New Ecological Paradigm Scale

The NEP is a 15-item measure of proenvironmental orientation. The revised NEP scale was designed to improve upon the original one in several respects:

  1. It taps into a wider range of facets of an ecological worldview
  2. It offers a balanced set of pro- and anti-NEP items
  3. It avoids outmoded terminology


  1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.
  2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
  3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
  4. Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable.
  5. Humans are severely abusing the environment.
  6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.
  7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
  8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.
  9. Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature.
  10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.
  11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.
  12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.
  13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
  14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.
  15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.


Listed below are statements about the relationship between humans and the environment. For each one, please indicate whether you STRONGLY AGREE, MILDLY AGREE, are UNSURE, MILDLY DISAGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE with it.

Response options

  • Strongly agree
  • Mildly agree
  • Unsure
  • Mildly disagree
  • Strongly disagree



Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.