Impact of Education for Sustainable Development on Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior in Protected Areas
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theoretical Background
1.2. Research Hypothesis
1.2.1. Cognition and Behavioral Intention
1.2.2. Cognition and Social Emotion
1.2.3. Social Emotion and Behavioral Intention
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants and Procedure
2.2. Instrument
2.3. Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participant Characteristics
3.2. Reliability and Validity Test
3.3. SEM Model
3.4. Mediating Effect
3.5. Moderating Effect
3.5.1. Gender Group
3.5.2. Educational Background Group
3.5.3. Visit Frequency Group
3.5.4. Volunteer Experience Group
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
5.1. Findings
5.2. Implication
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Trzyna, T. Urban Protected Areas: Profifiles and best pratice guidelines. In Best Pratice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 22; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Mark, M.; Marielle, V. The Role of Education for Sustainable Development in Maltese Marine Protected Areas: A Qualitative Study. In Engaging Stakeholders in Education for Sustainable Development at University Level; World Sustainability Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hristina, B. Protected Areas—Learning Places for Education for Sustainable Development. Best Practices from Germany for Improving Educational Activities in Bulgarian Parks. Leuphana Universität Lüneburg 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 21 July 2021).
- Kettunen, M.; Dudley, N.; Gorricho, J.; Hickey, V.; Krueger, L.; MacKinnon, K.; Oglethorpe, J.; Paxton, M.; Robinson, J.G.; Sekhran, N. Building on Nature: Area-Based Conservation as a Key Tool for Delivering SDGs. Available online: https://ieep.eu/publications/building-on-nature-area-based-conservation-as-a-key-tool-for-delivering-sdgs (accessed on 18 May 2021).
- Mabibibi, M.A.; Dube, K.; Thwala, K. Successes and Challenges in Sustainable Development Goals Localisation for Host Communities around Kruger National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, M.Y.; Dong, S.C.; Wu, Z.H.; Li, Y.; Ma, H.; Shao, D.; Gao, N.; Xia, B. Influence of forest experience education on urban public’s environmentally responsible behavior. Resour. Sci. 2020, 42, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, Y.; Fan, J.; Xing, S.; Cui, G. Overview and classification outlook of natural protected areas in mainland China. Biodivers. Sci. 2018, 26, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Sustainable Development Report 2019: Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. New York. 2019. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Smith, K.; Smit, I.; Swemmer, L.; Mokhatla, M.; Freitag-Ronaldson, S.; Roux, D.; Dziba, L. Sustainability of protected areas: Vulnerabilities and opportunities as revealed by COVID-19 in a national park management agency. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 255, 108985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now—Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. New York. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Nurius, P.; Macy, R. Cognitive-Behavioral Theory. Compr. Handb. Soc. Work. Soc. Welf. 2008, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, A.T. Cognitive models of depression. In Clinical Advances in Cognitive Psychotherapy Theory and Application; Leahy, R.L., Dowd, E.T., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 29–61. [Google Scholar]
- Dozois, D.J.; Dobson, K.S.; Rnic, K. Historical and philosophical bases of the cognitive-behavioral therapies. In Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Tian, M.H.; Huang, S.X.; Huang, Y.; Wang, M.Z. Influence of public cognition and emotion on the participation behavior intention in the protection and management of old and valuable trees in Beijing. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2019, 33, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CASEL. What is Social and Emotional Learning? Available online: http://www.casel.org/social-and-emotionallearning/ (accessed on 18 December 2021).
- Brown, J.S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educ. Res. 1989, 18, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, E.R.; Semin, G.R. Socially Situated Cognition: Cognition in its Social Context. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 36, 53–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO. Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action-Toward Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Lifelong Learning for All; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, C.Q.; Li, W.M.; Zhu, A.Q.; Sun, Y.Q.; Lin, G.L.; Kuang, W.M.; Tang, W.Y.; Zhang, L.Q.; Zhang, Y.L. Impact of Tourists’ Perception of Environment Education on Pro-environmental Behavior in Tianyan Scenic Spot: Taking Tourist Expertise as Mediator. Areal Res. Dev. 2019, 38, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y.J.; Huang, Y.; Bi, H.; Zhao, Z. Difference in urban residents’ pro-environmental behavior intention and understanding based on their environmental attitude: A case study of Haikou. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 27, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.; Lu, C. Relations among Pro-Environmental Behavior, Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Perception, and Post-Materialistic Values in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warren, D.M.; Brokensha, D.; Slikkerveer, L.J. Indigenous Knowledge Systems: The Cultural Dimension of Development; Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 1251–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, M.C. Connectedness to Nature Scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, T.M.; Wu, H.C. How do environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 23, 557–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamashita, R.; Chen, C.; Matsubara, T.; Hagiwara, K.; Inamura, M.; Aga, K.; Hirotsu, M.; Seki, T.; Takao, A.; Nakagawa, E.; et al. The Mood-Improving Effect of Viewing Images of Nature and Its Neural Substrate. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aracely, B.; Amanda, J.; Aura, M.T.; Daniel, R.; David, P.M. Indigenous and local knowledge in environmental management for human-nature connectedness: A leverage points perspective. Ecosyst. People 2020, 16, 290–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onwezen, M.C.; Bartels, J.; Antonides, G. Environmentally friendly consumer choices: Cultural differences in the self-regulatory function of anticipated pride and guilt. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, H.S.; Han, Y.; Yu, H.; Zhang, J.; Zhong, S.E.; Hou, M.J. The difference effects of nature contact on children’s pro-environmental behavior intention under the daily and the tourism scenarios: The mediating role of nature connectedness. Geogr. Res. 2022, 41, 358–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegmar, O.; Pamela, P. Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Glob. Environ. Change 2017, 47, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.C.; Zhang, J.; Lu, S.J.; Li, L. Relationship between specific attributes of place, tourists’ place attachment and pro-environment behavioral intentions in Jiuzhaigou. Prog. Geogr. 2014, 33, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fremerey, C.; Bogner, F.X. Learning about Drinking Water: How Important are the Three Dimensions of Knowledge that Can Change Individual Behavior? Educ. Sci. 2014, 4, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krasny, M.E. Knowledge and Thinking: Advancing Environmental Education Outcomes; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 85–100. [Google Scholar]
- Geertz, C. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1983; p. 244. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, R.Y.; Ma, B.J.; Zhang, Y.J. Research on The Relationship among Local Knowledge Demand, Place Attachment and Environmental Responsibility Behaviors: Take Three-Rivers-Source National Park as an Example. J. Cent. South Univ. For. Sci. Technol. Soc. Sci. 2019, 13, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krasny, M.E. Norms Advancing Environmental Education Outcomes; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 160–172. [Google Scholar]
- Krasny, M.E. Natures Connectedness: Advancing Environmental Education Outcomes; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 117–126. [Google Scholar]
- Daniel, R.W.; Michael, E.P.; Joseph, W.R.; Alan, E.W. Beyond the Commodity Metaphor: Examine emotional and symbol attachment to place. Leis. Sci. 1992, 14, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorgensen, B.S.; Stedman, R.C. Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.; Bao, J.G. Wall Geoffrey. Place Attachment: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Recreational Behavior. Tour. Trib. 2006, 9, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
- Halpenny, E.A. Pro-environmental behaviors and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, W.B.; Xie, D.X.; Tang, Y.Z.; Zhong, P.L. Influence of Tourists’ Poetry Cognition and Emotional Evaluation on Their Behavioral Intention. J. Hubei Univ. Arts Sci. 2021, 42, 43–51. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kolar, T.; Zabkar, V. A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 652–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Cengage: Boston, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Li, L.; Zhang, Y. An extended theory of planned behavior to explain the intention to use carsharing: A multi-group analysis of different sociodemographic characteristics. Transportation 2021, 728, 138126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.H.; Teng, M.M.; Han, C.F. How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors?: The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nurit, C.; Sara, A.; Nir, O. Transforming environmental knowledge into behavior: The mediating role of environmental emotions. J. Environ. Educ. 2015, 46, 183–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zidny, R.; Sjöström, J.; Eilks, I. A Multi-Perspective Reflection on How Indigenous Knowledge and Related Ideas Can Improve Science Education for Sustainability. Sci. Educ. 2020, 29, 145–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rebecca, M.N.; Veronica, C.; Jerry, J.V.; Andrew, M. Does the Impact of Norms Vary by Type of Norm and Type of Conservation Behavior? A meta-analysis. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2020, 33, 1024–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 322–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dimensions | Items | Sources | |
---|---|---|---|
Cognition | Environmental knowledge | EK1: National Parks play an important role in the protection of natural ecosystems. | Fremerey, (2014) [35]; Krasny, (2020) [36] |
EK2: National parks are one of the most effective approach to conserve biodiversity. | |||
EK3: National parks conservation could better response the challenge of climate change. | |||
Indigenous knowledge | IK1: Potatso National Park is unique ecological environment and geological landscape. | Geertz et al. (2000) [37]; Berkes (2000) [26]; Wu et al. (2019) [38]. | |
IK2: Potatso National Park reflects the unique cultural traditions and regional customs of the Tibetan. | |||
IK3: Potatso National Park is rich in biodiversity, with a wide variety of flora and fauna. | |||
Personal norms | SN1: I am willing to abide by the rules and regulations in the park. | Krasny (2020) [39]. | |
SN2: If I break the rules, I feel guilty. | |||
SN3: I think it is necessary to make rules and regulations. | |||
SN4: We should be punished for violating social order and social morality. | |||
Emotion | Nature connectedness | NC1: I feel extremely relaxed and happy when walk in the nature. | Krasny, (2020) [40]. |
NC2: Potatso is a great place to experience nature. | |||
NC3: I love nature, so I want to protect it. | |||
Place attachment | PA1: Potatso is special place where I could understand myself. | Daniel et al. (1992) [41], Jorgensen et al. (2001) [42]; Huang et al. (2006) [43]. | |
PA2: There is no other place to compare this place. | |||
PA3: I hope I could stay here longer. | |||
Behavior | Engagement behavioral intentions | IBI1: I would like to share my journey of park with my family and friends. | Yang et al. (2019) [15] |
IBI2: I would like to visit Potatso National Park again. | |||
IBI3: I am willing to publicize knowledge of environmental protection, animal and plant protection to others. | |||
Protected behavioral intentions | PBI1: I am willing to be a volunteer to protect the environment. | ||
PBI2: I am willing to contribute money and suggestions to protect the environment. | |||
PBI3: I am willing to take environmentally friendly actions in the future. | |||
Environmental behavior | EB1: I will pay attention to protecting the environment in my daily life. | Halpermy (2010) [44]; Luo et al. (2020) [45]. | |
EB2: I will abide by the tour rules of the park. | |||
EB3: I will not destroy the environment, animals and plants of the park. | |||
EB4: I will participate in and take actions that are beneficial to the environment. |
Variables | Distribution | Frequency | Percent (%) | Variables | Distribution | Frequency | Percent (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 254 | 48 | Tour mode | Personal | 58 | 11 |
Female | 275 | 52 | With Family | 255 | 48.2 | ||
Age | Under 18 | 32 | 6 | With Friends | 187 | 35.3 | |
18–30 | 314 | 59.4 | Group tour | 18 | 3.4 | ||
31–45 | 160 | 30.2 | Other | 11 | 2.1 | ||
46–60 | 19 | 3.6 | Monthly income | Less than 3000 Yuan | 77 | 14.6 | |
Over 60 | 4 | 0.8 | 3000–5000 Yuan | 81 | 15.3 | ||
Educational background | Middle school | 20 | 3.8 | 5000–10,000 Yuan | 176 | 33.3 | |
High school | 31 | 5.9 | 1–1.5 million Yuan | 76 | 14.4 | ||
Bachelor’s degree | 371 | 70.1 | 1.5–2 million Yuan | 38 | 7.2 | ||
Master’s degree and above | 107 | 20.2 | More than 2 million Yuan | 81 | 15.3 | ||
Volunteer experience | Yes | 256 | 48.4 | Visit frequency | Only once | 459 | 86.8 |
No | 273 | 51.6 | More than once | 70 | 13.2 | ||
Provinces | Yunnan Province | 260 | 49.1 | ||||
Other Provinces | 269 | 50.9 |
Dimensions | Cronbach’s α | Items |
---|---|---|
Environmental knowledge | 0.743 | 3 |
Indigenous knowledge | 0.806 | 3 |
Personal norms | 0.853 | 4 |
Nature connectedness | 0.831 | 3 |
Place attachment | 0.777 | 3 |
Engagement behavioral intentions | 0.805 | 3 |
Protected behavioral intentions | 0.801 | 3 |
Environmental behavior | 0.920 | 4 |
Total | 0.934 | 26 |
Dimensions | Items | Estimates | SMC | AVE | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ideal value | >0.6 | >0.36 | >0.5 | >0.6 | |
Environmental knowledge | EK1 | 0.751 | 0.563 | 0.502 | 0.751 |
EK2 | 0.709 | 0.502 | |||
EK3 | 0.663 | 0.440 | |||
Indigenous knowledge | IK1 | 0.767 | 0.588 | 0.586 | 0.809 |
IK2 | 0.726 | 0.527 | |||
IK3 | 0.803 | 0.644 | |||
Personal norms | SN1 | 0.782 | 0.611 | 0.602 | 0.858 |
SN2 | 0.767 | 0.588 | |||
SN3 | 0.785 | 0.616 | |||
SN4 | 0.77 | 0.593 | |||
Nature connectedness | NC1 | 0.73 | 0.533 | 0.629 | 0.835 |
NC2 | 0.797 | 0.636 | |||
NC3 | 0.848 | 0.719 | |||
Place attachment | PA1 | 0.87 | 0.758 | 0.590 | 0.810 |
PA2 | 0.634 | 0.402 | |||
PA3 | 0.782 | 0.611 | |||
Engagement behavioral intentions | IBI1 | 0.738 | 0.545 | 0.559 | 0.791 |
IBI2 | 0.704 | 0.496 | |||
IBI3 | 0.797 | 0.636 | |||
Protected behavioral intentions | PBI1 | 0.701 | 0.492 | 0.567 | 0.796 |
PBI2 | 0.701 | 0.491 | |||
PBI3 | 0.847 | 0.717 | |||
Environmental behavior | EB4 | 0.876 | 0.767 | 0.776 | 0.933 |
EB3 | 0.958 | 0.919 | |||
EB2 | 0.872 | 0.761 | |||
EB1 | 0.812 | 0.659 |
Research Hypothesis | Estimate | Std. Estimate | SE | t | p | Hypothesis Test |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1: EK→BI | 0.14 | 0.131 | 0.062 | 2.238 | * | True |
H2: IK→BI | −0.021 | −0.025 | 0.055 | −0.391 | 0.696 | False |
H3: PN→BI | 0.476 | 0.385 | 0.069 | 6.875 | *** | True |
H4: EK→NC | 0.103 | 0.092 | 0.075 | 1.376 | 0.169 | False |
H5: IK→NC | 0.309 | 0.353 | 0.056 | 5.546 | *** | True |
H6: EK→PA | 0.183 | 0.13 | 0.106 | 1.724 | 0.085 | False |
H7: IK→PA | 0.471 | 0.424 | 0.084 | 5.616 | *** | True |
H8: PN→NC | 0.5 | 0.389 | 0.07 | 7.167 | *** | True |
H9: PN→PA | 0.376 | 0.231 | 0.096 | 3.93 | *** | True |
H10: NC→BI | 0.352 | 0.366 | 0.055 | 6.434 | *** | True |
H11: PA→BI | 0.209 | 0.275 | 0.046 | 4.592 | *** | True |
H12: BI→EB | 0.658 | 0.726 | 0.048 | 13.608 | *** | True |
Path | Environmental Knowledge to Behavioral Intentions | Indigenous Knowledge to Behavioral Intentions | Personal Norms to Behavioral Intentions | p | PM (%) | Hypothesis Testing | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Std-Estimates | SE | LLCI | ULCI | Std-Estimates | SE | LLCI | ULCI | Std-Estimates | SE | LLCI | ULCI | ||||
H1: EK→BI | 0.131 | 0.065 | 0.002 | 0.256 | * | 62.44% | |||||||||
H13: EK→NC→BI | 0.041 | 0.031 | −0.013 | 0.109 | 0.127 | 18.55% | False | ||||||||
H16: EK→PA→BI | 0.041 | 0.029 | −0.01 | 0.106 | 0.1 | 18.55% | False | ||||||||
H2: IK→BI | −0.025 | 0.065 | −0.168 | 0.092 | 0.585 | −20.21% | |||||||||
H14: IK→NC→BI | 0.111 | 0.038 | 0.053 | 0.209 | *** | 59.04% | True | ||||||||
H17: IK→PA→BI | 0.114 | 0.039 | 0.052 | 0.207 | *** | 60.64% | True | ||||||||
H3: PN→BI | 0.385 | 0.072 | 0.26 | 0.543 | *** | 65.94% | |||||||||
H15: PN→NC→BI | 0.144 | 0.037 | 0.086 | 0.236 | *** | 24.04% | True | ||||||||
H18: PN→PA→BI | 0.06 | 0.024 | 0.021 | 0.121 | ** | 10.02% | True |
Moderating Variables | Model | χ2 | df | χ2/DF | Δχ2 | ΔDF | p | TLI | CFI | GFI | ΔTLI | ΔCFI | ΔGFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Unconstrained | 810.871 | 377 | 2.151 | - | - | - | 0.919 | 0.934 | 0.878 | - | - | - | 0.047 |
Measurement weight | 852.539 | 392 | 2.175 | 41.668 | 15 | 0.000 *** | 0.918 | 0.93 | 0.872 | −0.001 | −0.004 | −0.006 | 0.047 | |
Structural weight | 867.861 | 404 | 2.148 | 56.99 | 27 | 0.001 ** | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.869 | 0.001 | −0.004 | −0.009 | 0.047 | |
Educational background | Unconstrained | 931.996 | 377 | 2.472 | - | - | - | 0.897 | 0.916 | 0.871 | - | - | - | 0.053 |
Measurement weight | 950.353 | 392 | 2.424 | 18.357 | 15 | 0.244 | 0.901 | 0.916 | 0.87 | 0.004 | 0 | −0.001 | 0.052 | |
Structural weight | 973.672 | 404 | 2.41 | 41.676 | 27 | 0.035 * | 0.902 | 0.914 | 0.868 | 0.005 | −0.002 | −0.003 | 0.052 | |
Visit frequency | Unconstrained | 805.269 | 377 | 2.136 | - | - | - | 0.92 | 0.934 | 0.883 | - | - | - | 0.046 |
Measurement weight | 830.931 | 392 | 2.12 | 25.662 | 15 | 0.042 * | 0.921 | 0.933 | 0.879 | 0.001 | −0.001 | −0.004 | 0.046 | |
Structural weight | 867.55 | 404 | 2.147 | 62.281 | 27 | 0.000 *** | 0.919 | 0.929 | 0.873 | −0.001 | −0.005 | −0.01 | 0.047 | |
Volunteer experience | Unconstrained | 827.527 | 377 | 2.195 | - | - | - | 0.913 | 0.929 | 0.878 | - | - | - | 0.048 |
Measurement weight | 839.57 | 392 | 2.142 | 12.043 | 15 | 0.676 | 0.917 | 0.93 | 0.876 | 0.004 | 0.001 | −0.002 | 0.047 | |
Structural weight | 857.551 | 404 | 2.123 | 30.024 | 27 | 0.313 | 0.919 | 0.929 | 0.874 | 0.006 | 0 | −0.004 | 0.046 |
Gender Paths | Male (n = 254) | Female (n = 275) | CR | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Effect | p | Effect | p | |||
H1a: EK→BI | 0.185 | 0.076 | 0.083 | 0.208 | −0.725 | Rejected |
H2a: IK→BI | −0.202 | 0.083 | 0.131 | 0.068 | 2.541 | Rejected |
H3a: PN→BI | 0.274 | ** | 0.498 | *** | 1.979 * | Accepted |
H4a: NC→BI | 0.458 | *** | 0.259 | *** | −1.518 | Rejected |
H5a: PA→BI | 0.301 | ** | 0.277 | *** | −0.802 | Rejected |
Educational Background Paths | Basic Education (n = 51) | Higher Education (n = 477) | CR | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Effect | p | Effect | p | |||
H1b: EK→BI | 0.539 | 0.504 | 0.11 | 0.073 | −0.507 | Rejected |
H2b: IK→BI | −0.907 | 0.618 | −0.012 | 0.85 | 0.493 | Rejected |
H3b: PN→BI | 0.498 | 0.049 | 0.374 | *** | −0.142 | Rejected |
H4b: NC→BI | 0.257 | 0.654 | 0.385 | *** | −0.001 | Rejected |
H5b: PA→BI | 0.938 | 0.367 | 0.269 | *** | −0.469 | Rejected |
Visit Frequency Paths | Only Once (n = 459) | More than Once (n = 70) | CR | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Effect | p | Effect | p | |||
H1c: EK→BI | 0.127 | 0.06 | −0.015 | 0.876 | −1.278 | Rejected |
H2c: IK→BI | −0.041 | 0.564 | 0.202 | 0.074 | 1.893 | Rejected |
H3c: PN→BI | 0.313 | *** | 1 | *** | 3.67 | Accepted |
H4c: NC→BI | 0.411 | *** | −0.053 | 0.665 | −3.377 | Accepted |
H5c: PA→BI | 0.321 | *** | −0.023 | 0.827 | −2.548 | Accepted |
Gender Paths | With (n = 256) | Without (n = 273) | CR | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Effect | p | Effect | p | |||
H1d: EK→BI | 0.182 | * | 0.07 | * | −0.95 | Rejected |
H2d: IK→BI | −0.041 | 0.66 | 0 | 0.997 | 0.29 | Rejected |
H3d: PN→BI | 0.457 | *** | 0.311 | *** | −1.23 | Rejected |
H4d: NC→BI | 0.171 | * | 0.556 | *** | 3.363 | Rejected |
H5d: PA→BI | 0.322 | *** | 0.22 | ** | −0.803 | Rejected |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ding, Y.; Zhao, M.; Li, Z.; Xia, B.; Atutova, Z.; Kobylkin, D. Impact of Education for Sustainable Development on Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior in Protected Areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9769. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159769
Ding Y, Zhao M, Li Z, Xia B, Atutova Z, Kobylkin D. Impact of Education for Sustainable Development on Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior in Protected Areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(15):9769. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159769
Chicago/Turabian StyleDing, Yan, Minyan Zhao, Zehong Li, Bing Xia, Zhanna Atutova, and Dmitry Kobylkin. 2022. "Impact of Education for Sustainable Development on Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior in Protected Areas" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 15: 9769. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159769