s environmental attitudes and behaviors

Journal of Environmental Psychology 51 (2017) 209e216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Live green, think green: Sustainable school architecture and children’s environmental attitudes and behaviors Richard Tucker, PHD a, Parisa Izadpanahi, PHD b, * a b

Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap St, Geelong, Melbourne, VIC 3220, Australia Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 13 January 2016 Received in revised form 30 March 2017 Accepted 3 April 2017 Available online 5 April 2017

This study aimed to determine whether the environmental attitudes and behaviors of children attending primary schools designed or adapted for sustainability are different from those of children attending conventional schools. An NEP (Children@school) scale was developed to measure children's environmental attitudes and a GEB (Children@school) scale was developed to measure children's environmental behaviors. Data collected from children aged between 10 and 12 years were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The findings indicate that children attending primary schools designed to engage them with sustainable design had significantly more pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Thus, it is suggested that pedagogies for environmental education should be developed that require children to directly engage when learning with sustainable design features such as solar panels, the use of recycled water, natural daylighting, gardens and outdoor classrooms. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sustainable-design Children Environmental attitudes Environmental behaviors New ecological paradigm scale General ecological behavior scale

1. Introduction In the promotion of environmental sustainability in water, energy, and materials consumption, education can play a crucial role in creating an environmentally literate society. The most typical outcome of environmental education (EE) is the enhancement of three spheres of awareness: environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (Leeming, Dwyer, & Bracken, 1995; Stern, Powell, & Ardoin, 2008). Although there is no consensus on whether proenvironmental attitudes lead to pro-environmental behaviors, there is evidence of compatibility of environmental behavior with environmental attitudes. For instance, Hines, Hungerford and Tomera's meta-analysis of fifty-one outcome measures on attitudebehavior relationship (1987) found that individuals with more positive attitudes towards the environment were more likely to participate in ecological behaviors. Strong correlation between proenvironmental concerns and pro-environmental behavioral intentions has also been reported (Manoli, Johnson, & Dunlap, 2007; Pooley & O'Connor, 2000; Shetzer, Stackman, & Moore, 1991). This paper tests the hypothesis that children attending schools

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Tucker), Parisa.izadpanahi@ Curtin.edu.au, [email protected] (P. Izadpanahi). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.003 0272-4944/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

designed for sustainability will have attitudes and behaviors to the environment that are more pro-environmental than those attending conventionally designed schools. The theoretical basis of this hypothesis underpins Manoli, Johnson and Dunlap's NEP scale (2007) for measuring environmental attitudes and Evans, Brauchle, Haq, Stecker, Wong and Shapiro's GEB scale (2007) for measuring children's environmental behaviors. Namely, that difference in behaviors or attitudes can be explained by underlying values, a world-view or a paradigm. Thus, it is posited that learning spaces designed for sustainability reflect pro-environmental values that can in turn inform pro-environmental values in children. This hypothesis is informed by the idea of “architecture as pedagogy” (Orr (1997, pp. 597e600), as reported by Janda (2011, pp. 15e22)); namely, the belief that we learn from buildings, not just in them.

1.1. Background Burger and Thompson define learning as “the relationship between stimulus and response” (Berger & Thompson, 1995, p. 49), such that learning happens when new experiences evoke new behaviors and attitudes. Since it has been hypothesized that the developmental process might “be influenced by characteristics of the physical settings” (David & Weinstein, 2013, p. 4), this paper investigates the possible influence on children's attitudes and

210

R. Tucker, P. Izadpanahi / Journal of Environmental Psychology 51 (2017) 209e216

behaviors of school built environments. In particular, it is hypothesized that sustainability features in schools, which both explain and represent the relationship between the built and the natural environments, perform as learning stimuli that inform patterns of attitudes and behaviors towards the natural environment. In other words, design in schools that might be understood and identified as “green,” as thus as pro-environmental, can inform proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors in children. In the following sections the theoretical underpinnings of this hypothesis will be summarized through a discussion of the research on five relationships encompassed by the hypothesis: (1) childhood development and environment, (2) school design and learning, (3) school design and children's attitudes and behaviors, (4) environmental education, and (5) school architecture as a pedagogic tool for environmental education. 1.2. Childhood development and environment The relationship between childhood development and environment has been considered in different disciplines and from different perspectives (Anaby et al., 2013; Kellert, 2005b). As early as the 1920s, Freeman, Holzinger, and Mitchell suggested that environment can considerably impact the intelligence of children (1928). More recently, a child's immediate built environment has been identified as a primary medium for learning in young children (David & Weinstein, 2013, p. 4). Research has also highlighted the natural environment as an effective learning arena for children (Dadvand et al., 2015; Hunter & Sonter, 2010; Wilson, 2012), and has discussed the adverse physical, social, and psychological effect of children's diminishing contact with nature (Kellert, 2005a; Zaradic & Pergams, 2007; Zhang, Goodale, & Chen, 2014). Faber Taylor and Kuo (2009) suggest children's concentration levels could be improved by integrating natural environments with indoor and outdoor built environments. Bell and Dyment (2008) have also found that “green” school grounds can improve children's physical, mental, social and spiritual well-being (Bell & Dyment, 2008, p. 2). Built environments that integrate nature are not just seen as beneficial for learning in general, but are, as shall be discussed soon, seen as especially suited for Environmental Education (EE) i.e., learning about the natural environment. 1.3. School design and learning Studies have asserted the direct impact on student learning of the environmental characteristics of school buildings (Clark, 2002; Dudek, 2000; Higgins, Hall, Wall, Woolner, & McCaughey, 2005). These characteristics include thermal comfort, lighting, natural ventilation, air quality, and acoustics. It is believed that architecturally well-designed schools contribute to greater levels of engagement with learning activities (Moore, Lackney, Wisconsin Univ, & Urban, 1994). Schneider (2002) suggests that school design should be seen as an opportunity to enhance educational outcomes by creating better learning environments (Schneider, 2002). It is also claimed that schools designed sustainably e i.e., designed for more sustainable resource consumption through, for instance, passive design (using the climate ahead of fossil fuels to maintain a thermal comfort) e can positively impact educational performance by providing better environmental conditions (Edwards, 2006). 1.4. School design and children's attitudes and behaviors For many decades, there has been research into the impact of the built environment on human behaviors and attitudes.

Numerous studies have found spatially informed patterns of behavior in different places, such as: children's psychiatric hospitals (Rivlin & Wolfe, 1972), libraries (Eastman & Harper, 1971), workplaces (Heerwagen, Kampschroer, Powell, & Loftness, 2004; Penn, Desyllas, & Vaughan, 1999), and places with unique physical characteristics such as buildings without windows (Küller & Lindsten, 1992). Russell believes that “architecture is the formulation of sets of rules for different behaviors in a building” (2004, p. 2); suggesting that architectural design can play a significant role in deterring or encouraging attitudes and behaviors. It has been theorized that environmental experiences in childhood endure into adulthood, and thus that the design of buildings can have both a direct and long-term symbolic impact on children (David & Weinstein, 1987). School design can encourage and facilitate, hinder and inhibit behaviors at school, and the architectural symbolism of schools can have a profound wider impact on children and their behaviors in and outside of school (Proshansky & Wolfe, 1974). Weinstein (1977) found statistically significant differences in students' behavior due changes in spatial design, where students were encouraged to move into locations that had previously been avoided, and the frequency of specific behaviors was altered. A study by the Carnegie foundation (1988) asserts that students' attitudes toward education are a direct reflection of their learning environment (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1988). Younge (2001) also states that the school built environment is central, not marginal, to student's behavior and performance. Although conventional wisdom on the design of educational facilities suggests a relationship between physical environments and school occupants' attitudes, behaviors and achievements, this relationship is recognized as difficult to statistically demonstrate (Earthman, 1998, p. 5), and thus requires further investigation. 1.5. Environmental education Environmental education is seen as playing a key role in attaining sustainable development (defined as a balance between human's present and future needs) and in creating an environmentally literate society able and motivated to influence decision making (Goldman, Yavetz, & Pe'er, 2006, p. 4). Education is seen as a prerequisite for changing individual's attitudes towards the environment and equipping them with the knowledge to make meaningful environmental changes (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). The recent emergence of environmental consciousness has promoted environmental education globally (Nikel & Reid, 2006). Such programs, as categorized by Lucas (1972), refer to one or more of three classes: “Education about the environment - facts, concepts, principals; Education for the environment - attitude and skills directed to conservation; Education in the environment forms of outdoor education” (Lucas, 1972, p. 136). Thus, “learning about the environment supports environmental understanding and knowledge; learning for the environment is directed toward environmental stewardship and action; learning in the environment encourages interactions and experiences in the environment” (Malone & Tranter, 2003). Malone and Tranter (2003) posit that all three dimensions should be accessible through schooling to provide a comprehensive approach to children's environmental learning. Although teaching via the curriculum is the primary method for EE, other less directly observable and more implicit methods such as learning through participation (hands on experiences) or learning through “knowing eye” (visual literacy) have also been developed. Taylor and Enggass believe that once we start to ‘read’ an environment, we have cultivated a knowing eye (2009). The


visual literacy gained from a knowing eye enables the occupants of a space to read, see, deeply perceive, and critically analyze that physical environment. Implicit in the work of Taylor is the idea that visual literacy enables architecture to be “read,” thus allowing building to be used a pedagogic tool.

1.6. Architecture as a pedagogical tool for environmental education Architecture, it is argued, can have pedagogic value, because physical elements in the environment can provide cues for learning (Wilks, 2010). The physical environment has therefore been referred to as a ‘three dimensional textbook’ or ‘silent curriculum,’ which can influence learning experiences (Taylor & Enggass, 2009, p. 25). Thus the design of physical spaces can inform better understanding of our relationship with environment (Wilks, 2010). School architecture can be seen therefore to offer the potential to play a pedagogical role by informing visual environmental literacy. In line with such thinking, Sustainable Schools, a Brief Introduction, Department for Children, Schools and Families, UK (2008), recommends ‘doorways’ for change for schools to become sustainable by 2020. The doorway category “buildings and grounds” encourages school design that visibly represent sustainability and creates connectedness to the natural world, give pupils the chance to engage with and demonstrate sustainable living (Department for Children, 2008, p. 2). The Department for Children in UK (2006) also looks at the school outdoor environment as a learning space that has the capacity to be used as classrooms without walls. Evidence for improved learning about the environment through connectedness with nature was found by Carrier (2009), who investigated the relationship between outdoor learning spaces versus traditional classrooms and the environmental knowledge, attitude, behavior, and comfort for grade four and five students in the US (Carrier, 2009). The results indicate that outdoor activities increase both boys' and girls' involvement in learning, and environmental lessons that take place in outdoor classrooms are more effective at providing learning opportunities for primary school children. Leeming et al. (1995) believe that research on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors needs to be developed because early childhood attitudes shape later thinking in adolescents and adults (Leeming et al., 1995). Indeed, children have shown that they gain environmental knowledge, and develop environmental attitudes as early as kindergarten (Bryant & Hungerford, 1977). In sum, research has explored the various relationships between children, their learning, attitudes and behaviors concerning the environment, and how the physical context of their learning might impact the environmental knowledge. This paper seeks to find evidence of a direct relationship between environmental attitudes and behaviors in children and the degree to which their physical learning context expresses pro-environmental thinking.

2. Methodology The environmental attitudes of children from the state of Victoria, Australia, attending two categories of school were compared in this study: schools designed for sustainability versus conventional schools. As has been explained in detail elsewhere (Izadpanahi, Elkadi, & Tucker, 2015), and as will be outlined below, rigorous criteria defined by ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic were used for identifying the schools designed for sustainability. In addition, the potential influence of contrasting curricula between the schools is argued to have been controlled for by the centralization of the national curriculum in Australia (Palmer, 2002).

211

2.1. Method of selecting schools The qualification system of ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic (a version of AuSSI contextualized for Victoria Schools) was selected to differentiate schools designed for sustainability from conventional schools. ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic defines a star rating system for a five-modules comprising: Core, Biodiversity, Energy, Waste, and Water. The highest level of sustainability sees qualifying schools awarded as 5-star certificate. Three sustainable schools were selected randomly from Victorian primary schools awarded the ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic 5-star certificate. All three schools were established less than 10 years ago, and thus had newly constructed buildings and grounds. The four conventional schools, also chosen randomly, largely consisted of buildings constructed in the last 40 years. However, the general conditions in these schools were also good and all of them had gone through major renovations so the spaces all looked as good as the sustainable schools. The different numbers of schools in each category was due to the need for an equally distributed sample size. All seven primary schools were public schools in the State of Victoria, but were located in contexts varying from the suburban to the semi-rural. It is worth noting that as students in Victoria are assigned to schools based on geographic boundaries, and thus are not able to choose a school based on any kind of preference, there can be notable demographic differences between school cohorts. The first of the sustainable schools has a sustainability center where students can experience animal husbandry, growing plants and vegetables, propagation, planting, composting, and associated scientific concepts. It utilizes solar panels, water tanks, and numerous outdoor learning spaces. Furthermore, this school did not use mechanical air conditioning systems to cool or heat the building, rather it was designed for natural ventilation. The second sustainable school has large areas of solar panels and ten water tanks for harvesting rainwater designed to be highly visible from the children's playground. There are some proenvironmental messages printed on these water tanks, such as: be water wise; every drop counts; save water, save life. There is also a rainwater calculator for children to gauge how much water is saved in the tanks. The school has outdoor learning spaces, playgrounds constructed of natural material, and a hen house. The third school has energy and water audit equipment for maintaining records of resource consumption that can be accessed easily by both students and staff. Outdoor learning and play spaces are constructed from natural materials and feature water efficient indigenous planting and composting bins. All schools heavily use natural daylighting and natural ventilation for internal learning spaces. The third sustainable school has energy and water audit equipment. Both students and staff can monitor rainwater catchment, and the harvesting of energy via photovoltaic solar panels. Thus, they are able to adjust their resource consumption according to what they harvest. The school gardens are designed for reduced water consumption through planting endemic, drought tolerant species, grouping plants according to their watering needs, and mulching to reduce water evaporation. There are also composting bins for the food waste from outdoor eating areas. The four conventional primary schools all lack the physical attributes that could potentially promote environmental attitudes and behaviors. For example, they do not have food growing gardens or compost bins that could explicitly communicate sustainable onsite food-growing principles. Nor their solar panels or water tanks located in visually-exposed places able to be incorporated into learning. Moreover, all of the conventional schools use mechanical reversed cycle air conditioners for heating and cooling, rather than using passive strategies that could be communicated to children.

212


2.2. Participants The participants were students in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades (ages 10 to 12). As all schools made all their children available for data collection, the children who participated were simply those who were present on the day of survey who had brought their parents' questionnaires. Parents' questionnaires were needed on the day of survey because children's and parent's data had to be paired without identifying information. Thus, although 624 children completed the survey, data from only 275 were analyzed (Table 3). The grade level composition of the participants was: 101 children from grade four (10 years old), 91 from grade five (11 years old), and 83 from grade six (12 years old). It is also worth mentioning that vast majority of the students attended the same school from first grade. 2.3. Instrument for measuring children's environmental attitudes and behaviors 2.3.1. environmental attitudes Although many assessment instruments have been developed to measure environmental attitudes (Leeming et al., 1995), the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), developed in 1978 (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978), is the most widely used. This study has employed the NEP because it has been previously tested numerous times for internal consistency and validity (Noe & Snow, 1990a; Vining & Ebreo, 1992), and because its widespread use allows for results comparison that adds to knowledge in a consistent manner. Unlike previous environmental scales, which have predominantly focused on attitudes towards specific problems such as energy consumption, waste disposal, and air/water pollution (Albrecht, Bultena, Hoiberg, & Nowak, 1982), the NEP was broadened to reflect a more general position about the environment (Noe & Snow, 1990b). 2.3.2. Revised NEP for children Few studies have used a scale for evaluating children's environmental orientation that has been specifically designed for children and is directly applicable to them. Manoli et al. adapted the NEP for adults for use with children (2007) e the NEP for Children. The NEP for Children consists of 10 items using a 5-point Likertscale. The NEP for Children is employed as the basis for the scale in this study to measure children's environmental attitudes differences, but with items added to make it appropriate for the specific Australian context of the study. Six items were added based on expert opinion and the requirements of ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic, and some existing items were paraphrased to make them more

comprehensible for Australian children. The revised NEP for Children scale used in this study (termed NEP (Children@School)) is a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree with a neutral midpoint. After assessing for face validity, the reliability of NEP (Children@School) was measured calculating McDonald's omega (u) with R package. Since there is a need to calculate omega for each of the potential dimensions of the revised scale, factor analysis was conducted prior to calculating omega. Factor analysis is a data reduction technique that categories a set of variables into a smaller number of factors or components according to intercorrelation between the original variables. A KMO value of 0.803 and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity significant value of 0.000 indicated that factor analysis was appropriate for this sample. The rotated component loadings suggest that there are three dimensions within the NEP (Children@School) scale: Human Intervention, ESD (environmentally sustainable design) at School, and Eco-rights. As discussed in detail elsewhere (Izadpanahi et al., 2015), the indication is that NEP (Children@School) is constituted of 14 items and three dimensions, as summarized in Table 1. Each of the identified factors was shown to have the satisfactory reliability estimate (u). 2.3.3. Environmental behaviours The General Ecological Behavior scale (GEB), developed by Kaiser (1998), measures a variety of environmental behaviours from the simple through to those that require greater commitment and sacrifice. Unlike other scales, the GEB does not assume an individual's level of engagement will be uniform across different environmental behaviours (Bond & Fox, 2007). Evans et al. (2007) adapted the GEB to assess the daily experiences of children. The resulting GEB for Children (Evans et al., 2007) was further developed for this study as the GEB (Children@School). The GEB (Children@School), which asks students about their daily school behaviors in which environmental considerations could be an issue, uses a 5-point Likert questionnaire (Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Usually Always) as opposed to the jumping game used by Evans et al. For although a jumping game was suitable for the young children of the Evans study, it was felt that for three reasons this format was impractical for the purposes of this study: the older age of the children, there large numbers, and the time-consuming nature of the jumping game. The items of the Evans scale had to be re-phrased to target school-related ecological behaviors. As part of this modification two extra items were added: I turn on the air conditioner rather than opening the glass window when it is warm inside.

Table 1 Identified factors for the NEP (Children@School). Scale items

Three hypothesized factors for the NEP (Children@School)

Omega

1. If things don't change; we will have a big disaster in the environment soon. 2. People will someday know enough about how nature works to be able to control it. 3. When people mess with nature it has bad results. 4. People are clever enough to keep from ruining the earth. 5. People are treating nature badly. 6. I would be willing to go to a school which has a focus on nature. 7. I believe that artificial light in classrooms should be generated by solar panels. 8. I would be willing to grow food in the school garden. 9. I feel more connected with nature when classes are held in outdoor spaces. 10. It makes me feel better when we have natural day light rather than artificial light all day in classrooms. 11. People must still obey the laws of nature. 12. Nature will survive even with our bad habits on earth 13. People are supposed to rule over the rest of nature. 14. Plants and animals have as much right as people to live.

Human Intervention

0.71

ESD at School

0.7

Eco-Rights

0.57


I don't turn on the classroom lights because there is always enough light in my classroom. The GEB (Children@School) was subjected to content and face validity check, and factor analysis was also conducted prior to check the estimate reliability. Thus, a KMO value of 0.626 and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity significant value of 0.000 indicated that factor analysis was appropriate for this sample. The two factors identified were: Pro-active Eco-behaviors and Resource and Energy Conservation (Table 2). Each of the identified factors was determined to have the satisfactory reliability estimate (u). 3. Results Initially, analyses were conducted to control for the potential impact on results of what might be three important demographic influences on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors: gender, levels of parent education, and socioeconomic status (SES). An independent sample t-test was conducted to understand the impact of gender on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors. No significant difference was found for males and females. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of parents' qualification on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors. Children were divided into three groups according to their parents' qualification: below secondary, secondary, and higher-education. The results showed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) between the three groups of children. To attempt to control for the children's relative socioeconomic status, the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) was used. SEIFA was developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and is based on information from the five-yearly census on income, educational attainment, and employment. The ABS has categorized SEIFA scores into five different levels, with a higher score meaning a lower level of disadvantage. All the schools in the study were in the level three category, thus ensuring variation between the SES of students would be minimized. It should also be noted that students participating in the data collection were from three different grade levels (four, five, and six), and that the grade level composition distributions were not equally spread across the two categories of schools. Thus, another ANOVA was conducted to understand the impact of different grade levels

213

on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors. The result indicated no significant difference between the three grades (P > 0.05). One-way between groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to assess the impact of School-design on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors. The analysis looked for significant differences in children's environmental attitudes and behaviors (Children's Environmental Attitudes towards Human Intervention, Children's Environmental Attitudes via ESD at School, Children's Environmental Attitudes towards Eco-rights, Children's Pro-active Eco-behaviors, Children's Environmental Behaviours towards Resource and Energy Conservation) between two different types of School-design e schools designed for sustainability and conventional schools. Although a series of independent sample t-tests could have been conducted, this method was rejected because it can increase the risk of an ‘inflated type 1 error.’ Preliminary analysis confirmed that no serious violation of the assumptions of normality, outliers, linearity, multicollinearity and singularity, and Homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices was noted. Analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between the two groups of children on the combined dependent variables, F(5,269) ¼ 28.14, p ¼ 0.000; Pillai's Trace ¼ 0.343; partial h2 ¼ 0.343. As a significant result was obtained at this stage, further investigations were carried out to determine whether the two groups of children differed on all of the dependent variables, or only on some of them. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, using Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.01 (Pallant, 2013, p. 305), all the dependent variables, except Children's Environmental Attitudes towards Eco-right, reached statistical significant difference: Attitudes towards Human Intervention, F(1,273) ¼ 14.552, p ¼ 0.000, partial h2 ¼ 0.051; Attitudes via ESD at School, F(1,273) ¼ 103.333, p ¼ 0.000, partial h2 ¼ 0.275; Pro-active Eco-behaviors, F(1,273) ¼ 35.553, p ¼ 0.000, partial h2 ¼ 0.115; and Resource and Energy Conservation Behaviours, F(1, 273) ¼ 42.569, p ¼ 0.000, partial h2 ¼ 0.135. Schooldesign had the greatest impact on the variable Children's Environmental Attitudes via ESD at School, representing 27.5% of the variance in this variable, which is considered a large effect size (Cohen, 1988, p. 284), compared to Attitudes towards Human Intervention (5.1%) with a medium effect size, Pro-active Eco-

Table 2 Identified factors for GEB (Children@School). Scale items

Two hypothesized factors For the GEB (Children@School)

1. I participate in recycling activities at School. 2. I work in the school garden with teachers. 3. I look at books about the environment (nature, trees, and animals). 4. I pick up litter left behind by my friends during recess and lunch breaks. 5. I don't turn on the classroom lights because there is always enough light in my classroom. 6. I leave the class window open while the heater is working. 7. I forget to turn off water after washing my hands in the school toilets. 8. I bring too much food to school and I have to throw away the extra food. 9. I turn on the air conditioner rather than opening the glass window when it is warm inside. 10. I forget to turn lights off when I leave a classroom.

Pro-active Eco-behaviours

Resource and Energy Conservation

Table 3 Test of between-subjects effect. Dependent variables

F

Error df

Sig.

Partial h2

Children's Children's Children's Children's Children's

14.552 103.333 2.371 35.553 42.569

273 273 273 273 273

0.000 0.000 0.125 0.000 0.000

0.051 0.275 0.009 0.115 0.135

Environmental Attitudes towards Human Intervention Environmental Attitudes via ESD at School Environmental Attitudes towards Eco-rights Pro-active Eco-behaviours Environmental Behaviours towards Resource and Energy Conservation

214


behaviors (11.5%) with a large effect size, and Resource and Energy Conservation Behaviours (13.5%) with a large effect size (Table 3). Children in schools designed for sustainability and children in conventional schools significantly differed in the four environmental attitudes and behaviors variables. Comparison of the mean scores suggested that children in schools designed for sustainability reported higher levels of Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours (Table 4). 4. Discussion A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to compare the environmental behaviors and attitudes of children between two different types of schools: schools designed for sustainability and conventionally designed schools. This analysis answers the question: what is the impact of different types of School-design on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors? In sum, there was a statistically significant difference between the environmental attitudes and behaviors of children attending schools designed for sustainability compared to children attending conventional schools. The only exception was that there was no difference between the two types of school in children's attitudes towards Eco-rights. It might be suggested that school design was not influential for this dimension because acquiring these fundamental attitudes about environmental rights is considered to be a developmental process in which environmental beliefs and cognitions are transmitted to children by their parents. School-design most influences Children's Attitudes via ESD at School (Fig. 1), and children attending schools designed for sustainability outperformed the children attending conventional school on all four dependent variables (Fig. 2). Children's attitudes and behaviors were significantly more proenvironmental in the sustainably designed schools. This study thus provides empirical evidence for the important role of sustainable school-design in shaping children's environmental attitudes and behaviors. The findings also corroborate research recognizing sustainable school buildings as agents for raising environmental education efficacy (Cole, 2013; Lyons Higgs, 2006; Newton, Wilks, & Hes, 2009), and support studies suggesting that: the overall culture of sustainability is positively affected by what is termed as “green” school buildings (Lyons Higgs, 2006); building with low environmental impact can provide a unique teaching tool for promoting sustainability (Newton et al., 2009); and school building provides a conspicuous and consistent artefact of sustainability (Cole, 2013). Interestingly but not unexpectedly, the largest difference between the two types of schools was in scores for Children's Environmental Attitudes towards ESD at School e allowing the predominant use of natural light, artificial light provided by solar panels, and learning spaces connected to gardens. This suggests that if we wish to educate children of the benefits of inhabiting and using buildings in ways that minimize resource consumption, then schools should consider incorporating sustainable design features that: improve children's bonds with nature, encourage children to use clean, non-polluting and renewable energy sources such as

Fig. 1. The proportion of the variance in children's environmental attitudes and behaviours that could be explained by School-design.

solar energy, teach children to avoid unnecessary energy consumption through, for instance, using natural day light rather than artificial light, and teach children to grow their food locally in a school garden. These sustainable design features help inform proenvironmental attitudes in children and provide children with opportunities to link these attitudes to behaviors through experiential learning. This finding suggests that educators might collaborate with architects to better realize the pedagogical potential of school design for environmental education. Thus, we suggest a more comprehensive approach towards sustainable design for new schools and school refurbishment to enhance environmental education. As suggested elsewhere (Izadpanahi et al., 2015), schools might also engage parents and teachers in the process of developing and implementing design pedagogies (pedagogy through design), for we have found (Izadpanahi et al., 2015) that parents' and teachers' environmental attitudes and preferences also impact children's environmental attitudes and preferences. 4.1. Study limitations and subsequent recommendations for future research An individual's environmental philosophy is molded by many personal and extraneous factors, such familial, social, cultural, religious and political influences (Goldman et al., 2006). Thus, future research might consider potential influential variables on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors not considered by this present study, such as teachers' and parents' environmental awareness, and older sibling's role modelling. Another limitation that future research might consider is variation in the physical context of each school, so that the influence on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors of proximity and access to natural environments and parks might be controlled for. A theoretical method of avoiding some of these uncontrolled variables would be to evaluate equivalent groups of children's environmental attitudes and behaviors when they experience both types of School-design. This would be possible if participant samples were

Table 4 Mean differences of the dependent variables for children in two types of School-design. Dependent variable

schools designed for sustainability

Children's Children's Children's Children's

M M M M

Environmental Attitudes towards Human Intervention Environmental Attitudes via ESD at School Pro-active Eco-behaviours Environmental Behaviours towards Resource and Energy Conservation

¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

3.544, 4.451, 3.355, 4.322,

SD SD SD SD

¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

0.725 0.631 0.951 0.617

conventional schools M M M M

¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

3.17, SD ¼ 0.884 3.447, D ¼ 0.958 2.673, D ¼ 0.943 3.771, D ¼ 0.768


215

Fig. 2. Mean differences of the dependent variables for children in two types of School-design.

surveyed before and after a renovation that added sustainability features to a school. The study did not consider other differences, too, that future investigations might consider to inform future school design. Such as differences between the sustainably designed schools, which might indicate the sustainability features that are more successful in affecting students' attitudes and reported behaviors. It has been said that sustainability is a fluid concept that changes as factors affecting lives change (Hes, 2005). It is therefore suggested that future research might be repeated within the same contexts to investigate whether school-design remains as a determinant factor in educating children for environmental attitudes and behaviors when certain factors change e such as curriculum, children's age, or teachers and parents educational level. Future research that made use of the instruments developed for this study, the NEP (Children@School), and GEB (Children@School), would further consolidate their reliability and validity. This would assist in maximizing the generalizability of current and future findings.

4.2. Conclusion: recommendations for designers and educators The sustainable design of schools has been shown in this study to be influential in elevating most dimensions of children's environmental attitudes and behaviors. School designers and educators might therefore be encouraged to collaborate to create schools that facilitate learning through engagement with ESD. Such schooldesign should include passive design or sustainability features that: improve children's bonds with nature; encourage children to use renewable energy sources such as solar; teach children to avoid unnecessary energy consumption by, for instance, using natural daylight rather than artificial light; and teach children to grow their food locally, e.g. in their school garden. Environmental educators might also consider using the design of school buildings to engage both the wider teaching population and parents with pro-environmental ideas, for these two agents have been identified in previous studies as significantly influencing children's learning (Bhargava & Pathy, 2014; Kerlin, Santos, & Bennett, 2015). As such, school designers should consider “that the spatial language of a building [needs to] correlate in what it is saying to both adults, and children” (Russell, 2004, p. 2) As suggested elsewhere (Izadpanahi et al., 2015), a number of strategies are available for improving teachers' and parents' environmental awareness that in turn might improve children's environmental

understanding. These include promoting community engagement in environmental programs at schools, provision of interactive websites, green tours, or short environmental courses or workshops in the school environment (where, for example, schools showcase tangible examples of environmental discourse). Proenvironmental attitudes in parents might also be promoted through the child-parent knowledge exchange that occurs when children bring home news of the green facilities at school (Ballantyne, Connell, & Fien, 2006, p. 3). However, as has been demonstrated elsewhere (Izadpanahi et al., 2015), the influence of teachers and parents on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors differs from the influence of school design. For although parents and teachers have been shown to impact Children's Environmental Attitudes towards Human Intervention and Children's Environmental Attitudes towards Eco-rights, school design impacts Children's Environmental Attitudes towards Human Intervention, Children's Environmental Attitudes via ESD at School, Children's Pro-active Eco-behaviors, and Children's Environmental Behaviors towards Resource & Energy Conservation. Thus, when design is used as a pedagogic tool the pedagogy needs to emphasize synergy between its learning objectives and the specific sphere of influence of school design on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors; namely promotion of the use of active strategies to reduce resource and energy consumption. References Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E., & Nowak, P. (1982). Measuring environmental concern: The new environmental paradigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 13(3), 39e43. Anaby, D., Hand, C., Bradley, L., DiRezze, B., Forhan, M., DiGiacomo, A., et al. (2013). The effect of the environment on participation of children and youth with disabilities: A scoping review. Disability & Rehabilitation, 35(19), 1589e1598. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.748840. Ballantyne, R., Connell, S., & Fien, J. (2006). Students as catalysts of environmental change: A framework for researching intergenerational influence through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12(3/4), 413e427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620600942972. Bell, A. C., & Dyment, J. E. (2008). Grounds for health: The intersection of green school grounds and health-promoting schools. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 77e90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620701843426. Berger, K. S., & Thompson, R. A. (1995). The developing person through childhood and adolescence (4th ed., p. c1995). New York: Worth Publishers. Bhargava, A.a.y.c.i., & Pathy, M. K.m.g.c. (2014). Attitude of student teachers towards teaching profession. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 15(3), 27e36. Bond, T., & Fox, C. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum. Bryant, C. K., & Hungerford, H. R. (1977). An analysis of strategies for teaching environmental concepts and values clarification in kindergarten. The Journal of

216


Environmental Education, 9(1), 44e49. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, P. N. J. (1988). An imperiled generation: Saving urban schools (0-931050-33-2). Retrieved from: http:// ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url¼http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct¼true%26db¼eric%26AN¼ED293940%26site¼ehost-live%26scope¼site. Carrier, S. J. (2009). Environmental education in the schoolyard: Learning styles and gender. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 2e12. Clark, H. (2002). Building education: The role of the physical environment in enhancing teaching and research. Issues in practice. London, England: ERIC. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Cole, L. B. (2013). The teaching green school building: A framework for linking architecture and environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 20, 1e22. ~ a, X., AlvarezDadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagan Pedrerol, M., … Su, J. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(26), 7937e7942. David, T. G., & Weinstein, C. S. (1987). The built environment and children's development. In C. S. Weinstein, & T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for children (pp. 3e18). new York: Springer. David, T. G., & Weinstein, C. S. (2013). Spaces for children: The built environment and child development. Springer Science & Business Media. Department for Children, S. a. F. (2006). S3: Sustainable school self-evaluation (London). Department for Children, S. a. F. (2008). Sustainable schools, a brief introduction (Retrieved from UK). Dudek, M. (2000). Architecture of schools: The new learning environments. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results: The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’. Journal of Environmental Education, 9(1), 10e19. Earthman, G. I. (1998). The impact of school building condition and student achievement, and behavior. Eastman, C. M., & Harper, J. (1971). A study of proxemic behavior: Toward a predictive model. Environment and Behavior, 3(4), 418e437. Edwards, B. W. (2006). Environmental design and educational performance, with particular reference to “green” schools in Hampshire and Essex. Research in Education, 76, 14e32. Evans, G. W., Brauchle, G., Haq, A., Stecker, R., Wong, K., & Shapiro, E. (2007). Young children's environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 39(5), 635e658. Faber Taylor, A., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(5), 402e409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1087054708323000. Freeman, F. N., Holzinger, K. J., & Mitchell, B. C. (1928). The influence of environment on the intelligence, school achievement, and conduct of foster children. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, (Pt. I), 102e217. Goldman, D., Yavetz, B., & Pe'er, S. (2006). Environmental literacy in teacher training in Israel: Environmental behavior of new students. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(1), 3e22. Heerwagen, J., Kampschroer, K., Powell, K., & Loftness, V. (2004). Collaborative knowledge work environments. Building Research & Information, 32(6), 510e528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210412331313025. Hes, D. (2005). Facilitating ‘green’ building: Turning observation into practice (PHD). RMIT. Retrieved from: https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/ 39357. Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environment: A literature review (Retrieved from Newcastle). Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1e8. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8e22. Hunter, L., & Sonter, L. (2010). Children and the natural environment. Educating Young Children: Learning and Teaching in the Early Childhood Years, 16(2), 31e34. Izadpanahi, P., Elkadi, H., & Tucker, R. (2015). Greenhouse affect: The relationship between the sustainable design of schools and children's environmental attitudes. Environmental Education Research, 1e18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13504622.2015.1072137. Janda, K. B. (2011). Buildings don't use energy: People do. Architectural Science Review, 54(1), 15e22. Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 395e422. Kellert, S. R. (2005a). Building for life : Designing and understanding the humannature connection. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kellert, S. R. (2005b). Designing healthy schools. Independent School, 65(1), 58. Kerlin, S., Santos, R., & Bennett, W. (2015). Green schools as learning laboratories? Teachers' perceptions of their first year in a new green middle school. Journal of Sustainability Education, 8, 1.

Küller, R., & Lindsten, C. (1992). Health and behavior of children in classrooms with and without windows. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(4), 305e317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80079-9. Leeming, F. C., Dwyer, W. O., & Bracken, B. A. (1995). Children's environmental attitude and knowledge scale: Construction and validation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 26(3), 22e31. Lucas, A. M. (1972). Environment and environmental education: Conceptual issues and curriculum implications. Lyons Higgs, A. V. M. (2006). Teaching through modeling: Four schools' experiences in sustainability education. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(1), 39e53. Malone, K., & Tranter, P. (2003). Children's environmental learning and the use, design and management of school grounds. Children, Youth and Environments, 13(2), 1e30. Manoli, C. C., Johnson, B., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Assessing children's environmental worldviews: Modifying and validating the New Ecological Paradigm scale for use with children. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(4), 3e13. Moore, G. T., Lackney, J. A., & Wisconsin Univ, M. S. o. A., & Urban, P. (1994). Educational facilities for the twenty-first century: Research analysis and design patterns (0-938744-80-1). Retrieved from: http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login? url¼http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct¼true%26db¼eric% 26AN¼ED375514%26site¼ehost-live%26scope¼site. Newton, C., Wilks, S., & Hes, D. (2009). Educational buildings as 3D text books: Linking ecological sustainability, pedagogy and space. Open House International, 34(1), 17e25. Nikel, J.j.n.b.a.u., & Reid, A. (2006). Environmental education in three Germanspeaking countries: Tensions and challenges for research and development. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 129e148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 09243450500527879. Noe, F. P., & Snow, R. (1990a). Hispanic cultural influence on environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 27e34. Noe, F. P., & Snow, R. (1990b). The new environmental paradigm and further scale analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(4), 20e26. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/00958964.1990.9941934. Orr, D. W. (1997). Architecture as pedagogy II. Conservation Biology, 11(3), 597e600. Pallant, J. F. (2013). SPSS survival manual : A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (5th ed.). Crows Nest: N.S.W. Allen & Unwin. Palmer, J. (2002). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise. Routledge. Penn, A., Desyllas, J., & Vaughan, L. (1999). The space of innovation: Interaction and communication in the work environment. Environment & Planning B, Planning & Design, 26(2), 193e218. Pooley, J. A., & O'Connor, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711e723. Proshansky, E., & Wolfe, M. (1974). Physical setting and open education. School Review, 82, 556e574. Rivlin, L. G., & Wolfe, M. (1972). The early history of a psychiatric hospital for children: Expectations and reality. Environment and Behavior, 4(1), 33e72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001391657200400102. Russell, J. (2004). But what are we saying to our kids. In Paper presented at the Spatial Environment Agreeable for Human Beings Conference Proceedings. Schneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? Washington D. C: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Shetzer, L., Stackman, R. W., & Moore, L. F. (1991). Business-environment attitudes and the new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(4), 14e21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1991.9943057. Stern, M. J., Powell, R. B., & Ardoin, N. M. (2008). What difference does it make? Assessing outcomes from participation in a residential environmental education program. The Journal of Environmental Education, 39(4), 31e43. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3200/joee.39.4.31-43. Taylor, A. P., & Enggass, K. (2009). Linking architecture and education : Sustainable design for learning environments. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(20), 1580e1607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15591816.1992.tb01758.x. Weinstein, C. S. (1977). Modifying student behavior in an open classroom through changes in the physical design. American Educational Research Journal, 14(3), 249e262. Wilks, S. (2010). A charter for children's learning at the Royal Children's Hospital. Wilson, R. (2012). Nature and young Children: Encouraging creative play and learning in natural environments (2nd ed.). Younge, G. (2001). Space rage. Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian. com/education/2001/jan/09/schools.theguardian. Zaradic, P. A., & Pergams, O. R. (2007). Videophilia: Implications for childhood development and conservation. Journal of Developmental Processes, 2(1), 130e144. Zhang, W., Goodale, E., & Chen, J. (2014). How contact with nature affects children's biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biological Conservation, 177, 109e116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.011.