"IIIT

5
.2

=

in...

.v.r!x..

Ev

.§.§§E§

i.
a 5.6;.
5 {0.392.
134, .9.
A. ..

.

in!
11.
_ t...
run»... ..:. ,
... 25......
L .3 2: 3
. ......

.4.

: ‘5:

at
0.

F4. ‘ Wk

FA.“ km. a:

ran. ....n...,,:..bs ..
P 5113:.

‘

u
‘5
.r

i l. t.
35.2.
\Iljggl. 1|

.. .3 :1
3%: . It.
. an. Inn

.332? x
at .
n N . ; nil...
in . V) 1.3: ai-v ;
: £511.13 . lizi...
1.... .. vi. .31 ,0); .2 A

. ..... .1 .2. .. b. .31!

. is: . t :
raw 3. :
.1 .

..
£1.31... .
p .z.

.5). 7
:9...
Quit.)

.. :.
.13) If}: 1
(7!: 3!.» 00...}! . 11”».
£325... «:1» W .

.o 2:69;... .1... A. I." 1 9.7.3:...-
ihfivu. .l. «1.1%... siyVJWI...”
{o . 1 {1.2.}. .,
$7.3M; 5. .iP..2
:1 ., L25 1‘

l

{in-‘1... I.
.r :w v 1‘
:

‘3'... it. v
:r JKU

9:. nf ; ..,
. :5;x

 

 

(
c _ MICHIGAN LsrfimES
2073““ 35194 I LAMS G’ MICH 48824 $38
0717

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

PRECURSORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AMONG
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

presented by
ELIZABETH A. RITCHIE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

Wei/Mady~

Majér Professdr’s Sidnature V

 

Auwst 10, 2004

 

Date

MSU is an Aninnafiw Aerial/Equal Opportunity Institution

Iv-s-.-Q-O-D-O-I-I-D-I-C-O—O-o-Q-n-n-u-n-A-.-.—.— -

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/Date0ue.p65~p. 15

._——_

PRECURSORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
AMONG MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
By

Elizabeth A. Ritchie

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

2004

ABSTRACT

PRECURSORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
AMONG MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

By

Elizabeth A. Ritchie

For many years, researchers have been interested in the predictors of
environmental concern. Previous research has determined that liberals and
females are more environmentally concerned than their counterparts. There is also
a relationship between a person’s education, and environmental concern. The key
contribution of this research is to look at education in a holistic sense. I examine
several aspects of education and determine their impact on environmental concern.
Finally, I propose a theoretical model to describe the interaction of these variables
with environmental concern.

From this research, it is clear that predicting environmental concern is a
complicated task. The majority of variables analyzed in this research were
consistent in their impact on environmental concern at the bivariate levels: gender,
political ideology, environmental knowledge, and pre-college participation in
outdoor/environmental activities were all positively related to environmental
concern, even when controlling for the effects of other variables. Similarly, family
income and college major were both unrelated to environmental concern at both the
bivariate and multivariate levels. Four of the variables analyzed, however, revealed

more complex relationships with environmental concern.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I’d like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr Angela Mertig for all her support,
guidance, and inspiration. In my opinion, she is simply and exemplary Professor
and a consummate professional. I would also like to thank my parents for their
unwavering support throughout my entire education. Finally, I would like to thank
my wonderful husband for his patience and love during those long nights of

research and writing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2 — LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 4
Environmental Concern .................................................................... 5
Background Variables ....................................................................... 6
Education ...................................................................................... 15
Significant Life Experiences .............................................................. 19
CHAPTER 3 - METHODS .................................................................... 25
Environmental Concern .................................................................... 26
Background Variables ....................................................................... 31
Education ...................................................................................... 32
Significant Life Experiences .............................................................. 38
CHAPTER 4 — RESULTS ....................................................................... 44
Description of Variables .................................................................... 45
Bivariate Analysis ............................................................................. 61
Multivariate Analysis ......................................................................... 65
CHAPTER 5 — DISCUSSION ................................................................. 70
APPENDIX A ..................................................................................... 85
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 89

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3—1. Complete question wording for the 15-item New Ecological
Paradigm Scale.

Table 3-2. Factor analysis of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale
showing five components, with principal component extraction
(unrotated).

Table 3-3. Environmental education questions and possible response
categories.

Table 3-4. Complete question wording and format of environmental
knowledge questions and possible answers.

Table 3-5. Question wording for Significant Life Experiences before
college and current participation questions.

Table 3-6. Factor analysis of Participation Before College Scale
showing four extracted components, using principal component
extraction and varimax rotation.

Table 4-1. Question wording for environmental concern items, taken
from the revised New Ecological Paradigm Scale, the percentage of
respondents falling into each response category, and the valid n for each
item.

Table 4-2. Background variable question wording, percentage of
respondents within each category, and valid n for each item.

Table 4-3. Measurement of exposure to the components of
environmental education and percentage of respondents in each
response category.

Table 4-4. Overall exposure to environmental education. Number of
components exposed to, frequency, percentage of student respondents.

Table 4-5. Respondent declaration of college major versus the
University Registrar’s records for the same information.

.27

.30

.35

.36

.39

.41

.47

.49

.51

.52

.53

LIST OF TABLES (con’t.)

Table 4-6. Class standing breakdown by respondent declaration,
University Registrar’s statistics for the sample, and University
Registrar statistics for the population.

Table 4-7. Responses to each of the environmental knowledge
questions.

Table 4-8. Knowledge score based on the number of correct
responses given by respondents. Number of correctly answered
questions, frequency, and percentage.

Table 4-9. Questions regarding participation in outdoor and/or
environmental activities.

Table 4-10. Correlations between environmental concern and
background variables.

Table 4-11. Correlations between environmental concern and
education variables.

Table 4-12. Correlations between environmental concern and
participation in outdoor/environmental activities, both before and
after college.

Table 4-13. Correlations between environmental concern and
participation in consumptive outdoor/environmental activities before
college and appreciative outdoor/environmental activities before
college.

Table 4-14. Regression output of independent variables on
environmental concern. For each variable, the level of each
parameter or scale range is given in parenthesis below the variable
name.

vi

.53

.55

.56

.58

.62

.63

.65

.66

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Theoretical model showing the relationship between
environmental concern and: background variables, education, and
significant life experiences.

Figure 3-1. Scree plot showing factor loading for the New
Ecological Paradigm Scale.

Figure 4-1. Theoretical model showing the relationship between
environmental concern and: background variables, education, and
significant life experiences.

Figure 4-2. Percentage of student respondents with varying
environmental concern scores, as measured by the New Ecological
Paradigm Scale.

Figure 4-3. Overall index of before college participation in
environmental and/or outdoor activities.

Figure 4-4. Overall index showing current participation in
environmental and/or outdoor activities.

vii

p. 24

p. 31

p. 45

p. 48

p. 59

p. 60

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Some researchers have hypothesized that there has been a general shift in
American attitudes about the environment since about the 19705. These
researchers contend that a more ecologically sound worldview is emerging. There
is a growing base of research that suggests that we are abandoning the idea that
humans can effectively control nature without negative consequence. It has been
suggested that we are realizing our place within nature, rather than our dominance
over it. In recent years, there has been an increased effort to describe and quantify
environmental attitude and concern, as well as understand and measure what
particular variables are influential in shaping those attitudes and concern.

There have been many studies that have tried to evaluate the links between
education, environmental knowledge, and environmental concern. Research in the
19705 showed that increased knowledge about environmental issues lead to an
increase in concern for the environment. In the 1980s, the environmental agenda
came to the political foreground, and the United States government commissioned a
national survey which included environmental issues. A recent Gallup poll found
that 80% of today’s American college students feel the environment is deteriorating.
The media inundate us with reports on global warming, acid rain, and contaminated
water and food supplies. These examples suggest that the environment will remain
an important issue for many years to come.

I designed this research to answer a fundamental question that had intrigued
me for many years: why is it that some people are environmentally concerned,

while others are not? Is there a difference in their backgrounds or their experiences

that may have shaped their thoughts, attitudes, and ideas? With these questions in
mind, I developed a model to help describe some possible predictors of
environmental concern. This model, presented in Chapter 2, suggests that a
person’s education, significant life experiences and various background variables all
influence his or her environmental concern.

I had several key goals to accomplish in this study. Many researchers
hypothesize that there is support for the emerging ecological worldview, or that
there is an endorsement of a new ecological paradigm. My first goal, then, was to
replicate the measurements of previous scales to determine the continued
applicability of previous findings. Secondly, I wanted to determine the utility of the
hypothetical model I proposed. Do the variables outlined in the model influence
environmental concern in the way I’ve conceptualized them? Many researchers
have examined background variables and their impact on environmental concern.
Are these commonly reported relationships applicable in all situations?

A key contribution of this research is the manner in which I examine
education. Many studies have examined the role that education, as a whole, plays
in influencing environmental concern. Other studies have measured the impact of a
particular environmental course or activity on environmental concern. I hypothesize
that certain aspects of education - such as exposure to environmental education,
choice of college major, a student’s class standing, and his/her level of
environmental knowledge — all are important in shaping environmental concern.
Finally, I examine the experiences individuals have in their youth, or Significant Life

Experiences, and determine if these influence environmental concern later in life.

In the next four chapters, I review the research literature, describe the
methods employed in this research, report the results of my study, and provide a full

discussion of the results.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

A recent Gallup poll found that 80% of today’s American college students feel
that the environment is deteriorating (Loges and Kidder, 2000). This statement
might lead one to think that today’s college students are concerned for the state of
the environment. Further examination of the available literature, however, suggests
this might not be an accurate assumption. There is a complex set of circumstances
that shape and guide a student’s attitude toward, and possible activism regarding,
the environment. This thesis examines key criteria, identified in other research,
which may influence the environmental attitudes of contemporary American college
students.

Most research on the predictors of environmental attitudes has involved
social surveys of the general public. Such surveys poorly represent student
populations and those within the typical college student age range of 18 to 25
(usually due to lower response rates among this age group). Previous research has
determined several factors that have some influence on environmental attitudes in
the general population — it is therefore of interest to see how well these factors
apply to the college student population. Although a few studies have addressed the
issue of college student environmental attitude (Ridener, 1999; Berberoglu, 1995;
Benton, 1993; Thompson and Gasteiger, 1985), much more remains to be done.
Surveys of the general public do not include institutionalized individuals. This
means there is a coverage bias inherent in surveys of the public. In order to

understand environmental concern more fully, it is important to understand students’

attitudes, as well. Finally, students are often considered the leaders of the future.
Therefore, their attitudes toward the environment could one day shape our world.

In this chapter, I will introduce and discuss environmental concern: its role in
the larger environmental movement, its measurement as a variable and its
predictors. I will discuss several background variables: gender, political ideology,
family income, and community type. Many researchers also consider education to
be an important variable influencing environmental concern. Due to the immediacy
of education on student populations, I will treat this variable separately in the
discussion and analyses. Rather than discuss education in its entirety, I will discuss
specific aspects of education such as class standing, college major, environmental
knowledge, and environmental education exposure. Finally, this chapter will

explore Significant Life Experiences and their impact on environmental concern.

Environmental Concern.

Dunlap and Van Liere (1984) noted that there has been a general shift in
American attitudes about the environment since about the 19703. Prior to that time,
they argued, people largely believed that humans could exploit nature without
severe consequences to human lifestyle or ecological diversity. It was argued that
human ingenuity would prevail over all environmental difficulties. There was a
“belief in abundance and progress, our devotion to growth and prosperity, our faith
in science and technology, and our commitment to a laissez-faire economy, limited
governmental planning, and private property rights...” (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978,
p. 10). However, in the 1970s, people increasingly voiced concerns over the
destruction of the environment. There appeared to be recognition that human

activity was altering the physical environment to such a degree that the continued

5

existence of many species, including humans, was potentially in danger (Milbrath,
1984). Dunlap and Van Liere suggested that a more ecologically sound worldview
has been emerging, and they described this shift in attitudes as representing a

u

societal-level move from the “human exemptionalist paradigm” to a new
environmental paradigm.”

Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) proposed an instrument to measure the degree
to which a person endorsed the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP). Their original
twelve-item scale was designed to reflect the degree to which a person is
concerned about the natural environment, i.e. his or her environmental concern.
The most recent version of the measurement instrument has fifteen items, and is
called the New Ecological Paradigm scale, in order to reflect a more recent
qualitative shift in environmentalism to even more holistic concern. While other
measures have been used to assess environmental attitudes, the NEP scale is
clearly one of the most popular and widely accepted measures of environmental
concern (Dunlap et al., 2000; Furman, 1998; Gooch, 1995; Pierce et al., 1992;
Arcury, 1990; Edgell & Nowell, 1989; Arcury, Johnson, and Scollay, 1986). Hence,
it is the measure of environmental concern used in this thesis.

Many attempts have been made to isolate variables that contribute to a
person’s environmental concern. Among those most often examined — in both

student and general populations - are gender, political ideology, family income, and

community type. These background variables will be discussed in turn.

Background Variables.
Gender. One commonly discussed variable in the environmental concern

literature is gender. Some studies have found women to be more environmentally

6

concerned than men (Mohai, 1992; Blocker and Eckberg, 1989; Brody, 1984).
Other studies, however, have found the opposite (Arcury and Christianson, 1990;
Arcury et al., 1987). Various explanations have been presented to account for
gender differences in concern. Some of the most common explanations are those
of socialization and parenthood status.

Socialization is the most commonly used argument to explain gender
differences in concern. Depending on perspective, these explanations can highlight
either women’s or men’s socialization (Austin and Woolever, 1994; Mohai, 1992;
Blocker and Eckberg, 1989). For instance, one explanation describes women’s
roles as nurturers. This hypothesis suggests women are socialized to be
interdependent, altruistic, compassionate, cooperative, and helpful. Further, this
socialization translates into nurturing and protective feelings for the environment
(Beutel and Marini, 1995; Gilligan, 1982; Chodorow, 1974). Similar arguments are
advanced by proponents of ecofeminism, who suggest that women’s reproductive
and nurturing roles lead them to have closer connections to the natural world than
men (Chodorow, 1999; Stem et al., 1993).

Another possibility stems from the idea that women’s nurturing role makes
them more aware of environmental health and safety issues. It is hypothesized that
local issues will be more salient and involve greater potential risk to individuals. For
instance, when considering local issues such as nuclear power (Solomon et al.,
1989; George and Southwell, 1986; Nelkins, 1981; Brody, 1984; Passino and
Lounsbury, 1976), toxic waste contamination of the local water supply (Hamilton,
1985a, 1985b), local energy development (Stout-Wiegand and Trent, 1983), and
local air and water pollution (Blocker and Eckberg, 1989) women are consistently

found to be more concerned than their male counterparts. Studies that examined

7

gender differences and environmental concern at a general level, however, have
been inconsistent and often contradictory (Arcury and Christianson, 1990; Arcury et
al., 1987; Lowe and Pinhey, 1982; McStay and Dunlap, 1983; Van Liere and
Dunlap, 1980; Mitchell, 1979). It appears, then, that gender differences in
environmental concern are at least partially explained by perception of risk, with
women showing a higher degree of concern regarding local issues.

Men’s socialization has also been used to explain differences in
environmental concern. For instance, men are often raised to be providers. The
Economic Growth explanation holds that men are socialized to be more involved in
the marketplace and to be economic providers. This socialization, it is argued,
leads men to be more competitive, less altruistic, and to value economic prosperity
over environmental concern. This, then, would lead men to express a lower degree
of concern on general environmental issues (Dietz et al., 2002; Zelezny et al, 2000;
Blocker and Eckberg, 1997; Beutel and Marini, 1995). Studies examining this
hypothesis have yielded mixed results (Austin and Woolever, 1994; Mohai, 1992).

Similar to the health and safety hypothesis is the Parenthood Status
explanation. Stern et al. (1993) suggested that men and women may hold different
beliefs regarding the consequences of environmental conditions, and that they may
give different value weights to each type of consequence. It is argued that attitudes
obtained from socialization are reinforced by the roles women take in their adult
lives, with women being more likely to adopt roles as homemakers and caregivers.
Women in these traditionally ‘female’ roles are thought to be more nurturing and
therefore more concerned about environmental damage. Despite being intuitively
reasonable, the research does not support this hypothesis. Blocker and Eckberg

(1997) found that homemakers, and particularly permanent homemakers, are less

8

likely to recycle, to engage in ‘green’ activities (purchasing environmentally friendly
products), or to be willing to bear the costs of protecting nature, and they have a
much more positive view toward economic activity. Further, women who identified
themselves as homemakers were found to rank lower, not higher, with regard to
environmental concern (Austin and Woolever, 1994; Mohai, 1992; Blocker and
Eckberg, 1989; Steger and Witt, 1989).

These explanations do hold some theoretical appeal for describing the
apparent gender differences in environmental concern. However, the available
literature does not provide coherent support for gender differences in environmental
concern. What has become clear is that one force behind gender differences is the
perception of risk. When a specific (often local) risk is involved, women express
greater concern than men. When the issues are national or global, women still
express greater concern than men, but the magnitude is often less than it would be
for local issues. Student populations also show this difference. In student
populations, the level of the issue being investigated is often shown to be important,
with local issues showing women to be more concerned than their counterparts
(Smith, 2001; Loges, 2000; Stem et al., 1993;).

Clearly, gender differences in environmental concern are complex issues.
Although the literature proposes several plausible explanations, the overall picture
is still ambiguous. Particularly in relation to student populations, gender is often
measured as just one of a standard set of investigated variables. Because gender
is one of the most commonly reported variables in environmental concern research,
and it hasn’t been thoroughly examined in student populations, it has been included

in this analysis.

Political Ideology. Research has consistently shown more liberal individuals
to show more concern for the environment (Skrentny, 1993; Jones and Dunlap,
1992; Blocker and Eckberg, 1989; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980). There is a great
deal of debate as to why this is the case. lnglehart (1990, 1977) theorized that the
apparent rise in environmental concern was due to postmaterialist views of the post-
Second World War generation. This generation, he argues, had to suffer very little
material deprivation during their formative years, leading them to be less concerned
with ‘material’ matters. In other words, postmaterial values reflect an individual’s
freedom to focus on higher-level needs, such as the environment, compared to
materialist values which reflect more basic needs such as security and safety
(lnglehart, 1990). lnglehart’s theory rests on two main hypotheses. First, the
scarcity hypothesis suggests that people will place greatest subjective value on
things in relatively short supply. Second, the socialization hypothesis, argues that a
person’s basic values reflect the conditions that existed during the person’s pre-
adult years. These hypotheses suggest that the post-WWII generation will seek
wider political agendas that reflect postmaterial values. Analysts have suggested
that postmaterialism reflects a populist and participatory orientation, and that this is
strongly related to democratic and reformist attitudes (Dalton, 1999). Further,
postmaterial values are usually associated with liberal political ideologies (lnglehart
1997; Abramson and lnglehart, 1995; Gibson and Duch, 1994; Muller—Rommel,
1989; Lowe and Pinhey, 1982). Although not specifically included in lnglehart’s
original discussion, concern for the environment has been correlated with
postmaterial values (Abrahamson and lnglehart, 1995; lnglehart, 1990;
Rohrschneider, 1988), and it is generally considered in the literature to be a

postmaterialist value.

10

With respect to student populations, it has been shown that political liberals
are more likely to show higher levels of concern than their conservative
counterparts (Thompson and Gasteiger, 1985; Wysor, 1983).

Based on the relatively consistent findings that liberalism is linked to

environmentalism, political ideology is important to include it in this study.

Family Income. It has been widely assumed that concern for the
environment is a characteristic displayed by wealthier individuals. Economists and
psychologists have viewed environmental concern as a luxury or convenience,
developing only after more immediate basic human needs of food, housing, and
security are met (Baumol and Oates, 1979; Leff, 1978). Political scientists argue
that environmental concern is a product of ‘postmaterialist values’ (lnglehart, 1990),
which have arisen due to post-WW ll affluence, as noted earlier. In each case, the
arguments suggest that residents of poorer, non-industrialized nations are assumed
to be less environmentally concerned than their counterparts in the industrialized
world. However, Dunlap and Mertig (1995) found that residents of low-income
nations tended to show higher levels of concern on many issues than did residents
of wealthier countries.

Even within industrialized nations, income does not appear to have the
expected effect on environmental attitudes. While a few studies in the United
States (Arcury, 1990; Arcury and Johnson, 1987; Arcury et al., 1986) have found a
positive relationship between family income and environmental concern, others
have found only minimal relationship between environmental concern and income

(Mertig and Dunlap, 2001; Morrison and Dunlap, 1986).

11

There are a few student studies that examine income as a predictor of
environmental concern. One study (Thompson and Gasteiger, 1985) found that
respondents from families with higher incomes had lower attitudinal scores than
their lower income counterparts. This relationship should be evaluated further,
particularly considering the literature appears to have a gap in this area. Because
of family income’s theoretical potential to contribute to environmental concern, it is

included as a possible factor in this thesis.

Community Type. Past research has been ambiguous regarding the impact
community type (rural versus urban) has on environmental concern. Some studies
have found no effect of community type on environmental concern (Milbrath, 1975).
Other studies, however, have found urban individuals to be more environmentally
concerned than their rural counterparts (Jones and Dunlap, 1992; Arcury, 1990;
Arcury et al., 1986; Buttel and Flinn, 1976). In contrast to residents of urban areas,
residents of rural communities are often regarded as being anti-environmental.
There are several arguments used to explain why these differences may arise.

The most frequent explanation given for rural-urban differences in concern
considers differential exposure to environmental degradation. The Environmental
Deprivation hypothesis (Bennett and McBeth, 1998; Freudenburg, 1991; Tremblay
and Dunlap, 1978) claims that rural residents show a lower level of environmental
concern due to the fact they live in a relatively unpolluted area. Conversely, urban
residents are more exposed to air, water, and noise pollution and this would make
them more apt to be environmentally concerned (Dillman and Christenson, 1975;

Kromm et al., 1973; DeGroot, 1967).

12

Another hypothesis used to explain rural-urban differences in concern is
based on occupation. The extractive-commodity, or Nature Exploitative Occupation
hypothesis (Freudenburg, 1991; Mohai and Twight, 1986), contends that rural
residents are more likely to participate in resource extractive occupations, such as
farming, mining, and logging. Individuals in these occupations typically display the
attitude that humans have dominion over the land, and that humans are not part of
the ecological landscape. These beliefs are congruent with the beliefs outlined in
the Human Exemptionalist Paradigm. Therefore, rural residents, who are more
likely to participate in such occupations, are argued to be less likely to be concerned
about environmental issues.

Closely linked to the Natural Exploitative Occupation hypothesis is the notion
that rural residents are more likely to have ‘pro-growth’ worldviews (Murdock and
Schriner, 1977). This explanation contends that rural residents are more likely to
experience economic underdevelopment and, therefore, value economic growth
over environmental protection.

One final hypothesis points toward socialization to explain rural-urban
differences in concern. In this view, the place where individuals were socialized has
an important impact on environmental concern. The community type at the time of
socialization, rather than current community type, has been shown to be more
important with regard to environmental concern (Glenn and Hill, 1977). In
accordance with this hypothesis, individuals socialized in metropolitan areas are
likely to view their surroundings as predominantly man-made. The hypothesis
suggests that individuals who grew up in such an area would be more likely to see
humans’ efforts as a proper solution to poor environmental quality. In other words,

urban residents are socialized to see people as determining environmental

13

conditions (Lowe and Pinhey, 1985). Consequently, individuals raised in urban
environments are more likely to realize the negative impacts humans have had on
the environment and have an increased level of environmental concern as a result.

Recent research has sought to further describe rural communities and their
constituents. There is some evidence to suggest that there are different ‘classes’
within rural p0pulations. For instance, some researchers have found a significant
difference between new rural migrants and long-term rural residents in terms of their
environmental concern. It has been shown that urbanites who have recently
relocated to rural areas show the highest environmental concern within that
community (Jones et al., 1999; McBeth and Foster, 1994).

As with other variables commonly reported in the general population
literature, few studies examine the impact of community type on environmental
concern in student populations. There is some indication, however, that student
populations follow their general population counterparts. In other words, individuals
from larger urban communities have a higher level of environmental concern (lwata,
1981)

Recent research has shown that rural-urban differences in environmental
concern are a complex issue. Despite the numerous hypotheses to explain rural-
urban differences in environmental concern, there is not ovenrvhelming support for
any of them. Urbanites do consistently show a higher degree of environmental
concern than do their rural counterparts, but environmental concern is not as
lacking in the rural community as was once thought. Theoretically, the socialization
hypothesis suggests that community type at time of socialization could play an
important role in formation of environmental concern. For this reason, it has been

included in this analysis.

14

Education.

One variable consistently discussed in the environmental concern literature is
education. Educational attainment has been shown to positively influence
environmental concern. In other words, more educated individuals are more likely
to be environmentally concerned than are less educated individuals. Certainly, in
the general population, this positive relationship has been supported (Tikka et al.,
2000; Glover and Deckert, 1998; Arcury, 1990; Arbuthnot, 1977; Kolodiy, 1975).

Student populations obviously have the benefit of education, albeit in
process’. When comparing general and student populations, there is an interesting
point to mention regarding environmental concern. Students show a somewhat
higher degree of environmental concern than the general population (Loges, 2000).
Two possible reasons for students showing higher concern are the typical student
age range and the immediacy of their educational exposure. Younger individuals,
which students certainly are on average, often show a higher degree of concern

(Dunlap and Jones, 1992). An important question, then, is what specifically about

education contributes to shaping positive environmental concern?

Exposure to Environmental Education. One area of education that has been
shown to positively influence environmental concern is exposure to environmental
education (EE). Environmental education is instruction specifically aimed at
increasing a student’s awareness, knowledge, and appreciation of the environment
(Hungerford and Volk, 1990). In the United States, there are national standards for
environmental education which incorporate four key educational components:

question and analysis skills, knowledge of the environment, skills for addressing

15

and understanding environmental issues, and personal and civic responsibility
(NAAEE; NEETF). See Appendix 1 for a full listing of these standards. Although
there is a wealth of research outlining how individual environmental education
courses impact environmental concern (Bradley et al., 1999; Glover and Deckert,
1998; Benton, 1993; Fishbein and Manfredo, 1992; Gigliotti, 1992; Arcury, 1990;
Hungerford and Volk, 1990), there are few studies that attempt to evaluate a
student’s overall exposure to environmental education and the impact that it has on
environmental concern.

In addition to comparison with earlier research findings, a key contribution of
this research is an attempt to measure exposure to the core components of
environmental education and to test how this exposure relates to environmental

concern.

College Major. Another important component of education is a student’s
chosen major. Deciding a college major is one of the most difficult considerations
an American university student has to make in his/her education. Although highly
dependent on a particular university, a Bachelor’s degree usually requires at least
four years of full-time study to complete. V\fithin the first year, students typically
enrol in general education courses. Deciding a college major or concentration
usually occurs between years two and three of the student’s academic progress
(MSU Office of the Registrar). Several studies have found choice of college major
to be linked to environmental concern score. Namely, students choosing pro-
environmental majors were often found to exhibit higher levels of concern
(Hodgkinson and lnnes, 2001; Guimond and Palmer, 1996; Shetzer et al., 1991;

Wysor, 1983).

16

Tikka et al. (2000) examined college major and level of environmental
concern. They found that students in the biological sciences, when compared to
those in other disciplines, had the most positive attitudes and showed the highest
degree of knowledge with regard to contemporary environmental issues. Inversely,
students in the engineering sciences had the least supportive environmental
attitudes and had the least knowledge regarding environmental issues. Such
findings demonstrate the importance, especially with students, of evaluating a

student’s area of study in addition to other aspects of their education.

Class Standing. Given the assumed linkage between education and
environmental concern, one would expect a student further along in his/her
academic progress to show a higher degree of environmental concern. In other
words, s/he would have time to attain more education, and this should, theoretically,
lead to an increase in level of concern. Many studies investigating environmental
concern also explore, and control for, the influence of age. There is ample evidence
that age is negatively related to environmental concern. This study employed class
standing, as opposed to age. The sample for this study was college students, who
are generally between the ages of 18 and 25. This age bracket does not provide
enough variation to use age as a factor. Rather, this study used class standing,
which focuses on how far along students are in their academic program, which, in
turn, reflects the amount of education they have had.

A recent Gallup poll (Loges and Kidder, 2000) showed that class standing, or
how far a student had progressed in his/her academic program, was indeed a factor

in determining environmental concern. Other studies have found the opposite result

17

(Thompson and Gasteiger, 1985). The literature has very few studies that consider

this particular question, however. This study will attempt to address this question.

Environmental Knowledge. As stated above, the literature clearly supports a
positive link between education and environmental concern. It makes intuitive
sense, then, that if a person knows more about environmental issues and problems,
s/he will also show more concern (Arcury and Christianson, 1993; Arcury, 1990;
Arcury et al., 1986). Measuring environmental knowledge is not as straightforward
as it may seem at first glance, but methods for doing so have evolved over time.
Early attempts at measurement relied on respondents rating their own
environmental knowledge on a Likert-type scale (Arcury et al., 1986). For instance,
respondents were asked to rate their knowledge regarding ground water pollution,
with four answer choices from ‘know a lot’ to ‘know very little’. Unsurprisingly, this
was difficult to analyze — how much knowledge does someone who ‘knows a Iot’
actually have?

More recent attempts to measure environmental knowledge have shifted
toward asking a series of multiple-choice questions regarding environmental issues,
where each question has only one correct answer. Measuring environmental
knowledge in this way provides a relatively straightforward process to determine
someone’s knowledge on a particular environmental issue, although it does rely on
issue-specific knowledge. One way to enhance the utility of this measure is to use
a wide variety of issues. Using this measurement technique, a direct positive
relationship between environmental concern and environmental knowledge has

been shown (Bradley et al., 1999; Arcury, 1990).

18

The general population is often found to be rather unknowledgeable with
regard to environmental issues. One national survey (Council of Environmental
Quality, 1980) found that only 20% of the general population could answer seven
out of ten environmental knowledge questions correctly. Student populations fare
somewhat better than their general population counterparts. Maloney and Ward
(1973) found that student populations could answer five out of ten questions
correctly, which is slightly higher than their general population counterparts from the
same study. Further, Benton (1993) found that students could answer at least eight
out of ten environmental knowledge questions correctly.

In sum, there are several aspects of education that need to be considered
when looking at educational influences on environmental concern, especially among
student populations. A person’s area of study, their class standing, their exposure
to components of environmental education, and their environmental knowledge can

all play important roles in influencing levels of environmental concern.

SIMIficant Life Experiences.

Many researchers have contended that experiences during a person’s
formative years (“significant life experiences” or SLE) help to shape his/her
environmental attitude and concern. SLE research first appeared in the literature in
the early 19805, but continuing research specifically designated as SLE research
has been minimal. Instead, SLE has been examined in various disciplines, and has
been given differing labels. The tradition of examining past experiences to
determine their contemporary impact has been an important element in social

research.

19

Tanner, who many consider to be the pioneer of SLE research, argued that
childhood experiences were critical in the development of environmentalism. He
surveyed members of several prominent conservation organizations, and asked
them to qualitatively explain the formative influences which led them to conservation
work and membership. Tanner (1980) found recurring themes from his
conservationist sample. They often spent time in natural areas as children, had
frequent contact with various habitats, had positive parental and teacher influences,
and read environmental books. Based on his research, Tanner suggested the
possibility of a critical link between nature-oriented childhood experiences and
environmental attitude and concern, and he called this linkage ‘significant life
expenencesf

At almost the same time as Tanner’s research, Peterson (1982) was
examining environmental sensitivity. She defined environmental sensitivity as ‘a
basic appreciation and concern for the natural environment’ (p. 5). Peterson found
the following experiences most influential in shaping a person’s environmental
sensitivity: activities in the outdoors, a family member’s positive environmental
attitude, studying natural systems, reading environmental books, and personal
experiences with habitat alteration. These activities are broadly similar to those
outlined by Tanner’s SLE research.

Other researchers have also examined the influences of significant life
experiences and environmental sensitivity. Sia et al. (1985/1986) found that
environmental sensitivity was a significant predictor of environmental concern.
Hungerford and Volk (1990) showed that environmental sensitivity was an important
variable in predicting responsible environmental action. Palmer (1993) found,

again, a recurrence in theme: time spent in the outdoors, a person’s level of

20

education, a family member’s positive environmental attitude, and reading
environmental books were influential in determining a person’s level of
proenvironmental attitudes. Despite subtle differences in labels and methodology,
researchers have found markedly similar results: most people who are
environmentally concerned all share certain key experiences. For the sake of
continuity and ease, I will use the earliest descriptor ‘significant life experience’ in
my discussions of this topic.

Significant Life Experiences research has several pronounced strengths.
First, this area of research has been largely qualitative, setting it apart from other
environmental concern research. This provides important information for
comparison with more traditional quantitative research. Secondly, this research
takes a person’s whole life into account, seeking to understand the influence of
experiences that occurred often decades earlier. Although there are some
limitations to measuring an individual’s memory of past events (Ross, 1997; Ross
and Bueller, 1994), it appears that individuals can usually recall a ‘generic’
representation of childhood events (Neisser, 1981; Linton, 1982; Wagenaar, 1986).
Even more promising for SLE research, an individual’s recollection of particularly
important or significant childhood events produces more accurate memories
(Bower, 1992; Reisber and Heuer, 1992; Conway and Beckerian, 1988).

Despite the strengths of SLE research, there are some apparent
weaknesses. One major criticism of early research was the pronounced gender
bias. Both Tanner and Peterson’s samples were ovenlvhelmingly male - 82% and
78%, respectively. Considering that men are, in general, more likely than women to
be outdoors oriented, these findings are not surprising. A second major weakness

of early SLE research was that the studies (Palmer and Suggate, 1998; Palmer and

21

Suggate, 1996; James, 1993) only looked at environmental educators and
environmental organization members. A broader comparative possibility was
inhibited by the narrow range of groups studied. For comparative purposes, it is
important to gain a picture of individuals with varying viewpoints and levels of
activism, such as those hostile to environmental protection or those who care about
the environment but have not become activists. Other research provides some
insight into this question.

The outdoor recreation literature shares many similarities with SLE research.
Namely, the activities reported as significant in contributing to positive
environmental concern are very similar. These activities are described in the
outdoor recreation literature as ‘appreciative’ activities, and include such things as
hiking, walking, camping, and nature viewing (Tarrant and Green, 1999). These
activities are remarkably similar to the influential items found in SLE research (Sia
et al., 1985/1986; Dunlap and Heffernan, 1975).

The outdoor recreation literature has also extensively examined participation
in activities which are generally considered to be unrelated or negatively related to
environmental attitudes. These can be characterized as motorized or consumptive
activities. Some examples of motorized activities are boating and riding off-road
vehicles. The two most commonly cited consumptive activities are hunting and
fishing. Individuals who participate in motorized or consumptive activities, then,
should provide a comparative basis for participants in more appreciative activities.

The true strength of SLE research is its applicability across disciplines.
Despite varying labels and methodology, researchers have consistently found

certain youth activities to be influential in a person’s adult proenvironmental

22

attitudes. It is for these reasons that Significant Life Experiences are evaluated in
this thesis.

The foregoing discussion leads to the following model of influences on
environmental concern. See Figure 2-1. This is the model used for understanding
environmental concern among college students in this thesis. As can be seen from
the figure, environmental concern is influenced by several key factors, including:

background variables, education, and significant life experiences.

23

 

EDUCATION
Environmental Education Exposure
Class Standing
College Major
Environmental Knowledge

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND
VARIABLES v
Gender
Political Ideology
Family Income
Community Type ll

 

 

Environmental
Concern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Significant Life Experiences

 

 

 

Figure 2-1. Theoretical model showing the relationship between environmental
concern and: background variables, education, and significant life experiences.

Consistently, researchers have found that urban, younger, and more liberal
individuals show a higher level of environmental concern. Similarly, educated
individuals are typically more concerned than their counterparts. This raises an
important question for student populations: do specific aspects of education — such
as, college major, class standing, exposure to environmental education, and
environmental knowledge — impact environmental concern? The overall picture
regarding background variable and environmental concern is somewhat clearer:
younger, educated, liberal females tend to be more concerned than their
counterparts. Do these relationships hold true in this sample? Significant Life
Experiences seem to contribute to environmental concern, but which experiences
are most influential? This thesis will examine these relationships and attempt to

answer outstanding questions.

24

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

The formative bases of environmental concern have interested researchers
for decades. This research explored the overall impact of environmental education
and other important background variables on environmental concern in a student
population. This analysis was undertaken by distributing a mail survey to a random
sample of full-time students at Michigan State University. In this chapter, I will
describe how the survey was implemented, provide a description of variables

(including questionnaire wording), and discuss the analytical methodology used.

Survey Implementation.
A survey was mailed in the fall of 2001 to a random sample of 1000 students

at Michigan State University. This random sample was generated by the University
Registrar, and the only criterion for selection was that the student had full-time
enrollment at the main campus. Therefore, a selected student could be of any class
standing (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or graduate). A variation of
Dillman’s five-contact protocol was used for this research (Dillman, 2000). Due to
budget constraints, three contacts were used: an initial survey mailing with cover
letter (return envelope-postage was included for off-campus addresses), reminder
postcard, and a second survey mailing with cover letter. The initial mailing took
place on October 30, the reminder postcard was mailed on November 7, and the
second mailing took place on November 27. This survey was designed to be
completed in less than thirty minutes. It was twelve black-and-white pages, and it

was formatted in booklet style

25

The overall response rate for this study was 47.6% (n = 476). Eighteen
surveys were returned blank. Four surveys were returned with a note declining

participation. Four surveys were returned due to incorrect addresses.

DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES
Environmental Concern.

Environmental concern was measured using the 15-item New Ecological
Paradigm Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000), which has been widely used as a measure of

environmental concern. See Table 3-1.

26

Table 3-1. Complete question wording for the 15-item New Ecological Paradigm
Scale.

 

Listed below are statements about the
relationship between humans and the
environment. For each one, please

indicated whether you Strongly Agree, 2 a) g 2. 3
Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly Disagree, 2’ g _>_~ g '5 2 Q 2’ '5:
or Strongly Disagree with it. 3, '5, .2 ‘5, 2 .13. ,9 g ,3

(I) <1: 2 <1 3 E D (D D

 

a. We are approaching the limit of the
number of people the earth can support.

 

b. Humans have the right to modify the
natural environment to suit their needs.

 

c. When humans interfere with nature it
often produces disastrous consequences.

 

d. Human ingenuity will insure that we do
NOT make the earth unliveable.

 

e. Humans are severely abusing the
environment.

 

f. The earth has plenty of natural resources
if we just learn how to develop them.

 

9. Plants and animals have as much right
as humans to exist.

 

 

h. The balance of nature is strong enough
to cope with the impacts of modern
industrial nations.

i. Despite our special abilities humans are
still subject to the laws of nature.

j. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing
humankind has been greatly
exaggerated.

k. The earth is like a spaceship with very
limited room and resources.

I. Humans were meant to rule over the rest
of nature.

m. The balance of nature is very delicate
and easily upset.

n. Humans will eventually learn enough
about how nature works to be able to
control it.

o. If things continue on their present course,
we will soon experience a major
ecological crisis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27

In the original coding, Strongly Agree = 1, Mildly Agree = 2, Unsure = 3,
Mildly Disagree = 4, and Strongly Disagree = 5. Eight items were worded such that
positive environmental concern was reflected in a low response value. In Table 3-1,
these are items a, c, e, g, i, k, m, and 0. These items were recoded, such that
higher scores reflected a more positive environmental concern score. A composite
score for environmental concern was calculated for use in further statistical
analysis. In order for this score to be calculated, a respondent needed to have
attempted at least twelve of fifteen items of the NEP Scale. Those with three or
fewer missing responses had these missing responses replaced with an ‘unsure’
value. The potential range of concern scores was fifteen (lowest concern) to
seventy-five (highest concern).

There has been some disagreement regarding the dimensionality of the NEP
scale. Does it measure a single construct or is it multidimensional (Dunlap et al.,
2000)? When factor analysis is used, some researchers have found the NEP items
to load on only one dimension (Lefcourt, 1996; Noe and Snow, 1990; Edgell &
Nowell, 1989). Other researchers have found the scale items to load on as many
as four dimensions (Furman, 1998; Roberts & Bacon, 1997). Most scholars,
however, have found the scale to elicit three dimensions: balance of humans and
nature, limits to growth, and dominance of man over nature (Kempton et al., 1995;
Geller 8 Lasley, 1985; Albrecht et al., 1982). Due to the inconsistency in factor
analysis loading, the scale designers suggest that each researcher use all the NEP
items to ascertain if multiple dimensions exist for his/her particular study (Dunlap et
al., 2000).

When factor analyzing the NEP items for this research, the eigenvalues

showed loadings on predominantly one factor. There was a dramatic shift in

28

acceptable eigenvalues after the initial factor. See Table 3-2. If the New Ecological
Paradigm Scale is unidimensional, there should be a sharp drop between the first
and second eigenvalues, and a relatively gentle linear decline in the remainder of
the eigenvalues (Zeller and Carmines, 1980). Figure 3—1 shows the scree plot of
the eigenvalues for this sample. This scree plot indicates a sharp drop between the
first and second eigenvalues, and a moderate decline thereafter. Therefore, for the
purpose of this thesis, it is reasonable to treat the NEP as a relatively
unidimensional scale. In this sample, the scale also showed a high degree of

internal consistency, having a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.816.

29

Table 3-2. Factor analysis of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale showing five
components, with principal component extraction (varimax rotation). Asterisked (*)
items were reverse coded so that increased scores corresponded with increased

environmental concern.

Factors and LoadiLgs

 

1

2

 

Humans are meant to rule over the
rest of nature.

0.816

0.180

-0.036

0.144

0.018

 

Humans have the right to modify
their natural environment.

0.643

0.258

0.197

-0.094

-0.012

 

Plants and animals have as much
right as humans to exist.*

0.642

-0.032

0.145

0.228

0.376

 

Human ingenuity will insure that we
do NOT make the earth unlivable.

0.074

0.755

0.159

0.046

0.154

 

Humans will eventually learn enough
about how nature works to be able to
control it.

0.274

0.612

0.097

-0.116

0.324

 

The earth has plenty of natural
resources if we just learn how to
develop them.

0.104

0.598

-0.224

0.448

-0.167

 

The balance of nature is strong
enough 0 cope with the impacts of
modern industrial nations.

0.187

0.540

0.305

0.234

-0.096

 

Humans are severely abusing the
environment.“

0.126

0.079

0.767

0.125

0.037

 

When humans interfere with nature it
often produces disastrous
consequencesf

0.012

0.101

0.736

0.097

0.235

 

The earth is like a spaceship with
very limited room and resources.*

0.022

0.181

0.061

0.796

0.155

 

We are approaching the limit of the
number of people the earth can
support.*

0.050

0.114

0.332

0.562

-0.031

 

The balance of nature
delicate and easily upset.*

is very

0.255

-0.093

0.117

0.549

0.217

 

Despite our special abilities humans
are still subject to the laws of
nature.*

0.073

0.136

0.091

0.161

0.815

 

If things continue on their present
course, we will soon experience a
major ecological catastrophe.*

0.322

0.128

0.489

0.452

-0.180

 

The so-called “ecological crisis”
facing humankind has been greatly
exaggerated.

0.401

0.358

0.423

0.208

-0.164

 

 

 

Variance Explained

 

28.50

 

8.907

 

7.692

 

7.324

 

6.751

 

30

 

Scree Plot

 

2:

1-

 

 

Eigenvalue

0

 

1

1335557551'01112131415

Component Number

Figure 3-1. Scree plot showing factor loading for the New Ecological Paradigm
Scale.

Background Variables.
The background variables (other than education and SLE, which are
discussed later) measured in this study were gender, political ideology, family

income, and community type.

Gender. Gender was measured by asking, “Are you male or female?” This
was then recoded, with female being coded “1” and males being assigned a value

of “0.”

Political Ideology. Political ideology was measured by asking respondents to

identify where they fell on a continuum of conservative to liberal: “Thinking
31

 

 

politically and socially, how would you describe your own general position?" The
response options were very conservative = 1, somewhat conservative = 2, middle of
the road = 3, somewhat liberal = 4, very liberal = 5, and unsure = 6. All those

responding as “unsure” were recoded into a position of ‘middle of the road’.

Family Income. Family income was measured by asking parents’ gross
household income in 2000, before deductions. The exact question wording was:

“What was your parents’ gross household income (before taxes) in 2000?” Five

answer options were possible: less than $20,000 = 1, $20,00-$39,999 2,
$40,000-$59,999 = 3, $60,000-$74,999 = 4, $75,000 or more = 5, Unsure = 6.
Unsure responses were left coded as ‘unsure’ for the univariate analysis. In the

bivariate and multivariate analyses, however, the unsure responses were

considered missing.

Community Type. Respondents were asked the following question: “In what
type of area did you spend all or most of your childhood?” Response categories
were: rural farm area = 1, rural non-farm area = 2, small town (25,000 people or
fewer) = 3, urban area (from 25,001 to 100,000 people) = 4, metropolitan area
(more than 100,000 people) = 5, or unsure = 6. All unsure responses were coded

as missing values.

Education.
As noted earlier, there are four elements of education of direct importance
here: 1) a person’s exposure to core components of environmental education; 2)

college major; 3) class standing; and 4) environmental knowledge.

32

Exposure to Environmental Education. Exposure to environmental education
was measured by asking students whether they had taken college courses that
covered certain topics that could be considered components of environmental
education. As outlined by the North American Association for Environmental
Education, there are four features of environmental education: questioning and
analysis skills, knowledge of environmental processes and systems, skills for
understanding and addressing environmental issues, and personal and civic
responsibility. Each of these four features was measured with 3 to 5 items on the
survey. These items were constructed to determine a student’s relative exposure to
the content indicated in the national guidelines for environmental education. See
Table 3-3 for environmental education question wording and response categories.
For the ‘questioning and analysis skills’ feature, three questions (items b, c, d from
Table 3-3) were asked. ‘Knowledge of environmental processes and systems’ was
measured with five questions (items e, f, g, h, and i). For the EE feature of ‘skills for
understanding and addressing environmental issues,’ three questions were asked
(items a, j, and k). Finally, “personal and civic responsibility’ was measured with
three questions (items I, m, and n).

Respondents were given the options of “Yes”, “No”, and “Unsure.” Only a
response of “Yes” was coded as 1. All other responses, including item non-
response, were coded as 0. Recoding item non-response in this manner helped to
preserve sample size, but was also statistically conservative. A composite
environmental education exposure score (range 0-14) was generated by summing
the responses to the individual items. In this sample, the scale also showed a high

degree of internal consistency, having a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.841.

33

College Major. Respondents were asked a single open-ended question:
“What is/are you current major(s)?” At MichiganState University, there are fifteen
colleges that offer accredited majors. Some colleges are more likely to offer
courses with environmental education components. The colleges that are more
likely to offer instruction in the components of environmental education are the
Colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Natural Science, and Social
Science. Respondents declaring a major in one of the above “environmentally
related” colleges were given a value of 1, whereas respondents with majors in all
other colleges (as well as respondents who were unsure of their major) were given

a value of 0.

34

Table 3-3. Environmental education questions and possible response categories.

The following questions are to help us understand your previous educational
experience in college. Please indicate if you’ve had any college course where
you...

 

Yes No Unsure

 

a. Investigated an environmental issue?

 

b. Used popular sources (newspapers,
magazines, television, world wide web) to
collect information on an environmental issue?

 

c. Used scholarly sources (journals or periodicals)
to collect information on an environmental
issue?

 

d. Developed a specific strategy to deal with an
environmental issue?

 

Used @bal information systems (GIS)?

 

Studied biology?

 

 

Studied chemistry?

 

Studies physics?

 

Studied environmental science?

 

e
f.

g. Studied geology?
h

l

l

k

Learned about political and/or economic
systems as they related to environmental
issues?

 

l. Studied how humans can impact the
environment?

 

m. Learned what you could do to get involved with
an environmental issue?

 

 

n. Were asked to evaluate your personal impact
on the environment?

 

 

 

 

 

Class Standing. A person’s grade level, or academic level, was measured by
a single item. The exact question wording was, “What is your year in school?”

Freshmen = 1, Sophomore = 2, Junior = 3, Senior = 4, and Graduate = 5.

Environmental Knowledge. The environmental knowledge items were
designed to measure awareness of environmental issues. There were ten items in

this scale. Each item had five answer choices, of which only one was considered

35

correct. One of the five answer choices was “unsure.” See Table 3-4 for a
complete representation of the questions and item format. Correct answers were
coded 1 and incorrect/unsure responses were assigned a value of 0. A composite
knowledge score (range 0-10) was generated for each respondent who attempted
at least eight of the items. Those with one or two unanswered items received a 0

for the missing items.

Table 34. Complete question wording and format of environmental knowledge
questions and possible answers. Correct responses are noted by a checked box.

At the present time, where does most of the energy used in the United States come
from?

El Nuclear reactors

El Hydroelectric dams

Cl Solar Power

IZI Burning of fossil fuels

El Unsure

Which of the following is n_ot considered a major cause of global warming?
lZl Hydroelectric power
El Loss of rainforests
El Power plants that burn coal or oil
Cl Automobile exhaust
El Unsure

Which of the following is true of the world’s human population?
Cl Countries with the highest rates of population growth also tend to be those
that consume the most resources per capita.
D Developed countries, such as Germany or the United States, are among
those countries with the highest rates of population growth.
El Immigration is a key factor behind the growth in the world population.
I?! Growth in world population has been linked to declines in many animal and
plant species.
Cl Unsure.

36

Table 3-4 (cont.)

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are...

Cl
C!
[ZI
CI
CI

Widely used in aerosol sprays in the United States.

A major cause of ozone pollution, or “smog”.

A major factor in the thinning of the atmospheric ozone layer.
No longer considered problematic in the United States.
Unsure.

Freshwater supplies...

El Are as plentiful today as they were 100 years ago.
IZI Are diminishing throughout the world.
El Are threatened primarily by the presence of animal feces.
El Are not considered a problem in the Untied States.
Cl Unsure.
Biodiversity...
IZI Refers to the number and variety of species present in an ecosystem.
Cl Has increased in recent years for many parts of the world.
Cl ls threatened by the presence of large, non-human, predators (such as
wolves or tigers).
CI Has been an important goal of modern agriculture.
Cl Unsure.
Acid rain...
Cl Is produced when CFCs are released by factories.
Cl Is no longer considered a serious threat.
[21 Is responsible for the death of forests in Europe and elsewhere.
Cl Has helped restore fish populations in affected lakes.
Cl Unsure.

What is the primary harmful effect of phosphates on marine life?

CI
CI
IZI
Cl
CI

They make fish sterile.

They make the water cloudy.

They feed algae, which takes oxygen away from fish.
They make the water too acidic.

Unsure.

Mercury has been found at unacceptable levels in:

DUDDEI

Seafood and fish.
Fruit.

Soft drinks.

Beef

Unsure.

37

Table 3-4 (cont)

Which of the following is mt considered to be true:

Landfills can produce methane, a greenhouse gas.

Landfills can leach toxic substances into the groundwater.

Pound for pound, there is more plastic found in landfills than paper.
Landfills can contain toxic substances.

Unsure.

DDISIDD

Significant Life Experience.

Significant Life Experience (SLE) was measured using two scales. See
Table 3-5. There were eighteen items in each scale, and respondents were asked
to gauge their participation in various environmentally relevant activities both before
and during their college years. For the before college experience questions, the
items were worded in past tense. Possible responses were Never = 1, Rarely = 2,
Sometimes = 3, and Frequently = 4. All item non-responses were coded with a
value of 1, which equated to a response of “never.” Again, this helped to preserve
sample size and remained arithmetically conservative. Two composite variables
were created. A variable for ‘before college participation’ (range 18-72) was
generated to reflect overall participation in environmentally relevant activities prior to
college. Another variable (range 18-72) was generated to reflect current
participation in outdoor and/or environmentally relevant activities. These two

composite variables were also factor analyzed.

38

Table 3-5. Question wording for Significant Life Experiences before college and
current participation questions. All current participation items were worded in
present tense.

 

 

Before college/Currently, about 1 2 3 4
how often did/do you engage in Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently

each of the following activities?

 

a. Hiked and/or walked in a
natural area

 

b. Camped by yourself or with a
group

 

c. Went on family vacations
and/or outing in an outdoor
setting

 

Participated in team sports

 

Participated in individual sports

 

Went canoeing/kayamg

 

Went boating/yachting

 

Went mountain biking

 

Rode off-road vehicles (ORVs)

 

Hunted

 

FT'T'R‘P-‘PP-

Fished

 

Spent time with parents in a
natural area

 

m. Spent time with friends in a
natural area

 

n. Spent time alone in a natural
area

 

o. Spent time in a natural area
with other family member
(other than parent)

 

p. Read publications that focused
on environmental issues

 

q. Took courses in school that
stressed environmental issues

 

 

r. Watched TV programs that
focused on environmental
issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor analysis of the scale for participation in environmental/outdoor
activities prior to college yielded four factors (see Table 3-6). Factor one outlines
interactive appreciative activities: hiking, camping, vacationing, canoeing/kayaking,
and spending time with others in a natural area. Factor two can be loosely labeled

39

as consumptive activities: hunting, fishing, and riding an ORV. Factor three can be
considered as non-interactive appreciative activities: reading environmental
publications, taking environmental courses, and watching environmental programs.
Finally, factor four can be described as sporting: participation in individual or team
spons.

Significant Life Experiences are those which occur in one’s youth, which is
why participation in outdoor/environmental activities prior to college was examined
here. However, it is interesting to note that similar results to those stated here also

occurred when examining current participation in outdoor/environmental activities.

40

Table 3-6. Factor analysis of Participation Before College Scale showing four
extracted components, using principal component extraction and varimax rotation.
Items were coded so that missing values reflected no participation in a particular

activity type.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4
Hiked and/or walked in a natural area 0.728 0.195 0.246 0.099
Camped by yourself or with flout; 0.699 0.294 0.064 0.060
Went on family vacations and/or outings in an 0.784 0.083 0.092 0.157
outdoor settigg
Went canoeiLg/kayaking 0.512 0.428 0.086 0.117
Spent time with parents in a natural area 0.796 0.060 0.167 0.124
Spent time with friends in a natural area 0.782 0.168 0.247 0.124
Spent time alone in a natural area 0.667 0.241 0.344 0.030
Spent time in a natural area with other family 0.719 0.179 0.204 0.033
member (other than parent)
Road off-road vehicles (ORVs) 0.211 0.713 0.052 -0.022
Hunted 0.017 0.754 0.119 0.071
Fished 0.341 0.600 0.284 0.082
Read publications that focused on environmental 0.321 0.089 0.767 0.025
issues
Took courses in school that stressed 0.113 0.071 0.768 0.076
environmental issues
Watched TV programs that focused on 0.184 0.070 0.789 0.049
environmental issues
Participated in team sports 0.103 0.112 0.060 0.864
Participated in individual sports 0.168 0.075 0.103 0.854
Went boating/yachting 0.373 0.484 -0.071 0.314
Went mountain bikinL 0.410 0.403 -0.113 0.233

 

 

 

 

 

 

As originally argued by Tanner (1980), significant life experiences particularly
in one’s youth, could influence his/her environmental concern in adulthood. For this
reason, participation in environmental and/or outdoor activities prior to college was
used to evaluate the impact on environmental concern.

In order to determine the potential relationship between consumptive or
appreciative activities and environmental concern, an additional scale measure was
used. For this scale, consumptive activities were considered to be: riding ORVs,
Recall that

hunting, and fishing as determined by the factor analysis results.

missing responses were recoded to 1 (never). The consumptive item scores were

41

summed to create a composite score for consumptive activity participation. The
resulting scale could have a possible range of 3 to 12. In this sample, the
consumptive scale showed a moderate degree of internal consistency, having a
Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.645. This composite consumptive score was then correlated
with the environmental concern score. For appreciative activities, a similar
methodology was used. For this scale, appreciative activities were considered to be
the following items (as, again, determined by the factor analysis results): hiking,
camping, family vacations in natural area, canoeing/kayaking, time with parents in
natural area, time with friends in natural area, time alone in natural area, and time
with other family member in natural area. Again, missing responses were recoded
to 1 (never). The appreciative item scores were summed to create a composite
score for appreciative activity participation. The resulting scale could have a
possible range of 9 to 36. In this sample, the appreciative scale showed a very high
degree of internal consistency, having a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.903. This
composite appreciative score was then correlated with the environmental concern
score.

The appreciative and consumptive scale measures were not used in the
multivariate analysis since they would necessarily be collinear with the measure of
before college participation. However, a test was conducted at the bivariate level to

see if certain types of activities influenced environmental concern.

42

Analysis.

In Chapter 4, I present my results. I used a three-step approach to analyze
the utility of the theoretical model (Figure 3-2), and results are presented in this
fashion. Univariate analysis included descriptive statistics - frequency distributions,
means, and standard deviations. Bivariate analysis included correlations for each
variable in the model with the measure of environmental concern. Pearson
correlations assume interval-level measurement. Despite several ordinal-level
variables in this analysis, correlations are used for two key reasons. The first
reason is that they are commonly understood measures of association. Secondly,
they are known to be relatively robust under conditions of non-normality as well as
with other violations of assumptions (Zeller and Levine, 1974). As a final method of
analysis, multivariate regression was used to determine the relative importance of
each variable in the model. All analyses were conducted using Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences, version 11.0 for Windows.

43

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

While many researchers have explored the relationship between
environmental concern and several possible predictors, the relationship with specific
components of education (e.g. class standing, area of study, exposure to
environmental education, and environmental knowledge) has not been fully
explored. A key contribution of this research is to examine several components of
education and their impact on environmental concern. In addition, I evaluated the
influence of other background variables and significant life experiences on
environmental concern. I used a three-step approach (with univariate, bivariate,
and multivariate level statistics) to analyze the utility of the theoretical model (Figure
4-1). In order to test these relationships, a survey was administered to a random

sample of 1000 university students in the fall of 2001.

44

 

 

EDUCATION
Environmental Education Exposure
Class Standing
College Major
Environmental Knowledge

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 1
VARIABLES
Gender -
Political Ideology
Family Income ll
Community Type

 

Environmental
Concern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Significant Life Experiences

 

 

 

Figure 4-1. Theoretical model showing the relationship between environmental
concern and: background variables, education, and significant life experiences.

DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES
Environmental Concern.

The New Ecological Paradigm Scale included fifteen items; full results are
presented in Table 4-1. Respondents gave a clearly directional response to several
items. For instance, a majority of people (57.2%) strongly believed that plants and
animals have as much right as humans to exist. Similarly, a majority (54.2%) also
strongly believed that humans, despite our special abilities, are subject to the laws
of nature.

These items, taken together, generated a scale measure of concern.
Negatively worded items were recoded so that increased environmental concern
corresponded to higher scores. The scores were then summed for all fifteen items.

The potential range of concern scores was 15 (lowest concern) to 75 (highest

45

concern). In other words, higher scores correspond to greater concern. Few
respondents (4.2%) scored 40 or below, and few (3.7%) scored over 70. This
indicates that respondents were grouped in the middle range of scores, albeit
toward the higher end of the scale. They were grouped between scores of 50 and
60, with 45.3% of the respondents falling within this range. Respondents had an
average concern score of 56.2, with a standard deviation of i870. The distribution

tends toward greater environmental concern.

46

Table 4-1.

into each response category, and the valid n for each item.

Question wording for environmental concern items, taken from the
revised New Ecological Paradigm Scale, and the percentage of respondents falling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Listed below are statements about the m 3 a.”
relationship between humans and the 9 m a g
environment. For each one, please 2’ e g 5

indicated whether you Strongly Agree, _> 2’ o 5 _>_~

Mildly Agree, are Unsure, Mildly g g ‘3 % g
Disagree, or Strongly Disagree With it. 5 g E g 5 g E g 5 3:0: c
We are approaching the limit of the 23.9 38.5 16.4 16.4 4.7 444
number of peflle the earth can support.

Humans have the right to modify the 3.6 26.9 9.0 38.8 21.7 443
natural environment to suit their needs.

When humans interfere with nature it often 36.3 44.4 5.9 10.9 2.5 441
produces disastrous consequences.

Human ingenuity will insure that we do 5.2 23.5 29.6 26.2 15.5 439
NOT make the earth unliveable.

Humans are severely abusing the 46.3 37.7 5.9 7.4 2.7 443
environment.

The earth has plenty of natural resources if 17.6 36.6 15.8 20.3 9.7 443
we just learn how to develop them.

Plants and animals have as much right as 57.2 26.8 5.0 9.0 2.0 444
humans to exist.

The balance of nature is strong enough to 2.7 7.9 14.0 45.9 29.5 444
cope with the impacts of modern industrial

nafions.

Despite our special abilities humans are 54.2 35.1 7.7 2.0 0.9 441
still subject to the laws of nature.

The so-called “ecological crisis” facing 1.6 15.3 23.2 34.7 25.2 444
humankind has been greatly exaggerated.

The earth is like a spaceship with very 30.0 36.3 11.1 18.1 4.5 443
limited room and resources.

Humans were meant to rule over the rest 7.7 14.4 12.0 26.2 39.7 443
of nature.

The balance of nature is very delicate and 30.2 43.8 12.0 12.9 1.1 443
easily upset.

Humans will eventually learn enough about 1.8 15.5 22.5 37.6 22.5 444
how nature works to be able to control it.

If things continue on their present course, 27.3 37.9 22.3 9.7 2.7 443

we will soon experience a major ecological
crisis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

 

 

 

 

 

Percent

27.00 35.00 43.00 49.00 55.00 61.00 67.00 73.00
31.00 40.00 46.00 52.00 58.00 64.00 70.00

Environmental Concern Score

Figure 4-2. Percentage of student respondents with varying environmental concern
scores, as measured by the New Ecological Paradigm Scale.

Background Variables.

Results for gender, political ideology family income, and community type are
presented in Table 4-2. Approximately 62.4% of the respondents were female. The
sample was widely dispersed in their political ideologies, with 44.7% expressing
some degree of liberal orientation. In terms of parents’ combined income, the
respondents declared a range of affluence. Over 52% of the respondents stated
their parents’ income was greater than $75,000 per year. Over half the respondents

(54.1%) came from an urban or metropolitan area.

48

Table 4-2. Background variable question wording, percentage of respondents
within each category, and valid n for each item.

Are you male or female?

Male 37.6%
Female 62.4%
(n) (444)

Thinking politically and socially, how would you describe your own
general position?

Very conservative 3.8 %
Somewhat conservative 21.6 %
Middle of the road 29.9 %
Somewhat liberal 32.6 %
Very liberal 12.1 %
In) (445)
What was your parents’ gross household income (before taxes) in 2000?
Less than $20,000 3.3 %
$20,000 to $39,999 9.7 %
$40,000 to $59,999 18.4 %
$60,000 to $74,999 16.0 %
$75,000 or more 52.6 %
(n) (331)
In what type of area did you spend all or most of your childhood?
Rural, farm 9.1 %
Rural, non-farm 12.3 %
Small town (25,000 people or fewer) 24.4 %
Urban area (from 25,001 to 100,000 people) 31.9 %
Metropolitan area (more than 100,000 people) 22.3 %
(n) (439)
Education.

Exposure to Environmental Education.

A primary focus of this research was to determine the overall impact of
exposure to environmental education on environmental concern. Recall that scale
items were generated from national standards for environmental education, and

these are listed in Table 4-3. A score was generated to gauge overall exposure.

49

As can be seen in Table 4-3, respondents had a wide range of exposure to
the environmental education components. Respondents had the most exposure to
courses in biology, chemistry, and how humans impact the environment.
Respondents had the least exposure to courses where they were asked to use
global information systems (GIS), to determine a specific strategy to deal with an
environmental issue, or to evaluate their personal impact on the environment.

Overall exposure to environmental education is displayed in Table 4-4. A
number of respondents (92%) reported not having any exposure to environmental
education in college. At the other end of the scale, 3.4% of the respondents
reported having been exposed to 13 or 14 components. Exposure to three
components was reported most often (13.4% of the respondents). A score was
also generated to determine overall exposure to the components of environmental

education. Respondents had an average education score of 5.96, with a standard

deviation of 3:368.

50

Table 4-3. Measurement of exposure to the components environmental education
and percentage of respondents in each response category. Valid n = 476 for each
item.

The following questions are to help us understand your previous educational
experience in college. Please indicate if you’ve had any college course where
you...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes No
a. Investigated an environmental issue? 55.5 44.5
b. Used popular sources (newspapers, magazines, 51.9 48.1
television, world wide web) to collect information on
an environmental issue?
0. Used scholarly sources (journals or periodicals) to 37.2 62.8
collect information on an environmental issue?
(I. Developed a specific strategy to deal with an 17.2 82.8
environmental issue?
e Used global information systems (GIS)? 13.0 87.0
f. Studied biology? 78.4 21.6
g Studied geology? 36.1 63.9
h Studied chemistry? 62.2 37.8
I. Studies physics? 51.7 48.3
j. Studied environmental science? 42.0 58.0
k. Learned about political and/or economic systems 49.6 50.4
as they related to environmental issues?
I. Studied how humans can impact the environment? 61.3 38.7
m. Learned what you could do to get involved with an 32.1 67.9
environmental issue?
n. Were asked to evaluate your personal impact on 19.1 80.9
the environment?

 

51

Table 4-4. Overall exposure to environmental education. Number of components
exposed to, frequency, percentage of student respondents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exposure to EE Frequency Percentage of Student
Components Respondents
0 44 9.2
1 13 2.7
2 25 5.3

3 64 13.4
4 44 9.2
5 38 8.0
6 45 9.5
7 29 6.1
8 40 8.4
9 42 8.8
10 25 5.3
1 1 30 6.3
12 21 4.4
13 9 1 .9
14 7 1.5
n 476

 

 

 

 

College Major. Approximately thirty percent of the respondents declared
majors contained within “environmentally related” colleges, i.e. the Colleges of
Natural Science, Social Science, and Agriculture and Natural Resources. See
Table 4-5. This figure closely matches that produced by the University Registrar
(MSU Office of the Registrar, 2004). Frustratingly, a large proportion of the
respondents (30.3%) left the item blank. Considering the large proportion of upper
class respondents, this is puzzling. This issue will be explored more fully in the

Discussion section of this thesis.

52

Table 4-5. Respondent declaration of college major versus the University
Registrar’s records for the same information. (n = 476)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Respondent Registrar
Declaration Statistics
major in “environmentally related” college 30.3 % 32.9%
major not in “environmentally related" college 39.5 % 59.6%
j unsure 30.3 % 7.5%

 

Class Standing. Just under three percent declared themselves sophomores,
14.9% as juniors, 56.0% as seniors, 26.2% as graduate students. Interestingly, no
respondents reported themselves to be freshmen. This sample was obtained
through the University Registrar’s Office, and according to their records, this sample
contained the following distribution: 0.8% freshmen, 5.0% sophomores, 22.1%
juniors, 46.6% seniors, and 25.2% graduate students. According to published
statistics (Michigan State University Registrar, 2004), the proportion of Michigan
State University full-time students in degree-level courses in the fall of 2001 was as
follows: 21.4% freshmen, 19.7% sophomores, 21.1% juniors, 21.8% seniors, and

16.0% were graduate students (see Table 4-6).

Table 4-6. Class standing breakdown by respondent declaration, University
Registrar statistics for the sample, and University Registrar statistics for population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent Registrar for Registrar for
Declaration Sample Population

(%) We) 4%)
freshmen 0.0 0.8 21.4
soghomores 2.9 5.0 19.7
juniors 14.9 22.1 21.1
seniors 56.0 46.6 21.8
graduate 26.2 25.2 16.0

 

 

 

 

53

There are quite a few puzzling aspects to these data. As can be seen from
Table 46 there are discrepancies between Michigan State University’s population,
the random sample drawn, and the respondent declaration of class standing.
Possible explanations for these differences will be explored in the Discussion

section of this thesis.

Environmental Knowledge. The survey asked ten questions to gauge
respondents’ knowledge of environmental issues (see Table 4-7). The maximum
possible knowledge score was ten, which would indicate that all the knowledge
questions were answered correctly. In other words, higher scores correspond to
greater environmental knowledge. Just under six percent (5.8%) of the respondents
answered all the questions correctly, and 0.9% of the sample answered all the
questions incorrectly (see Table 4-8). The distribution tended toward the
‘knowledgeable’ end of the scale, with a mean value of 6.5 items answered
correctly. Respondents seemed to be more knowledgeable, as indicated by a high
proportion of correct responses, regarding causes of global warming, freshwater
supplies, the meaning of biodiversity, and mercury contamination in food.
Conversely, respondents did not seem to be as knowledgeable about acid rain, the

harmful effect of phosphates, or typical landfill composition.

54

Table 4-7. Responses to each of the environmental knowledge questions. Column
1 shows the question wording and the correct answer (indented). Column 2
represents the percentage of respondents giving a correct response. Column 3

represents the percentage of respondents giving an incorrect response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
*6 T5 5 7;
“9 2 : 2 c
Question Wording and Correct Response 8 3 E g
5
At the present time, where does most of the energy 67.6 26.5 448
used in the United States come from?
Burning of fossil fuels.
Which of the following is ngt considered a major cause 87.5 12.5 447
of global warming?
Hydroelectric power.
Which of the following is true of the world’s human 62.9 37.1 447
population?
Growth in world population has been linked to
declines in many animal and plant species.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are... 58.6 41.4 442
A major factor in the thinning of the atmospheric
ozonelayeh
Freshwater supplies... 88.9 11.1 449
Are diminishing throughout the world.
Biodiversity... 80.3 19.7 447
Refers to the number and variety of species present
in an ecosystem
Acid rain... 48.1 51.9 447
Is responsible for the death of forests in Europe and
elsewhere.
What is the primary harmful effect of phosphates on 32.7 67.3 447
marine life?
They feed algae, which takes oxygen away from fish.
Mercury has been found at unacceptable levels in: 81.5 18.5 448
Seafood and fish.
Which of the following is 1191 considered to be true: 39.4 60.6 442
Pound for pound, there is more plastic found in
landfills than paper.

 

55

 

Table 4-8. Knowledge score based on number of correct responses given by
respondents. Number of correctly answered questions, frequency, and percentage.
(n = 448)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Correctly Answered Frequency Percentage
; Questions
V 0 4 0.9
L 1 10 2.2
’1 2 10 2.2
‘ 3 15 3.3
F 4 38 8.5
5 48 10.7
6 77 17.2
7 93 20.8
8 75 16.7
9 52 11.6
10 26 5.8

 

 

 

 

Significant Life Experiences.

Significant Life Experiences are described as instances, usually in a person’s
youth, where an activity shapes his/her view of the environment. This study asked
a series of questions relating to past and present participation in
outdoor/environmental activities which are assumed to Influence environmental
concern (see Table 4-9). Respondents were quite likely to indicate ‘sometimes’ or
‘frequent’ participation in the following activities prior to college: hiking or walking in
the outdoors, family vacations in the outdoors, team sports, individual sports, and
spending time with friends in a natural area. Respondents more often gave a
‘never’ or ‘rarely’ participation rating prior to college for the following activities:
canoeing, boating, mountain biking, riding off-road vehicles, hunting, fishing, being
alone in a natural area, reading environmental publications, and taking
environmental courses. Possible scores for the overall index of before college

participation could range between 18 and 72. Higher scores correspond to greater

56

participation in outdoor/environmental activities before college. This sample had an
average before college participation value of 40.3. See Figure 4-3. This shows that
respondents, prior to college, tended toward non-participation in

outdoor/environmental activities.

57

Table 4-9. Questions regarding participation in outdoor and/or environmental activities.
The first line indicates the percentage of respondents who participated in outdoor and/or
environmental activities before college: “Before college, about how often did you
engage in each of the following activities?” The second line indicates the percentage of
respondents who currently participate in outdoor and/or environmental activities:
“Currently, about how often did you engage in each of the following activities?” (n = 476)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U)

a 2. g a
a 33 $3? *3 25 8 Is"
2 v m v g v gv

a; LL
Hiked and/or walked in a natural area 11.6 25.2 42.2 21.0
15.5 27.3 41.4 15.8
i Camped by yourself or with a group 21.0 30.3 35.7 13.0
, 39.3 27.1 24.8 8.8
Went on family vacations and/or outings in an 17.4 21.6 37.2 23.7
outdoor setting 36.1 31.5 23.3 9.0
Participated in team sports 14.3 16.8 20.4 48.5
43.5 27.7 20.0 8.8
Participated in individual sports 15.1 19.1 30.9 34.9
30.0 28.2 25.0 16.8
Went canoeing/kayaking 35.7 37.4 22.7 4.2
53.8 28.4 15.3 2.5
‘ Went boating/yachting 29.4 33.8 21.6 15.1
50.2 24.6 17.6 7.6
Went mountain biking 50.0 26.7 19.5 3.8
62.8 20.8 12.6 3.8
Rode off-road vehicles (ORVs) 64.9 18.5 12.0 4.6
82.6 10.1 6.1 1.6
Hunted 81.3 7.6 5.9 5.3
IL 87.6 5.7 3.6 3.2
‘ Fished 31.5 37.4 22.1 9.0
. 66.0 19.7 9.9 4.4
Spent time with parents in a natural area 19.1 31.9 34.2 14.7
46.8 32.1 16.8 4.2
Spent time with friends in a natural area 11.6 26.5 42.4 19.5
22.3 29.8 37.8 10.1
Spent time alone in a natural area 23.9 31.3 29.4 15.3
29.8 29.2 28.4 12.6
Spent time in a natural area with other family 28.4 34.2 29.0 8.4
member (other than parent) 46.4 27.1 21.6 4.8
Read publications that focused on environmental 37.2 35.7 22.7 4.4
issues 34.2 30.7 25.8 9.2
Took courses in school that stressed environmental 48.1 35.7 12.4 3.8
issues 54.6 21.2 13.7 10.5
Watched TV programs that focused on 21.8 35.1 32.6 10.5
, environmental issues 29.2 28.4 27.3 15.1

 

58

 

 

40

30-

 

 

 

Frequency

18.00 26.00 32.00 38.00 44.00 50.00 56.00 62.00
23.00 29.00 35.00 41.00 47.00 53.00 59.00 66.00

Participation Scale

Figure 4-3. Overall index of before college participation in environmental and/or
outdoor activities. (n = 476)

Current participation in environmental/outdoor activities was also low, with an
average value of 34.4 for the current participation scale. See Figure 4-4. Again,
this shows current activity level in outdoor/environmental activities tended toward
non-participation. Respondents were likely to indicate ‘sometimes’ or ‘frequent’

current participation in only one activity: hiking or walking in a natural area.

59

 

40

30d

 

 

 

Frequency

18.00 24.00 30.00 36.00 42.00 48.00 54.00
21.00 27.00 33.00 39.00 45.00 51.00 57.00

Participation Scale

Figure 4-4. Overall index showing current participation in environmental and/or
outdoor activities. (n = 476)

Consumptive activities (riding off-road vehicles, hunting, fishing) had low
before college and current participation (see Table 4-10). Hunting had the lowest
participation level with just over eighty percent (81.3%) of respondents having never
hunted before college, and 87.6% of respondents stating they never currently hunt.
All consumptive activities had more participation before college than currently.

Respondents showed greater participation levels in appreciative activities
(hiking/walking, camping, family vacations in natural area, canoeing/kayaking, spent
time in natural area alone/with parent/with other) than consumptive activities.
Before college, respondents participated in the following appreciative activities most
often: spending time with friends in a natural area (42.4%), hiking/walking in a

natural area (42.2%), and taking family vacations in a natural area (37.2%). Current

60

participation in appreciative outdoor and/or environmental activities had a similar
pattern to that before college. Currently, respondents participated most often in the
following events: hiking/walking (41.4%), spending time with friends in a natural

area (37.8%), and spending time alone in a natural area (28.4%).

BIVARIATE ANALYSIS

It has been argued here that certain background variables, education, and
significant life experiences all contribute toward shaping a person’s environmental
concern. The results presented here tend to reinforce that which is reported
elsewhere in the literature.

As can be seen from Table 4-10, females are significantly more
environmentally concerned than are males. Similarly, liberal individuals are
significantly more environmentally concerned than conservative individuals. It
should also be noted that women are significantly more liberal than are men. There
was no relationship found between income or community type and environmental
concern, although urban residents had significantly higher incomes than did their

more rural counterparts.

61

Table 4-10.

Correlations between environmental concern and background
variables. Note: * = correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed test); ** =

correlation significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed test).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environ. Gendera Political Family Comm.
Concern Ideologyb Income Typec
Environmental 1 0.210** 0.270** 0.054 0.046
Concern
Gender 1 0.122“ 0.006 -0.036
Political 1 -0.050 0.086
Ideology
Family 1 0200*“
Income
Comm. 1
Type
32kmme=1

b: more conservative = 1
c: more rural = 1

There was a significant (p < 0.01) positive relationship noted between the
following: environmental concern and environmental knowledge; class standing
and environmental knowledge; and environmental knowledge and environmental
education (see Table 4-11). In other words, the more environmental knowledge a
student had, the higher degree of concern s/he showed. Students further along in
their academic careers showed higher levels of environmental knowledge, and
more knowledgeable students had more exposure to the components of
environmental education. There was a significant positive relationship (p < 0.05)
between the following: environmental concern and environmental education; and
class standing and college major. In other words, the more exposure a student had
to environmental education components, the higher degree of concern s/he
showed. There was a significant negative relationship (p < 0.05) between college

major and environmental education. This result is puzzling and will be examined

further in the Discussion chapter.

62

 

Table 4-11. Correlations between environmental concern and education variables.
Note: * = correlations is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed test); ** = correlation
significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed test).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I «:9 .E’ '5 E ,, To c
c c 'o '5 c a) c
Q) h C Q) Q) o
I E8 a E 23 2%
I 2 8 ,,, 8’ e 3 e ,5;
- "s 0 m g 's c '5 w
c m c X c
w 5 0 UJ LU
Environmental Concern 1 0.007 0.060 0.300** 0.152“
Class Standing 1 0.115“ 0.177** 0018
College Major 1 -0.081 -0.670*
$ Environmental Knowledge 1 0.221**
I Environmental Education 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tanner (1980) suggested that significant life experiences in one’s youth
could help positively shape a person’s environmental attitude. For this reason,
participation in environmental and/or outdoor activities before college is examined
more closely in this thesis. The results of this research show that participation in
outdoor and environmental activities in one’s youth does, indeed, play a role. Table
4-12 shows there was a significant (p < 0.01) positive relationship between
environmental concern and (before college and current) participation in
outdoor/environmental activities. Individuals who participated in environmental
and/or outdoor activities showed a higher degree of environmental concern than
their non-participatory counterparts. Similarly, there was a significant positive

relationship between before college participation and current participation in

63

outdoor/environmental activities. Even so, current participation levels in

outdoor/environmental activities were somewhat less than participation pre—college.

Table 4-12. Correlations between environmental concern and participation in
outdoor/environmental activities, both before and after college. Note: * =
correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed test); ** = correlation significant
at the 0.01 level (two-tailed test).

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Before College Current
Concern Participation Participation
Environmental 1 0.238** 0.189“
Concern
Before College 1 0.737“
Participation
Current Participation 1

 

 

 

 

There was a significant (p < 0.01) positive relationship between
environmental concern and participation in appreciative activities before college
(see Table 4-13). Individuals who participated in appreciative activities before
college were more likely to have higher levels of environmental concern than their
counterparts. Interestingly, there was also a significant and positive relationship
between participation in consumptive and participation in appreciative activities prior

to college.

64

 

Table 4-13. Correlations between environmental concern and participation in
consumptive outdoor/environmental activities before college and appreciative
outdoor/environmental activities before college. Note: * = correlation is significant
at the 0.05 level (two-tailed test); ** = correlation significant at the 0.01 level (two-

tailed test).

 

 

 

 

f Environmental Consumptive Appreciative
j Concern Activities Before Activities Before
College College
Environmental 1 -0.009 0.157"
Concern
Consumptive 1 0.486**
Activities Before
College
Appreciative 1
Activities Before
College

 

 

 

 

 

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

To determine how these variables interact more sophisticated statistical
analyses are needed. Multiple regression allows us to predict the impact of
particular variables while holding all others constant. For this research, multiple
regression was used to determine which variables influence environmental concern
(see Table 4-16). In order to avoid multicollinearity, the appreciative and
consumptive activities scales examined in the univariate and bivariate analyses are
not examined in the multivariate test of the model. The regression results are
presented in Table 4-14. The independent variables account for 25.3% of the

variance in environmental concern.

65

 

Table 4-14. Regression output of independent variables on environmental concern.
For each variable, the level of each parameter or scale range is given in parenthesis

below the variable name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FModel R R-Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
I 1 0.503 0.253 0.229 7.717
Model Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
B Std. Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
Error
(Constant) 36.045 4.204 8.574 0.000
Gender 5.232 0.930 0.289 5.626 0.000 0.907 1.10
(0.1)
Political 1.909 0.424 0.227 4.501 0.000 0.939 1.07
Ideology
(1-5)
Family 0.139 0.378 0.019 0.367 0.714 0.915 1.09
Income
(1-5)
Community 0.887 0.380 0.124 2.335 0.020 0.854 1.17
Type
I1-5)
Environmental 0.049 0.143 0.019 0.350 0.727 0.811 1.23
Education
(0—14)
Major 0.010 0.011 0.048 0.941 0.347 0.919 1.09
(0.1)
Class -2.032 0.648 -0.161 -3.314 0.002 0.909 1.10
Standing
(1 -§l
Environmental 1.030 0.227 0.242 4.539 0.000 0.842 1.19
Knowledge
(1-10L
Before 0.224 0.069 0.228 3.265 0.001 0.492 2.03
College
Participation
Q8-72)
Current -.0434 0.071 -0.042 -0.609 0.543 0.503 1.99
Participation
(18-72)
Considering that some variables were significant in the bivariate analysis, but
not in the multivariate analysis, multicollinearity should be examined.

'66

Multicollinearity is defined as the undesirable situation where the simultaneous
multiple correlations among independent variables are strong. To assess
multicollinearity, one uses the tolerance statistic or the variance inflation factor
(VIF), which build in the regression of each independent variable on all others.
Tolerance is calculated by 1 - R2 for the regression of that independent variable on
all other independents, ignoring the dependent variable. As a general rule, if
tolerance is less than 0.20, a problem with multicollinearity is indicated (Schroeder
et al., 1986). VIF is the reciprocal of tolerance. Therefore, when VIF is high there is
a high multicollinearity and instability of the regression coefficients. Examining the

tolerance for this sample, multicollinearity does not appear to be problematic.

Background Variables.

Gender. The unstandardized gender coefficient is significant and positive.
This indicates that women, while controlling for all other factors, are more
concerned than are men. Being female leads to a 5.232 point increase in

environmental concern.

Political Ideology. The unstandardized coefficient is significant and positive.
This indicates that liberal individuals, while controlling for all other factors, are more
concerned than their conservative counterparts. A unit increase in the ideology
measure (toward greater liberalism) leads to a 1.909 point increase in

environmental concern.

Family Income. Family income was not found to be a significant predictor of

environmental concern in this sample.

67

Community Type. Community type had a positive and significant effect on
environmental concern. Individuals from urban areas, all else being controlled,
were more concerned than their rural counterparts. A unit increase in the
community type variable (toward a more urbanized area) leads to a 0.887 point
increase in environmental concern. Interestingly, community type was not found to
be significant in the bivariate analysis, but is found to be significant in the
multivariate analysis. This relationship will be explored further in the Discussion

chapter of this thesis.

Education.

Environmental Education. Environmental education exposure was not found
to be a significant variable in the multiple regression analysis. This is also
interesting, considering it was significant in the bivariate analysis. This relationship

will be explored further in the Discussion chapter of this thesis.

Class Standing. The unstandardized coefficient for class standing was
negative and significant. This implies that year in school is negatively related to
environmental concern. According to these data, a unit increase in class standing
leads to a 2.032 point decrease in environmental concern. This relationship will be

explored further in the Discussion section of this thesis.

College Major. Major was not found to be a significant variable in the

regression analysis.

68

Environmental Knowledge. The unstandardized coefficient shows that
environmental knowledge had a positive and significant impact in this regression
analysis. A unit increase in the environmental knowledge score leads to a 1.030

point increase in environmental concern.

Significant Life Experiences.

Participation in environmental and/or outdoor activities prior to college was
found to have a positive and significant influence on environmental concern. This
implies that individuals who participated in such activities prior to college, while
controlling for all other factors, were more concerned than those who did not
participate. A unit increase in participation in environmental/outdoor activities prior
to college leads to a 0.224 point increase in environmental concern. Current
participation in environmental and/or outdoor activities was not a significant variable
in this regression analysis.

The primary aim of this research was to determine the utility of the
hypothesized model for describing the predictors of environmental concern. The
results presented here are a valuable step in the evaluation of that model. The
utility of the model and a thorough discussion of the results will be presented in the

next chapter.

69

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Researchers have been interested in environmental concern, and its
predictors, for decades. Drawing on the breadth of that information base, there
does appear to be some loose agreement on the predictors of environmental
concern. This research was designed and implemented to determine the answers
to several fundamental questions about environmental concern. First, are the
predictors in a student population the same as those found by other researchers?
This research looked particularly at gender, political ideology, family income, and
community type as possible predictors of environmental concern. A second
fundamental question of this research concerned the impact of education on
environmental concern. The variables examined here included exposure to
components of environmental education, college major, class standing, and
environmental knowledge. Previous studies have concentrated on measuring the
impact of a particular course or activity on environmental concern. A key
contribution of this research was the evaluation of environmental education
exposure, in a holistic sense, and its impact on environmental concern. Finally, this
research examined the importance of significant life experiences. Following from
the literature, these experiences included a range of environmental and/or outdoor
activities, such as hiking/walking in a natural area, camping, canoeing/kayaking,
mountain biking, riding off-road vehicles, hunting, fishing, spending time in a natural
area, and reading or watching environmental books or programs.

Any discussion of environmental concern is a difficult one. There are many

ideas surrounding what is (and is not) an environmentally concerned individual. An

70

equally important question is, if indeed a person develops environmental concern,
when and how does this happen? Many studies have attempted to answer these
questions through surveys of the general population. Many researchers have also
studied student populations for similar reasons. Student populations offer a ripe
area for study. If it can be conceded that today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders, it
is important to understand their attitudes about the environment. I will begin this
discussion with some thoughts and evaluation of some commonly reported
background variables. Secondly, I will discuss education and the findings of this
research. Finally, I will assess the influence of significant life experiences on
environmental concern.

Before proceeding, it should be noted that environmental concern in this
sample was relatively high. This corroborates the results of other studies of student

groups (Thapa, 2001; Hodgkinson and lnnes, 2001; Shetzer et al., 1991).

Background Variables.

This study examined how several background variables influence
environmental concern. This research looked specifically at gender, political
ideology, family income, and community type. Each of these variables will be
discussed, in turn.

Gender. Gender is commonly discussed in the literature as a predictor of
environmental concern. The results of these previous studies, however, have been
somewhat mixed. While most studies have found women to be more
environmentally concerned than men, other studies have found the opposite. In this
sample, in both the bivariate and multivariate analyses, women were found to be

significantly more concerned than their male counterparts, corroborating much of

71

the prior literature on gender and environmental concern (Dietz, 2002; Smith, 2001;

Zelezny, 2000).

Political Ideology. Research has consistently shown liberal individuals to
show more concern for the environment than their conservative counterparts. This
study found liberal individuals to be significantly more concerned than their
conservative counterparts, which again parallels results from numerous other

studies (Dunlap, 2000; Forgas and Jolliffe, 1994; Samdahl and Robertson, 1992).

Family Income. It was once widely thought that concern for the environment
is more often shown by wealthier individuals. However, like most studies, this study
did not find family income to be a significant predictor of environmental concern.
Family income is often a contentious item on social surveys. In this study, students
were asked to estimate their parents’ gross annual income.

One note of caution about this finding is that it is highly likely that students

simply didn’t know this information and guessed at their parents’ household income.

Community Type. Past research regarding the impact community type (rural
versus urban) has shown that urban individuals are usually more concerned than
their rural counterparts.

In this study, community type was not found to be significantly correlated with
environmental concern at the bivariate level. However, the multiple regression
analysis did find community type to be significant. This disparity is somewhat

difficult to explain. Clearly, however, when controlling for the effect of other

72

variables, a person’s residence during socialization appears to have an influence on

their level of environmental concern.

Education.

Education is consistently discussed in the environmental concern literature.
In a broad sense, it is commonly held that educated individuals are more
environmentally concerned than their less-educated counterparts. This research
attempted to tease out specific aspects of education and determine their impact on
environmental concern. This study specifically examined the impact of
environmental education, college major, class standing, and environmental

knowledge.

Exposure to Environmental Education. Many studies have examined the
impact a single course or activity has on environmental concern. This research
sought to examine environmental education in a holistic sense. In other words,
does a student’s exposure to environmental education (as a whole) impact his/her
environmental concern?

In this study, students had quite a wide-ranging exposure to the components
of environmental education, with a slight skew toward the bottom half of the scale
(i.e. less exposure). Considering the higher proportion of juniors and seniors in this
sample, the relatively low exposure level is somewhat unexpected. It makes some
intuitive sense that the longer a student is in a university, the more likely it is s/he
will be exposed to the components of environmental education. This research did
not bear this out, however. There was no significant relationship between class

standing and environmental education at the bivariate level. However, once a

73

student reaches upperclass standing (i.e. junior or senior level), it is more likely that
s/he will begin specialized courses toward his/her major. If the student’s major is in
an environmental field, it is likely that s/he would enroll in courses likely to present
the components of environmental education. The results of this research, however,
do not corroborate this hypothesis: there was a negative and significant relationship
between environmental education and college major. Exposure to environmental
education was found to be significantly and positively correlated with environmental
concern. In the multivariate analysis, however, this variable is surprisingly not found
to be significant.

There are several concerns regarding the measurement of this item. For
instance, despite the broad question wording for the environmental education items,
there were still quite a few individuals who fell in the “no” category. On several
items, there is an almost even split between those respondents who answered “yes”
and those answered “no”. It may be that the respondent did not understand the
question wording or phrasing. For instance, consider the following question from
the survey: “Please indicate if you’ve had any college course where you developed
a specific strategy to deal with an environmental issue?” It is possible that
respondents didn’t understand how to interpret the word “strategy”.

A second concern regarding the measurement of the environmental
education items was specifically item e, which asked if they had ever “had a college
course where you used global information systems (GIS)?” Unfortunately, this was
a typographical error: GIS is an acronym for Geographic lnforrnation Systems, not
global information systems. One can only speculate on whether the students
caught this error, or not. Did students catch the error, but still understand that it

meant Geographic Information Systems? Were they confused by the incorrect

74

term? This component of environmental education — question and analysis skills —
was measured with four items, which may have statistically minimized the impact of
the typographical error. However, it is impossible to accurately gauge the impact.

For these reasons, we can only accept the results for this item with extreme caution.

College Major. Deciding a college major, which usually occurs between the
sophomore and junior years, is one of the most difficult decisions any university
student faces.

Research has shown that students who choose an environmentally related
major often show a higher level of environmental concern (Shetzer et al., 1991;
Wysor, 1983). Specifically, students in the biological sciences, compared with other
disciplines, have been shown to have the most positive environmental attitudes.

For the purposes of this research, majors within three main colleges at
Michigan State University: the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the
College of Natural Science, and the College of Social Science were considered to
be environmentally related. In 2002, Michigan State University outlined a new
initiative in environmental science and policy (ESP). The Colleges of Agricultural
and Natural Resources, Natural Science, and Social Science have been designated
as the units to deliver instruction in the new environmental science and policy
initiative. This ESP designation by the university further supports the choice of
these colleges being designated ‘environmentally related’ in this research. Just
over thirty percent of students in this sample declared themselves to be in an
environmentally related college.

This particular item had several curious qualities. First, there was a

discrepancy between what students declared in the survey versus what they

75

declared to the University Registrar. For instance, just under forty percent of the
respondents declared majors that did not fall within an environmentally related
college. However, the University Registrar’s documentation showed that just under
sixty percent of this sample declared majors not housed in the environmentally
related colleges. This discrepancy can possibly be explained if one considers the
nature of students and the timing of when a major is declared. As previously stated,
students at Michigan State University usually declare their major between the
sophomore and junior years of study. It may be that sophomore students originally
declared a particular major with the University Registrar, later changed their minds
(as juniors or seniors), but never filed the proper paperwork with the University
Registrar to declare this. Michigan State University has a complex major structure,
and there are. many options from which to choose. Undecided students may have
simply picked a major in their sophomore year, knowing that this could be changed
at a later date. Another complicating factor in the choice of major is that there are
several majors offered that are interdisciplinary. These are often difficult to label,
and students may have been categorized as “unsure” because of this difficulty. It is
only at the time of graduation that the student must be certain that his/her declared
major is accurate. It is important to note the discrepancy in the “unsure” category,
as well. Just over thirty percent of respondents declared their major as “unsure” or
were coded as such given the ambiguity of their response, while the University
Registrar only had 7.5% of the sample as “unsure”. This would also indicate that
students had perhaps changed their minds, but didn’t inform the University
Registrar of this fact.

Another difficulty with the college major item is the rough grouping of majors

by the university. For instance, a student may have listed themselves as a

76

‘business’ major but might have been studying environmental business, or s/he may
have listed engineering but have been studying environmental engineering. From
the imprecise survey question, it was impossible to determine such cases. There is
also a great gap between majors within any college. For instance, within the
College of Social Science, there are majors as diverse as economics and
anthropology — two majors with very different perspectives and ideologies.
Particularly important for this research is the determination of when a student
develops his/her environmental concern, if it does develop. It is unclear, for
instance, whether increased environmental concern develops in a student before,
during, or after they have chosen a particular major or program. This is impossible
to determine unless longitudinal research is employed; this tell outside the bounds

of this research.

Class Standing. This study assumed that there was a positive link between
education and environmental concern. This study utilized class standing to
determine the progress of the student’s educational attainment. In other words, a
freshman would not have received as much education as a senior. Further, it would
be expected that a senior, having had more education, would show a higher level of
environmental concern.

The results for this study were very interesting. Again, students’ survey
declarations and University Registrar statistics are not congruent. The statistics
loosely match for freshmen, sophomores, and graduate students. However, the
statistics for juniors and seniors do not. Just under fifteen percent of respondents
stated they were juniors, whereas the University Registrar had 22.1% of the sample

comprised of juniors. Similarly, 56.0% of respondents declared themselves as

77

seniors, whereas the University Registrar only had 46.6% of the sample comprised
of seniors. What can account for this discrepancy? It is unlikely, in this instance,
that the University Registrar’s statistics are incorrect. Class standing is determined
by a student’s attainment of credit, and this is a non—ambiguous situation. Perhaps
it is a case of wishful thinking on the part of respondents. Or, perhaps seniors were
more likely to respond to this survey.

A further point to mention considers the difference in this sample’s class
standing distribution versus that of the entire university population. This random
sample only drew 0.8% freshmen, whereas freshmen make up 21.4% of the MSU
student population. Similarly, the sample had 5.0% sophomores, whereas the
university population is comprised of approximately 19.7% sophomores. This
indicates that the sample was not necessarily representative of the wider university
population, under-representing under-classmen. Although certainly unintentional, it
is likely that the Registrar provided a questionable sample. It is possible that there
may be a difference between under— and upper-classmen views of the environment,
and that the under-representation of under-classmen may bias the interpretation
presented here.

Lastly, class standing and environmental concern were not significantly
correlated at the bivariate level. Class standing was significant at the multivariate
level, and the relationship was negative. When controlling for other factors, a unit
increase in class standing leads to a 2.022 point decrease in environmental
concern. In other words, as a student progresses in his/her academic career, their
environmental concern decreases. This was certainly an unexpected finding, and
explaining this occurrence is complete speculation. Perhaps as a student

progresses in his/her academic career, they become more concerned with

78

 

 

graduating and finding employment, and this causes them to be less

environmentally concerned.

Environmental Knowledge. The scientific literature clearly supports a
positive link between education and environmental concern. Following from this, it
makes some intuitive sense that the more a person knows about environmental
issues and problems, the more concerned they are likely to be. This research
asked ten questions to gauge respondents’ knowledge of environmental issues.

In general, students in this sample tended toward the “knowledgeable” end of
the scale. However their knowledge seemed to be around specific topics, such as
global warming, freshwater supplies, the meaning of biodiversity, and mercury
contamination in food. This occurrence isn’t necessarily surprising. Measuring
environmental knowledge with question-answer items is inherently issue-specific.
This is a bias commonly accepted in the literature, and was accepted here. This
thesis assumed an increase in class standing would lead to an increase in
knowledge. It makes some intuitive sense that an increase in knowledge would
also lead to an increase in environmental concern. This, however, was not
supported by the data. There was no significant relationship found between
environmental concern and class standing at the bivariate level.

The direction of the relationship between environmental knowledge and
concern is ambiguous. It is plausible that there is a reciprocal relationship between
these variables. In other words, environmental concern could lead one to seek out
information, resulting in greater levels of knowledge. Or, conversely, increases in
one’s environmental knowledge could stimulate greater levels of concern about the

environment. For the scope of this study, I assume the latter, as this is also a

79

common assumption in the appropriate literature. Regardless of the directionality of
the relationship, the literature, as well as the results of this study, clearly supports a

positive relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental concern.

Significant Life Experiences.

Several researchers believe that a person’s experiences during their
formative years help to later shape their environmental attitude and concern. The
research into significant life experiences and the outdoor recreation literature are
very similar in their determinations. There appears to be a distinct difference in the
attitudes of individuals who participate in particular types of outdoor and/or
environmental activities. In other words, hypothetically, individuals who participate
in appreciative activities (hiking, walking, camping, etc.) have different attitudes from
individuals who participate in more consumptive activities (hunting, fishing,
motorized activities, etc.). This was, indeed, supported by the data presented here.

The results of this study noted a difference in participation levels before
college and currently. Participation in outdoor/environmental activities decreased
once the student was in college. What explanations are there for this decrease in
level of participation? Perhaps it is a question of time. Perhaps college students
have less time to participate in outdoor/environmental activities. Some of the
activities listed - such as boating, riding an ORV, hunting, and fishing - require
some financial contribution, whether in the form of equipment or the purchase of a
license. Perhaps college students do not have the financial means to participate in
some environmental/outdoor activities.

Participation in environmental/outdoor activities — both prior to college and

currently - was significantly and positively related to environmental concern at the

80

bivariate level. However, current Significant Life Experiences were not found to be
significant at the multivariate level of analysis. Why does participation in
environmental/outdoor activities drop out of the multiple regression? Perhaps it is
due to the current and past activity being so highly correlated. In other words,
participation in one type of activity may lend itself, in general, to doing another
outside-type of activity. The results presented here - the high correlation between
pre-college and current participation, and between consumptive and appreciative
activities - seem to support this hypothesis.

The original aim of this research was to determine the utility of a theoretical
model, outlined in Chapter 2, for describing the predictors of environmental concern.
From this research, it is clear that predicting environmental concern is a
complicated task, but a general picture has emerged. There is a relationship
between various background variables and environmental concern. Namely,
liberals and females are more environmentally concerned than their counterparts.
There is also a relationship between a person’s education and environmental
concern. This research has shown that the type of education a person receives is
important in shaping his/her environmental concern. Environmentally
knowledgeable individuals and those who have had exposure to environmental
education components are more environmentally concerned than their counterparts.
Significant Life Experiences prior to college also are important. Individuals who
participated in environmental and/or outdoor activities before college are more
environmentally concerned than their counterparts.

The multivariate analysis also pointed to the prediction of environmental
concern being a complicated task. The majority of variables analyzed in this

research were consistent in their impact on environmental concern at the bivariate

81

levels: gender, political ideology, environmental knowledge and pre—college
participation outdoor/environmental activities were all positively related to
environmental concern even when controlling for the effects of other variables.
Similarly, family income and college major were both unrelated to environmental
concern at both the bivariate and multivariate levels.

Four of the variables analyzed, however, revealed more complex
relationships with environmental concern. Two variables - exposure to
environmental concern and current participation in outdoor/environmental activities
— were positively and significantly related to environmental concern at the bivariate
level but not when other variables were controlled in a multiple regression. For the
latter, current participation, this is undoubtedly due to its strong inter-relationship
with pre-college participation. The changing effect of environmental education
exposure is more difficult to explain. Perhaps the strong relationship between
exposure to environmental education and environmental knowledge leads to
environmental education dropping out as a predictor once other variables are
controlled for. It may not be exposure per se that leads to concern, but the retention
of information about environmental issues that influences concern about them.
Clearly, exposure to environmental issues/education must come before knowledge,
but exposure itself may not directly influence environmental concern.

This research also showed two variables — community type and class
standing — which were insignificant in the bivariate analysis, but significant in the
multivariate analysis. When controlling for other variables, relationships can
become ‘unhidden’. In these cases, it is possible that one or more of the other
variables were acting as suppressor variables, but once they were controlled, the

relationship became apparent. Similarly, bivariate relationships can disappear once

82

other variables are controlled. For instance, class standing had a negative effect in
the multiple regression. Could it be that once we control knowledge, class standing
has the opposite effect? In other words, once we take away the effect of greater
knowledge among upperclassmen, then younger underclassmen are more
concerned?

This research took important steps in corroborating previous research into
the predictors of environmental concern, and it attempted a new approach to
evaluating the impact of education, as a whole, on environmental concern. In this
research, background variables (particularly gender and political ideology) played a
significant role in shaping environmental concern. A key contribution of this
research was the attempt to isolate particular areas of education and determine
their respective impact on environmental concern. It is clear from multiple levels of
analysis presented here that environmental knowledge does positively relate to
environmental concern. Lastly, the link between Significant Life Experiences and
environmental concern was explored. It is clear from this analysis that participation
in outdoor/environmental activities in one’s youth is significant in positively shaping
environmental concern later in life. Based on these findings, the proposed model
did show some utility in describing the predictors of environmental concern in
students.

Although this research was successful in exploring and evaluating some of
the predictors of environmental concern in students, there are still many other
questions left unexplored. For instance, what contributes to a person being not
concerned for the environment, or even anti-environment in his/her attitudes?
Another important question is: Does class standing really influence environmental

concern? Due to the (reported) under-representation of underclassmen in this

83

sample, it is difficult to gain a clear picture of how this variable influences concern.
Finally, exposure to the components of environmental education needs to be more
thoroughly explored. The attempt made in this research was original and unique; 3
more thorough and comprehensive scale for measuring environmental education

exposure should be developed and evaluated.

There are several interesting implications of this research. It is widely
believed that we are pushing the limits of the Earth to the threshold of collapse.
How do we make a difference? David Orr, one of today’s most popular authors on
education, has said that ‘to create a constituency for the long haul, we need
farsighted leadership at all educational levels committed to making ecological
literacy central to the debate about national educational goals and standards’ (Orr,
1994). This research has shown that liberal females, from urban surroundings, are
more likely to show increased levels of environmental concern. Further,
participation — both before and during university — positively contributes to
environmental concern. These areas are either biologically determined or shaped
prior to the student entering higher education. What can be done to help create the
‘constituency’ that Orr suggests is necessary? Increasing participation in
outdoor/environmental activities and increasing environmental knowledge do make
a positive difference to environmental concern. Therefore, these activities and aims
should be built in to any modern academic curricula. The purpose of education
should be to promote or ‘draw out’ the best qualities of the human species. In other
words, education should promote awareness, tolerance, and citizenship in a global
sense. Understanding and cultivating environmental concern is a necessary step

that all educators will face in order to create our shared and sustainable future.

84

 

APPENDIX A

85

National Standards for Environmental Education

Question and Analysis Skills

Questioning: students are able to develop, modify, clarify, and explain
questions that guide environmental investigations of various types. They
understand factors that influence the questions they pose.

Designing Investigations: students know how to design investigations to
answer particular questions about the environment. They are able to
develop approaches for investigating unfamiliar types of problems and
phenomena.

Collecting Information: students are able to locate and collect reliable
information for environmental investigations of many types. They know how
to use sophisticated technology to collect information, including computer
programs that access, gather, store, and display data.

Evaluating Accuracy and Reliability: students can apply basic logic and
reasoning skills to evaluate completeness and reliability in a variety of
information sources.

Organizing Information: students are able to organize and display
information in ways appropriate to different types of environmental
investigations and purposes.

Working with Model/Simulations: students are able to create, use, and
evaluate models to understand environmental phenomena.

Developing Explanations: students are able to use evidence and logic in
developing proposed explanations that address their initial questions and
hypotheses.

Knowledge of Environmental Processes and Systems

The Earth as a Physical System

. Processes that Shape the Earth: students understand the major physical
processes that shape the Earth. They can relate these processes,
especially those that are large-scale and long-term, to characteristics of
the Earth.

0 Changes in Matter: students apply their understanding of chemical
reactions to round out their explanations of environmental characteristics
and everyday phenomena.

0 Energy: students apply their knowledge of energy and matter to
understand phenomena in the world around them.

The Living Environment

. Organisms, Populations, and Communities: students understand basic
populations dynamics and the importance of diversity in living systems.

. Heredity and Evolution: students understand the basic ideas and genetic
mechanisms behind biological evolution.

. Systems and Connections: students understand the living environment to
be comprised of interrelated, dynamic systems.

. Flow of Matter and Energy: students are able to account for
environmental characteristics based on their knowledge of how matter
and energy interact in living systems.

86

. Humans and Their Societies

Individuals and Groups: students understand the influence of individual
and group actions on the environment, and how groups can work to
promote and balance interests.

Culture: students understand cultural perspectives and dynamics and
apply their understanding in context.

Political and Economic Systems: students understand how different
political and economic systems account for, manage, and affect natural
resources and environmental quality.

Global Connections: students are able to analyze global, social, cultural,
political, economic, and environmental linkages.

. Environment and Society

Human/Environment Interactions: students understand that humans are
able to alter the physical environment to meet their needs and there are
limits to the ability of the environment to absorb impacts or meet human
needs.

Places: students understand “place” as humans endowing a particular
part of the Earth with meaning through their interactions with that
environment.

Resources: students understand that the importance and use of
resources change over time and vary under different economic and
technological systems.

Technology: students are able to examine the social and environmental
impacts of various technologies and technological systems.
Environmental Issues: students are familiar with a range of
environmental issues at scales that range from local to nation to global.
They understand that these scales and issues are often linked.

Skills for Understanding and AddressingEnvironmental Issues
0 Skills for Analyzing and Investigating Environmental Issues

Identifying and Investigating Issues: students apply their research and
analytical skills to investigate environmental issues ranging from local
issues to those that are regional.

Sorting the Consequences of Issues: students are able to evaluate the
consequences of specific environmental changes, conditions, and issues
for human and ecological systems.

Identifying and Evaluating Alternative Solutions: students are able to
identify and propose action strategies that are likely to be effective in
particular situations and for particular purposes.

Working with Flexibility, Creativity, and Openness: while environmental
issues investigations can bring to the surface deeply held views, students
are able to engage each other in peer review conducted in the spirit of
open inquiry.

. Decision-Making and Citizenship Skills

Forming and Evaluating Personal Views: students are able to
communicate, evaluate, and justify their own views on environmental
issues and alternative ways to address them.

87

0 Evaluating the Need for Citizen Action: students are able to decide
whether action is needed in particular situations and whether they should
be involved.

0 Planning and Taking Action: students know how to plan for action based
on their research and analysis of an environmental issue. If appropriate,
they take actions that are within the scope of their rights and consistent
with their abilities and responsibilities as citizens.

. Evaluations the Results of Actions: students are able to evaluate the
effects of their own actions and actions taken by other individuals and
groups.

Personal and Civic Responsibility

0 Understanding Societal Values/Principles: students know how to analyze the
influence of shared and conflicting societal values.

. Recognizing Citizens’ Rights/Responsibilities: students understand the
importance of exercising the right and responsibilities of citizenship.

. Recognizing Efficacy: students possess a realistic self-confidence in their
effectiveness as citizens.

o Accepting Personal Responsibility: students understand that their actions
can have broad consequences and accept responsibility for recognizing
those effects and changing their actions when necessary.

88

REFERENCES

Abramson, P. R. and R. lnglehart. 1995. Value Change in Global Perspective.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E., and P. Nowak. 1982. The new
environmental paradigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 13: 39-43.

Arbuthnot, J. 1977. The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the
prediction of environmental behaviour and knowledge. Environment and
Behavior, 9(2): 217-233.

Arcury, T. A. and E. H. Christianson. 1990. Environmental worldview in response
to environmental problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environment
and Behavior, 22(3): 378-407.

Arcury, T. A., Johnson, T. P. and S. J. Scollay. 1986. Ecological worldview and
environmental knowledge: the “New Environmental Paradigm.” Journal of
Environmental Education, 17: 35-40.

Arcury, T. A., Scollay, S. J., and T. P. Johnson. 1987. Sex differences in
environmental concern and knowledge: The case of acid rain: Sex Roles,
16(9/10): 463-472.

Arcury, T. A. 1990. Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human
Organizations, 49(4): 300-304.

Austin, D. M. and C. Woolever. 1994. Economic and environmental concerns as
influences on growth attitudes. Sociological Spectrum, 14: 87-99.

Bell, D. 2002. How can political liberals be environmentalists? Political Studies,
50: 703-724.

Bennett, K. and M. K. McBeth. 1998. Contemporary western rural USA economic
composition: Potential implications for environmental policy and research.
Environmental Management, 22(3): 371-381.

Benton, R. 1993. Does and environmental course in the business school make a
difference? Journal of Environmental Education, 24(4): 37-43.

Berberoglu, G. and C. Tonsonoglu. 1995. Exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis of an environmental attitude scale (EAS) for Turkish university students.
Journal of Environmental Education, 26(3): 40-43.

Beutel, A. M. and M. M. Marini. 1995. Gender and values. American Sociological
Review, 60: 436—448.

89

Blocker, T. J. and D. L. Eckberg. 1989. Environmental issues as women’s issues:
General concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 70(3): 586-593.

Blocker, T. J. and D. L. Eckberg. 1997. Gender and Environmentalism: Results
from the 1993 General Social Survey. Social Science Quarterly, 78(4): 841-
858.

Bord, R. J. and R. E. O’Connor. 1997. The gender gap in environmental attitudes:
The case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78(4):
830-840.

Bower, G. 1992. Emotion and memory. In: S. A. Christianson. Handbook of
Emotion and Memory, pp 3—31. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bradley, J. C., Waliczek, R. M., and J. M. Zajicek. 1999. Relationship between
environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students.
Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3): 17-21.

Brechin, S. R. 1999. Objective problems, subjective values, and global
environmentalism: Evaluating the postmaterialist argument and challenging a
new explanation. Social Science Quarterly, 80(4): 793-809.

Brody, C. J. 1984. Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Social Forces,
63(1): 209-228.

Brown, G. and C. Harris. 2001. A longitudinal study of environmental attitudes of
women and gender diversification in the US. Forest Service 1990-1996.
Society of American Foresters, 47(2): 246-257.

Buttel, F. H. and W. L. Flinn. 1976. Environmental politics: The structuring of
partisan and ideological cleavages in mass environmental attitudes.
Sociological Quarterly, 17(Autumn): 477-490.

Chawla, L. 1998a. Research methods to investigate significant life experiences.
Environmental Education Research, 4(4): 383-398.

Chawla, L. 1998b. Significant life experiences revisited. Environmental Education
Research, 4(4): 369-382.

Chodorow, N. 1974. Family structure and feminine personality. In: M. Z. Rosaldo
and L. Lamphere (Eds), Women, Culture, and Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Chodorow, N. 1999. The power of feelings: Personal meaning in psychoanalysis,
gender, and culture. New Haven, CT: University Press.

Cobb, E. 1977. The ecology of imagination in childhood. New York: Columbia
University Press.

90

Conway, M. A. and D. A. Beckerian. 1988. Characteristics of vivid memories. In:
Gruneburg, M. M., Morris, P. E., and R. N. Sykes (Eds), Practical Aspects of
Memory, Vol. 2, pp 519-524. New York: John Wiley.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. Public opinion on environmental issues:
results of a national public opinion survey. Washington, DC: US. Government
Printing Office.

Dalton, R. J. 1999. Critical masses: Citizens, nuclear weapons production, and
environmental destruction in the United States and Russia. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

Davis, D. W. 2000. Individual level examination of postmaterialism in the US:
Political tolerance, racial attitudes, environmentalism, and participatory norms.
Political Research Quarterly, 53(3): 455-475.

DeGroot, l. 1967. Trends in attitudes toward air pollution. Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Agency, 17(October): 679-681.

Dietz, T., Kalof, L. and P. Stern. 2002. Gender, values, and environmentalism.
Social Science Quarterly, 83(1): 353-364.

Dillman, D. A. and J. A. Christenson. 1975. The public value for air pollution
control. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 10(Spring): 73-95.

Dillman, D. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2““ ed.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dunlap, R. E. and R. B. Heffernan. 1975. Outdoor recreation and environmental
concern: An empirical examination. Rural Sociology. 40: 18-30.

Dunlap, R. E. and A. G. Mertig. 1995. Global concern for the environment: ls
affluence a prerequisite? Journal of Social Issues, 51(4): 121-137.

Dunlap, R. and K. Van Liere. 1978. The “New Environmental Paradigm.” Journal
of Environmental Education, 9(4): 10-19.

Dunlap, R. and K. Van Liere. 1984. Commitment to the dominant social paradigm
and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65: 1013-
1028.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., and R. E. Jones. 2000. Measuring
endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3): 425-442.

Edgell, M. C. R. and D. E. Nowell. 1989. The new environmental paradigm scale:

wildlife and environmental beliefs in British Columbia. Society and Natural
Resources, 2: 285-296.

91

 

Fishbein, M. and M. J. Manfredo. 1992. A theory of behaviour change. In: M. J.
Manfredo (Ed), Influencing Human Behavior, pp 29-50.

Forgas, J. P. and C. D. Jolliffe. 1994. How conservative are greenies:
Environmental attitudes, conservatism, and traditional morality among university
students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46(3): 123-130.

Freudenburg, W. 1991. Rural-urban differences in environmental concern: A
closer look. Sociological Inquiry, 61: 186-189.

Furman, A. 1998. A note on environmental concern in a developing country:
results from an Istanbul survey. Environment and Behavior, 30: 520-534.

Geller, J. M. and P. Lasley. 1985. The new environmental paradigm scale: a re-
examination. Journal of Environmental Education, 17: 9-12.

George, D. L. and P. L. Southwell. 1986. Opinion on the Diablo Canyon nuclear
power plant: The effects of situation and socialization. Social Science
Quarterly, 67: 722-735.

Gibson, J. L. and R. M. Duch. 1994. Postmaterialism and the emerging Soviet
democracy. Political Research Quarterly, 47: 5-39.

Gigliotti, L. M. 1992. Environmental attitudes: 20 years of change? Journal of
Environmental Education, 24: 15—26.

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Glenn, N. D. and L. Hill. 1977. Rural-urban differences in attitudes and behaviour
in the United States. The Annals, 429(January): 36-50.

Glover, J. M. and L. Deckert. 1998. Beyond praying for earthquakes: what works
in environmental education. Parks and Recreation, 33(11): 30-39.

Gooch, G. D. 1995. Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic
states. Environment and Behavior, 27: 513-539.

Guimond, S. and D. L. Palmer. 1996. The political socialization of commerce and
social science students: Epistemic authority and attitude change. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 26(22): 1985-2013.

Hamilton, L. C. 1985a. Concerns about toxic wastes: Three demographic
predictors. Sociological Perspectives, 28(4): 463-486.

Hamilton, L. C. 1985b. Who cares about water pollution? Opinions in a small-town
crisis. Sociological Inquiry, 55(2): 170-181.

92

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., and A. N. Tomera. 1986. Analysis and synthesis
of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Education, 21(3): 8-21.

Hodgkinson, S. P. and J. M. lnnes. 2001. The attitudinal influence of career
orientation in 1st-year university students: Environmental attitudes as a function
of degree choice. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(3): 37-40.

Hungerford, H. R. and T. L. Volk. 1990. Changing learner behaviour through
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3): 8-21.

lnglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmaterialism: Cultural, economic, and
political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Universty Press.

lnglehart, R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Iwata, O. 1981. Conservatism, community size, child-bearing intention and driver’s
license as determinants of environmental concern. Psychologia, 24: 157-163.

James, K. 1993. A qualitative study of factors influencing racial diversity in
environmental education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota.

Jaus, H. H. 1984. The development and retention of environmental attitudes in
elementary school children. Journal of Environmental Education, 15(3): 33-36.
Jones, R. E. and R. E. Dunlap. 1992. The social bases of environmental concern:

Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology: 57(1): 28-47.

Jones, R. E., Fly, J. M, and H. K. Cordell. 1999. How green is my valley? Tracking
rural and urban environmentalism in the southern Appalachian ecoregion. Rural
Sociology. 64(3): 482-499.

Kempton, W., Boster, J. S., and J. A. Hartley. 1995. Environmental values in
American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kolodiy, G. 1975. The cognitive development of high school and college students.
Journal of College Science Teaching, September: 20-22.

Kromm, D. E., Probald, F. and G. Wall. 1973. An international comparison of
response to air pollution. Journal of Environmental Management, 1: 363-375.

Lefcourt, H. M. 1996. Perspective-taking humor and authoritarianism as predictors
of anthropocentrism. Humor, 9: 57-71.

Leff, H. L. 1978. Experience, Environment, and Human Potentials. New York:
Oxford.

93

Linton, M. 1982. Transformations of memory in everday life. In: U. Neisser (Ed),
Memory Observed, pp 77-91. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

Loges, W. E. and R. M. Kidder. 2000. Reaching Out: Broadening college-student
constituencies for environmental protection. Cambden, ME: Institute for Global
Ethics.

Loges, W. E. and M. K. Rushworth. In: Reaching Out: Broadening college-student
constituencies for environmental protection. Institute for Global Ethics.

Lowe, G. D. and T. K. Pinhey. 1982. Rural-urban differences in support for
environmental protection. Rural Sociology, 47: 114-128.

Maloney, M. P. and M. P. Ward. 1973. Ecology: Let’s hear from the people! An
objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge.
American Psychologist, 28: 583-586.

McBeth and Foster, 1994. Rural environmental attitudes. Environmental
Management, 18(3): 401-411.

McStay, J. R., and R. E. Dunlap. 1983. Male-female differences in concern for
environmental quality. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 6(4): 291-301.

Michigan State University Office of the Registrar. 150 Administration Building —
East Lansing, MI - 48824. Online Publication: “The Academic Program”.
http://www.reg.msu.edu/read/UCC/Updated/02acdprg.pdg.

Michigan State University Office of the Registrar. 2004. Total Student Enrolment,
Fall 2001.
http://www.reg.msu.edu/Reports/ROReports/genreport.asp

Milbrath, L. 1975. Environmental beliefs, perceptions,a nd actions. Cornell Journal
of Social Relations, 10: 139-149.

Milbrath, L. W. 1984. Environmentalists: vanguard for a new society. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.

Mitchell, R. C. 1979. Silent springs/Solid majorities. Public Opinion, 2: 16-20.

Mohai, P. 1992. Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender
gap in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources, 5:
1-19.

Mohai, P. and B. W. Twight. 1986. Rural-Urban difference in environmentalism
revisited: Nature manipulative vs. nature exploitative orientations. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Salt Lake
City, August.

94

Morrison, D. E. and R. E. Dunlap. 1986. Environmentalism and elitism: A
conceptual and empirical analysis. Environmental Management, 10(5): 581-
589.

Muller-Rommel, F. 1989. Green parties and alternative lists under cross-national
perspective. In: New Politics in Western Europe. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.

Murdock, S. H. and E. C. Schriner. 1977. Social and economic determinants of the
level of support for environmental protection and economic growth in a rural
population. Annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, paper.

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF). 1707 H
Street — NW Suite 900 — Washington, DC — 20006. http:/Iwww.neetf.org

Neisser, U. 1981. John Dean’s memory. Cognition, 9(1): 1-22.
Nelkins, D. 1981. Nuclear power asafeminist issue. Environment, 23(1): 14-39.

Noe, F. P. and R. Snow. 1990. The new environmental paradigm and further scale
analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 21: 20-26.

North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). 2000 P Street
— NW Suite 540 — Washington, DC - 20036. http://www.naaee.org

Orr, D. 1994. Earth in Mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect.
Washington, DC: Island Press.

Palmer, J. 1993. Development of concern for the environment and formative
experiences of educators. Journal of Environmental Education, 24(3): 26-30.

Palmer, J. and J. Suggate. 1996. Influences and experiences affecting the pro-
environmental behaviour of educators. Environmental Education Research,
2(1): 109-121.

Palmer, J. and J. Suggate. 1998. Significant influences on the development of
adults’ environmental awareness in the UK, Slovenia, and Greece.
Environmental Education Research, 4(4): 429-444.

Passino, E. M. and J. W. Lounsbury. 1976. Sex differences in opposition to and
support for construction of a proposed nuclear power plant. Pp. 180-184 In: R.
L. Meek and J. A. Straayer (Eds), The Politics of Neglect. Boston: Hougton
Mifflin.

Peterson, N. 1982. Developmental variables affecting environmental sensitivity in

professional environmental educators, unpublished master’s thesis, Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale.

95

Pierce, J. C., Steger, M. E., Steel, B. S. and N. P. Lovrich. 1992. Citizens, political
communication and interest groups: Environmental organizations in Canada
and the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Ramsey, C. E. and R. E. Rickson. 1976. Environmental knowledge and attitudes.
Journal of Environmental Education, 8(1): 10-18.

Roberts, J. A. and D. R. Bacon. 1997. Exploring the subtle relationships between
environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behaviour. Journal
of Business Research, 40: 79-89.

Ross, M. and R. Bueller. 1994. Creative remembering. In: Neisser and R. Fivesh
(Eds), The Remembering Self, pp 205-235. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Ross, M. 1997. Validating memories. In: Stern, N. L., Ornstein, P. A., Tversky, B.,
and C. Brainerd (Eds) Memory for Everday and Emotional Events, pp. 49-81.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Samdahl, D. M. and R. Robertson. 1992. Social determinants of environmental
concern: Specification and test of the model. Environment and Behavior, 21:
57-81.

Schroeder, L., Sjoquist, D. L. and P. E. Stephan. 1986. Understanding regression
aalysis: An introduction guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, series
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, no. 57.

Shetzer, L., Stackman, R. W. and L. F. Moore. 1991. Business-environment
attitudes and the new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental
Education, 26(1): 25-37.

Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H., and A. Tomera. 1985/1986. Selected Predictors of
Responsible Environmental Behavior: An Analysis. Journal of Environmental
Education, 17(2): 31-40.

Skrentny, J. D. 1993. Concern for the environment: A cross-national study.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5: 335-352.

Smith, D. C. 2001. Environmentalism, feminism, and gender. Sociological Inquiry,
71(3): 314-334.

Solomon, L. S., Tomaskovic—Devey, D., and B. J. Risman. 1989. The gender gap
and nuclear power: Attitudes in a politicized environment. Sex Roles, 21(5/6):
401-414.

Steger, M. A. and S. L. Witt. 1989. Gender differences in environmental

orientations: A comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the US.
Western Political Quarterly, 42: 322-348.

96

Stern, P. 1993. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern.
Environment and Behavior, 25(3): 322-348.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. and L. Kalof. 1993. Value orientations, gender, and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(3): 322-348.

Stout-Wiegand, N. and R. B. Trent. 1983. Sex differences in attitudes toward new
energy resource developments. Rural Sociology, 48(4): 637-646.

Tanner, R. T. 1980. Significant Life Experience: A New Research Area in
Environmental Education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 11(4): 20-
24.

Tarrant, M. A. and G. T. Green. 1999. Outdoor recreation and the predictive
validity of environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 21: 17-30.

Thapa, B. 2001. Environmental concern: A comparative analysis between
students in recreation and park management and other departments.
Environmental Education Research, 7(1): 39-53.

Thompson, J. C. and E. L. Gasteiger. 1985. Environmental attitude survey of
university students. Journal of Environmental Education, 17(1): 13-22.

Tikka, P. M., Kuitunen, M. T., and S. M. Tynys. 2000. Effects of educational
background on students’ attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the
environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3): 12-19.

Tremblay, D. D. and R. E. Dunlap. 1978. Rural-urban residence and concern with
environmental quality: A replication and extension. Rural Sociology, 43(3):
479-491.

Van Liere, K. D. and R. E. Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental
concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 44(2): 181-197.

Wagenaar, W. A. 1986. My memory. Cognitive Psychology, 18(2): 225-252.

Wysor, M. S. 1983. Comparing college students’ environmental perceptions and
attitudes: A methodological investigation. Environment and Behavior, 15(5):
615-654.

Zelezny, L., Chua, P. and C. Aldrich. 2000. Elaborating on gender differences in
environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3): 443-457.

Zeller, R. A. and E. G. Carmines. 1980. Measurement in the social sciences: The
link between theory and data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zeller, R. A. and 2. H. Levine. 1974. The Effects of Violating the Normality
Assumption Underlying r. Sociological Methods and Research, 2(4): 511-519.

97