Revised environmental identity scale is effective with a broader, multicultural audience

Sustainability and sustainable actions are driven by one's identity. A person's self-identity is defined by the actions and words they use to describe themselves and the social group they belong to. The phrase Environmental identity (EID) refers to a person's understanding of their place in the natural world. Someone with a strong EID feels an interdependence and strong emotional connection with the natural world, which influences how they think about nature and themselves. Environmental issues are likely to strongly affect those individuals with high EID. Additionally, EID can influence environmental behaviors. The EID scale was developed in 2003 to assess an individual's relationship with the natural environment encompassing cognitive and emotion-oriented aspects. However, in a recent review of many instruments used in environmental education metrics, the EID scale was determined to not represent a broad understanding of EID. The statements in the scale privileged wild experiences in nature and were less likely to account for urban or suburban nature experiences. The purpose of this study was to develop a revised EID scale that could be more relevant to a wider range of people and their experiences.

This study began in 2018. First, the EID scale was revised with input from researchers, convenience samples of adults, and inner-city youth in the U.S. A 14-item revised EID scale was created. It included 14 statements about one's interdependence with and connection to nature, and participants responded to each item on a scale from one (not at all true of me) to seven (completely true of me). To get a diversity of respondents, the scale was tested with adult residents in the U.S. and Peru, high school students in the U.S., as well as university students in Russia, Switzerland, and Taiwan. The sample size in each ranged from 45 to 484 participants. Participants also completed a six-question scale about their individual environmental behaviors, and a one-item measure to assess environmental concern. All scales were translated into local languages as necessary. The results were analyzed to derive average scores from the scales and determine reliability and validity of the revised EID scale. The new scale was also compared to the old EID scale.

Researchers calculated the mean value of the scores to be relatively high among all samples, which means the seven-point scale used in the instrument may need to be edited in future revisions of the scale. Correlations between the environmental concern scores and EID scores correlated significantly, as well as between environmental behaviors and EID scores. This made sense as it is thought that higher EID would lead to higher environmental concerns and pro-environmental behaviors. The reliability and validity of the revised EID scale both were adequate, meaning the scale was consistent and accurate across all the different cultural groups assessed. When the revised EID scale was compared with the old one, the reliability and validity of each were nearly identical and correlated. The results show the edits to the new EID scale, such as utilizing broader perspectives of nature and including questions targeting emotions, were effective.

A limitation of this study is that it included only five countries, and the sample size was small for some. Demographics were likely missing from this study, so this scale may not work effectively across all cultures.

The researchers suggest that the revised EID scale be used in place of the old 2003 scale. This scale can be used by practitioners to measure EID in their programming. However, the researchers still recommend more research be done to further improve the scale.