score of approximately 3.7). Similarly, political conservatives, corporate leaders, and members of resource-extractive industries consistently demonstrate lower scores on the scale, confirming that the scale differentiates distinct sociocultural orientations toward nature.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Dunlap et al. (2000) demonstrated that the NEP-R accounted for substantial variance in both perceived environmental problem seriousness (bivariate correlations ranging from .45 to .61) and self-reported personal pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., recycling, reducing energy use, boycotting environmentally damaging products; correlations ranging from .32 to .48). Subsequent meta-analyses in environmental psychology (e.g., Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Hines et al., 1987) have confirmed that environmental worldview as captured by the NEP-R maintains consistent, moderate predictive power regarding actual behavioral outcomes, often yielding standardized path coefficients between β = .25 and β = .40 in structural equation models predicting sustainable consumer behavior, waste reduction, and civic environmental activism.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The scale demonstrates strong convergent validity through high positive correlations with conceptually aligned instruments, such as:

• Schultz’s Environmental Motives Scale (specifically the Biospheric concerns subscale, r ≈ .50 to .65);
• Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano’s Environmental Concern Scales;
• Pro-ecological policy support and carbon mitigation initiatives.

Discriminant validity is supported by low or inverse correlations with constructs representing mastery over nature, technological optimism, political conservatism, and economic expansionism. Furthermore, while the NEP-R shares variance with general altruism, it remains factorially distinct from general prosocial orientations, confirming that it captures a distinct ecological worldview rather than broad social desirability or generalized empathy.

8. Reliability

The NEP-R has demonstrated strong psychometric reliability across cross-sectional, longitudinal, and cross-cultural implementations.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation study by Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, and Jones (2000), the overall 15-item instrument demonstrated an internal consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha, α) of .83. This represented a substantial improvement over the 1978 12-item scale, which frequently yielded alpha coefficients between .65 and .75 in non-student populations.

Subsequent psychometric investigations have affirmed the high internal consistency of the NEP-R:

• Hawcroft and Milfont (2010), in a meta-analysis encompassing 69 studies and over 58,000 participants worldwide, documented an average Cronbach’s alpha of .78 across diverse populations, noting that studies using the full 15-item revision achieved significantly higher internal consistency than shortened or modified variants.
• Cordano, Welcomer, and Scherer (2003) reported alpha values of .81 to .84 among business and environmental students.
• In European samples (e.g., Amburgey & Vidmar, 2010), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely fall between .79 and .86.

Test-Retest Stability

Because an ecological worldview represents a fundamental primitive belief system rather than a temporary emotional state, the NEP-R exhibits notable temporal stability. Longitudinal and panel studies assessing test-retest reliability across intervals ranging from two weeks to six months report stability coefficients between r = .72 and r = .84 in adult non-intervention populations. However, the instrument is sensitive enough to capture genuine cognitive transformations following immersive environmental education, field-based conservation training, or major ecological disasters.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the NEP-R has generated significant theoretical and methodological discussion in psychometrics and environmental sociology. The primary debate centers on whether the NEP-R functions best as a single unidimensional construct of general environmental worldview or as a multidimensional measure reflecting distinct yet correlated facets.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In their initial 2000 publication, Dunlap et al. conducted an exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation on the Washington State sample. The unrotated solution produced a dominant first principal component that accounted for 31.3% of the total variance, with all 15 items loading positively on this primary axis (factor loadings ranging from .33 to .67). Eigenvalues dropped sharply from the first factor (4.70) to the second (1.54), third (1.23), and fourth (1.07), supporting the treating of the scale as an internally coherent unidimensional measure.

When rotated to explore multidimensionality, four or five weak factors emerged that loosely aligned with the five hypothesized conceptual domains: Limits to Growth, Anti-Anthropocentrism, Fragility of Nature’s Balance, Rejection of Exemptionalism, and Possibility of an Eco-Crisis. Dunlap et al. recommended that researchers examine the factor structure of their specific samples: if the items load cohesively on a single dominant dimension, they should combine all 15 items into a single composite index; if clear, interpretable sub-dimensions emerge, multi-factor scoring can be adopted.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent psychometric investigations utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have systematically evaluated alternative structural models. Amburgey and Vidmar (2010), Xiao and Dunlap (2007), and Pienaar et al. (2013) evaluated competing structures including single-factor, orthogonal five-factor, correlated five-factor, and higher-order hierarchical models.

The empirical consensus indicates that while a correlated five-factor model or a bifactor model provides superior statistical fit indices (CFI > .94, RMSEA < .05), the moderate-to-high intercorrelations among the latent factors (frequently r = .55 to .75) justify combining the items into an omnibus score for general predictive and correlational purposes.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Self-report psychometric scale measuring general environmental worldview and endorsement of ecological constraints.
• Format: Standardized 15-item questionnaire administered in paper-and-pencil, online, or face-to-face interview formats.
• Item Count: 15 items balanced between pro-ecological and anti-ecological wording.
• Hypothesized Facets (3 items each):
  • Limits to Growth: Items 1, 6, 11
  • Anti-Anthropocentrism: Items 2, 7, 12
  • Fragility of Nature’s Balance: Items 3, 8, 13
  • Rejection of Exemptionalism: Items 4, 9, 14
  • Possibility of an Eco-Crisis: Items 5, 10, 15
• Authentic Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Mildly Disagree
  • 3 = Unsure
  • 4 = Mildly Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • Pro-NEP Items (Odd numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15): Scored directly as recorded (Strongly Disagree = 1, Mildly Disagree = 2, Unsure = 3, Mildly Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5).
  • Anti-NEP / DSP Items (Even numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14): Must be reverse-scored prior to aggregation: 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1.
  • Composite Score: Calculated either by summing all 15 recoded items (yielding a range from 15 to 75) or by computing the mean score across all items (ranging from 1.00 to 5.00). Higher scores indicate stronger endorsement of an ecological worldview.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes to complete.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The revised instrument was published in 2000 in the Journal of Social Issues (Dunlap et al., 2000). The authors placed the New Ecological Paradigm Scale in the public scientific domain for non-commercial academic research and educational purposes. Researchers and practitioners do not need to seek formal permission from the authors or pay licensing fees to administer the 15-item scale in scholarly investigations, provided that the foundational publication is appropriately cited in resulting reports and manuscripts. Any commercial deployment, proprietary software packaging, or for-profit consulting usage may require authorization in accordance with the publishing guidelines of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) and John Wiley & Sons.

12. References

• Amburgey, J. W., & Vidmar, D. B. (2010). Considerations for using the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale: A test of the internal consistency and dimensionality of the NEP Scale in an educational context. The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(3), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960903498846
• Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
• Catton, W. R., Jr., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13(1), 41–49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27702311
• Cordano, M., Welcomer, S. A., & Scherer, R. F. (2003). An analysis of the predictive validity of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale for predicting business students’ attitudes toward corporate environmentalism. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(2), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960309603480
• Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875
• Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
• Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003
• Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
• Pienaar, E. F., Lew, D. K., & Wallmo, K. (2013). Are are any of the New Ecological Paradigm sub-scales reliable? A test of dimensionality. Society & Natural Resources, 26(9), 1084–1099. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.789574
• Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
• Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Validating a comprehensive measure of environmental concern: Cross-national evidence. Social Science Quarterly, 88(2), 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00467.x

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)