Oct 4, 2015 - awareness and attitudes about environmental issues, ..... gas usage in Turkey did not contribute to the solution of the air pollution problem.
by PSP
Volume 25 – No. 4/2016, pages 1243-1257
Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
FACTORS AFFECTING THE STUDENTS’ ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS, ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS IN ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY, TURKEY Mehmet Bozoglu1*, Abdulbaki Bilgic2, Bakiye Kilic Topuz1 and, Yuksel Ardali3 1
Ondokuz Mayis University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, 55200 Samsun, Turkey 2 Ataturk University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey 3 Ondokuz Mayis University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Environmental Engineering, 55200 Samsun, Turkey
environmental sources resulted in environmental problems such as deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, ozone depletion, global climate change and over-consumption of natural resources [2, 3]. Environmental problems are the most vital problems we face today and all are mostly due to the human behavior [4, 5], or they are anthropogenic of origin [6]. Such threats to the environment are generally listed as industrialization, over population, developments in science and technology and increasing needs and globalization [7]. Environmental issues are being eroded with more university education in the long run, since universities educate young generations expected to be the future leaders in many different areas in the society, and who will be the decision-makers and therefore their graduates are expected to deal with sustainability issues in both their’ personal and professional lives [8]. Students should acquire an appropriate range of awareness, understanding, and concepts about the environment while they were in school, so that critical judgment can be achieved [9]. Environmental education can help create positive awareness and attitudes about environmental issues, whilst curbing the negative role of human actions on the environment [10, 11]. Therefore, universities are sole responsible for increasing their students’ environmental awareness, attitudes and behaviors to create an environmentally sustainable future [12]. Environment is defined as all factors affecting the physical, biological, socio-psychological, socioeconomic and cultural life of an individual or society [13]. Environmental awareness is defined as an understanding of natural systems combined with how they interact with human social systems [14], while many consider this as the ultimate driving force that stimulates knowledge [15]. Contrarily, environmental attitude is defined as learned tendencies in the form of consistent behaviors against environment either positive or negative [16], providing a good understanding of the set of beliefs, interests or rules that influence environmentalism or pro-environmental action [17]. On the other hand, behavior is what people do, whether it is
ABSTRACT This study aimed to determine the students’ environmental awareness, attitude and behavior levels and factors influencing their environmental awareness, attitude and behavior. A face-to-face survey with 621 candidate graduate students in the Ondokuz Mayis University was used to collect the data. The environmental awareness, attitude and behavior were determined by the students’ assessments based on a five-point Likert scale. The ordered probit procedure was used to determine factors affecting the students’ environmental awareness, attitudes and behaviors. The study reveals that the candidate graduate students’ environmental awareness, attitude and behavior are found to be high. The probit models showed that both environmental attitude and behavior were influenced by the environmental education and information factors, while the socio-demographic factors generally have important impacts on the students’ environmental awareness as expected. While the variables of gender had the highest impacts on the students’ environmental awareness, both awareness and curiosity levels towards environmental news had the highest influences on the students’ environmental attitude and behavior, respectively. To increase the students’ environmental literacy levels, the departments should put sufficient compulsory environment courses on their programs, and they should focus on providing their graduates with environmental attitudes and behaviors. KEYWORDS: Environment, awareness, attitudes, behavior, ordered probit, Turkey
INTRODUCTION Natural resources are being consumed at a faster rate than they can be restored [1]. The uncontrolled and uncoordinated usage of 1243
by PSP
Volume 25 – No. 4/2016, pages 1243-1257
Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
environmentally appropriate or inappropriate [18]. Since environmental behavior is considered as the basis of the environmental crisis, social scientists have long been interested in the causation of this behavior [1]. The rise of environmental issues has produced many studies with students on explaining the variation in individual knowledge, awareness, attitudes and behaviors toward the environment. Aklin et al. [19] attempted to identify the main determinants which predict a person's awareness of environmental issues, while many other researches revealed the relation between environmental awareness, concern, knowledge and behavior [2027]. In parallel, some other researchers have investigated whether schools [1] and infusions of environmental education [28] make a difference in environmental awareness and attitudes among students. Ogunbiyi and Ajiboye [29] examined preservice teachers’ knowledge and attitudes to some environmental education concepts. Grob [30] estimated a structural model for environmental attitudes and behaviors, whilst Bradley et al. [10] and Kaiser et al. [31] overemphasized that attitude is the most important factor affecting individual behavior. While Klöckner [32] and Masud and Kari [33] examined the determinants of individuals’ environmentally relevant behaviors, Tanner [34] identified prevalent constraints inhibiting individuals’ environmental behaviors. Environmental awareness, attitudes and behaviors may vary with gender, age, education, income, family, residence, country, political tendency, knowledge/awareness of the environment, school and etc. [35-38]. In Turkey, researchers have investigated university students’ environmental knowledge, responsibility, risk perceptions, attitude, and behaviors. For example, Beyhun et al. [39] determined the students’ environmental risk perception levels and their determinants in one of the country’s Medical Schools and stated that stress, damage of ozone layer and motor vehicle accidents were found as high or very high risk factors towards environment. On the other hand, Yilmaz et al. [40] examined the university students’ environmental knowledge levels and determined that the environmental education was not sufficient enough so that students generally tended to obtain information about environmental issues from the media. Contrarily, Sadik and Sadik [41] investigated environmental knowledge and attitudes of those who are teacher candidates at Cukurova University and found that they had a moderate environmental knowledge level and positive environmental attitude, but with a low level of the environmental behavior. In parallel, a study
conducted among science teacher candidates in thirteen universities in the country to obtain their environmental attitudes found very high level of environmental attitudes of candidates [42]. Similar results were also echoed in other studies [43-49]. However, to our knowledge there was no specific study to investigate awareness, attitudes and behavior levels of the candidate graduates towards environmental issues and how their determinants affect perceptions of these issues. Therefore, this study was to identify this relationship and levels of awareness, attitudes and behavior among the students of the Ondokuz Mayis University in Turkey who would soon graduate. Universities have the responsibility to prepare their graduates for preserving the environment. Every department is related with the environment and their graduates’ professional activities can somehow effect the environment. Therefore, every department should prepare responsible graduates for a more livable environment. The emerging interest of universities to participate in the increase in the consciousness of environmental values makes it necessary to explore the candidate graduates’ environmental awareness, attitude and behavior. However, it is very important to explore if the time students spend at the university actually improves their environmental awareness, attitude and behavior. Determining environmental awareness, attitude and behavior of the candidate graduates is also crucial in establishing the sustainability of a community. Based on the logical approach described in the previous section, it is an important task to analyze the levels of awareness, attitudes and behavior attributed to environmental issues by university students, since it can present significant results to draw appropriate decisions about the effective educational programs for students who are currently enrolled and future generations on environmental issues. The aim of this study was to determine the environmental awareness, attitude and behavior levels of the students and understand how sociodemographic, economic, and environmental-related factors influence their environmental awareness, attitude and behavior. The research results can contribute to the program curricula and shed light on penetrative protection of the environment those policy makers of local in particular and central government in general seek for.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Ondokuz Mayis University is a state university and has totally 52,301 undergraduate and graduate students at 5 graduate institutions, 16 1244
by PSP
Volume 25 – No. 4/2016, pages 1243-1257
Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
faculties, 2 colleges, 1 conservatory and 12 vocational schools [50]. The population of this study includes all candidate students for graduation at the undergraduate programs of the departments, which are somehow related with environment, under the body of the faculties of Ondokuz Mayis University. Totally 621 students participated in the study, and the number of participant students from the departments were as follows: Agricultural Economics (26), Agricultural Construction and Irrigation (20), Horticulture (27), Plant Protection (31), Field Crops (24), Agricultural Biotechnology (32), Agricultural Machinery (20), Soil Science and Plant Nutrition (30) and Animal Science (18) all from the College of Agriculture, and Environmental Engineering (43), Food Engineering (55) and Industrial Engineering (42) from the College of Engineering, while Biology (37), Chemistry (33) and Geography (89) from the College of Science and Education, and lastly Science Teacher (72) and Biology Teacher (22) from the College of Education. This study used a survey technique to collect the data. The technique aims to reveal a past or current phenomenon [51] or determine participants’ views or characteristics such as interest, skill and/or attitude [52]. The survey consisted of totally 64 questions and four parts: The first part contained 12 items to measure socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the students such as age, gender, family size, education of mother and father, residence, monthly income of family, information sources on environment, frequency of following environmental news, research and developments, the most important institution about environment, membership to environmental organizations, and whether the student has taken courses about the environment. The second part included 26 items to measure the students’ environmental awareness. The third part contained 11 items to measure the students’ environmental attitude, and the last part included 15 items to measure the students’ environmental behaviors. The Likert scale measurement was used for every statement of environmental awareness, attitude and behavior on a 5 point scale. Each alternative item is assigned from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) for favorable items. In case of unfavorable items (2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 36, 37 and 40) in Table 3, the scoring is reversed from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The students were asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree with each item, as well as the magnitude of their agreement or disagreement. The students were then categorized in three groups according to their
average response score for the questions. The student who scored less than 2.5 was classified under the low environmental awareness, attitude and behavior group, 2.5 to 3.5 was classified under the moderate environmental awareness, attitude and behavior group, and more than 3.5 was classified under the high environmental awareness, attitude and behavior group. The students’ environmental awareness, attitude and behavior scores were given in Table 1 based on their statements. To calculate and interpret the mean values of the level of agreement for each item of awareness, attitude and behavior, an interpretative scale was developed as follows: If the mean value was less than 2.5, it meant the participant strongly disagreed or disagreed. If the mean value was from 2.5 to 3.5, it was neutral, and if the mean value was higher than 3.5, it meant that the participant agreed or strongly agreed. Based on this scale, of 26 environmental awareness statements, while 21 statements were agree or strongly agree, 3 awareness statements were neutral and 2 awareness statements were disagree or strongly disagree. The three items of environmental awareness with the highest means were “Creating environmentally conscious individuals is compulsory for future generations to live in a healthy and safe environment (mean=4.41)”, “Using insecticides and herbicides for agriculture is not harmful for the environment (mean=4.29)” and “Environmental activities help raise awareness of environmental issues (mean=4.25)”. The three items of environmental awareness with the lowest means were “The malnutrition in underdeveloped countries is a consequence of environmental problems (mean=3.11)”, “The university is not sensitive enough towards environmental problems (mean=2.37)” and “Environmental education is not enough in Turkey (mean=1.89)”. Of 11 environmental attitude statements, while 10 statements were agree or strongly agree, only 1 statement was neutral. The three items of environmental attitude with the highest means were “People who spit on or litter the ground should be interfered (mean=4.43)”, “We should try to protect Earth’s plants and animals, even though it is expensive (mean=4.38)” and “Courses of environment must be practical (mean=4.37)”. The three items of environmental attitude with the lowest means were “I think I am very sensitive about environmental issues (mean=3.65)”, “I prefer the option of highway construction to the protection of plant species (mean=3.61)” and “For my country, I prefer technological development to noise pollution (mean=3.32)”.
1245
by PSP
Volume 25 – No. 4/2016, pages 1243-1257
Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
TABLE 1. Average awareness, attitude and behavior scores
Behavior
37.For my country, I prefer technological development to noise pollution. 38.I take care of using both sides of papers when I write something. ** 39.I usually economically use resources such as water and electricity. 40.When I am outside of the room, I do not turn the lights off, because I think it does not consume energy very much. 41.I like participating in the environmental protection activities, because it is the best way to understand the environment.** 42.I often talk about environmental issues with people around me. * 43.I often watch television programs about environmental issues. 44.I usually use public transports such as the tram in order to avoid air pollution. * 45.I usually read publications on the environmental issues. 46.I take care of buying recycling packaged products in my daily life. 47.I take care of collecting household waste separately in my daily life. 48.I take care of consuming products which do not contain harmful substances to the ozone layer. 49.I choose courses about environment as elective courses at the university. 50.I vote politicians who are concerned about environmental protection. 51.When I get a chance, I plant seedling. 52.I join actively in activities of environmental issues.
General
24.The malnutrition in underdeveloped countries is a consequence of environmental problems. 25.The university is not sensitive enough towards environmental problems*** 26.Environmental education is not enough in Turkey*** 27.People who spit on or litter the ground should be interfered. ** 28.We should try to protect Earth’s plants and animals, even though it is expensive. ** 29.Courses of environment must be practical.** 30.People who pollute the environment should be fined.** 31.Newspapers, magazines and televisions should make more programs about environmental issues. ** 32.I love to visit recreation areas outside of the city.** 33.Courses about environment should be compulsory. 34.Regardless of their position, any country engaging in nuclear testing should be protested. 35.I think I am very sensitive about environmental issues.** 36.I prefer the option of highway construction to the protection of plant species.
High
1.Creating environmentally conscious individuals is compulsory for future generations to live in a healthy and safe environment*** 2.Using insecticides and herbicides for agriculture is not harmful for the environment *** 3.Environmental activities help raise awareness of environmental issues*** 4.Environmental protection is a constitutional obligation** 5.Field activities related to the environment are a waste of time, within class activities are important *** 6.If universities carry out more activities on environment, it will help better understand environmental issues*** 7.Protecting the environment is a duty of the state, not people** 8.Human mistreat the environment ** 9.Environmental education activities are useful only for children*** 10.A squatter is not an environmental problem** 11.I believe that environmental problems are exaggerated. 12.Rapid population growth is a serious environmental problem** 13.Air, water and soil are inexhaustible resources*** 14.Necessity of using water filters at homes is an indicator of water pollution *** 15.Being sensitive to the environmental problems is not an obstacle for the development of a country*** 16.The idea of environmental protection was invented by western people to prevent the development of developing countries 17.I increasingly need more information about the effects of our activities on the environment*** 18.There is no desertification problem in Turkey*** 19.Immigration affects negatively environmental problems 20.Delivering environmental education does not help solving environmental problems** 21.No international institution or organization should intervene on using the natural resources. 22.There have not been enough protest meetings for protecting the environment in Turkey. 23.The increase of natural gas usage in Turkey did not contribute to the solution of the air pollution problem.
Moderate
Level
Low Attitude
Awareness
Statements
1.33 1.33 1.50 2.00 1.83
3.77 3.38 3.73 3.63 3.53
4.60 4.55 4.42 4.37 4.39
4.41 4.29 4.25 4.21 4.20
1.50 2.17 2.00 1.17 2.00 2.67 2.00 1.17 1.50 1.83
3.57 3.65 3.45 3.57 3.28 3.38 3.32 3.20 3.52 3.38
4.38 4.24 4.23 4.19 4.23 4.19 4.15 4.19 4.08 4.09
4.19 4.10 4.05 4.04 4.02 4.02 3.97 3.96 3.94 3.93
2.67 1.83 1.83 2.50 1.83 2.33 2.50
3.45 3.42 3.28 3.17 3.09 3.02 2.97
4.03 4.00 3.96 3.95 3.89 3.81 3.55
3.90 3.86 3.80 3.79 3.71 3.64 3.42
2.67 2.67 4.00 4.67 2.50 2.50 2.33 2.50 2.67 2.33 2.83 2.67 2.50
3.05 2.65 2.52 2.16 3.89 4.00 3.92 3.91 3.95 3.99 3.36 3.45 3.39
3.44 3.23 2.32 1.80 4.58 4.50 4.51 4.50 4.48 4.47 4.23 3.77 3.73
3.36 3.11 2.37 1.89 4.43 4.38 4.37 4.36 4.36 4.36 4.05 3.70 3.65
2.83 2.50 2.67 2.17
3.13 3.08 3.91 3.77
3.74 3.38 4.32 4.13
3.61 3.32 4.22 4.04
3.83
3.62
3.97
3.90
2.50 2.33 2.67
3.37 3.29 3.22
3.94 3.82 3.72
3.82 3.71 3.61
2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.33 3.33 2.50 2.83 3.33
3.34 3.17 3.08 2.89 2.99 2.66 2.97 3.03 2.78
3.57 3.59 3.57 3.38 3.35 3.36 3.29 3.14 2.85
3.52 3.50 3.46 3.28 3.28 3.23 3.22 3.11 2.84
***, **, * denote that there are statistical differences among the groups at 1%, 5% and 10% significance levels, respectively. 1246
by PSP
Volume 25 – No. 4/2016, pages 1243-1257
Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
Of 15 environmental behavior statements, 8 statements were agree or strongly agree, 7 statements were neutral. The three items of environmental behavior with the highest means were “I take care of using both sides of papers when I write something (mean=4.22)”, “I usually economically use resources such as water and electricity (mean=4.04)” and “When I am outside of the room, I do not turn the lights off, because I think it does not consume energy very much (mean=3.90)”. The three items of environmental behavior with the lowest means were “I vote politicians who are concerned about environmental protection (mean=3.22)”, “When I get a chance, I plant seedling (mean=3.11)” and “I join actively in activities of environmental issues (mean=2.84)”. The questionnaire was pre-tested and modified to improve its reliability. The questionnaires were conducted with students at the beginning of classes by lecturers in May 2015. The students answered the survey questions in about 15 minutes. SPSS 17.0 and Limdep 10 software programs were used for data analysis.
Descriptive statistics were used to identify variables reflecting socio-demographic and economic characteristics and environmental awareness, attitude and behaviors of the students. To compare the socio-demographic and economic, and environmental variables in which students were identified low, moderate and high for subsequent awareness, attitude and behavior groups, ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis tests were used for parametric and non-parametric variables, respectively. The ordered probit model was used to determine the environmental awareness, attitude and behaviors of the students by means of socio-demographic, economic and environmental variables. Definitions of variables were presented in Table 2. The dependent variable had three response categories for which students have stated their understanding levels of environmental awareness, attitude and behavior. Since the dependent variable takes discrete values and these values are inherent ordinal ranking, the ordered model fits the data best [53-56].
TABLE 2. Definitions of the model variables Variable name GENDER AGE HOUSHSIZE MOTHEDUC FATHEDUC RESIDENCE FAMINCOM ENVCOUR INFSMEDIA INFSUNIV INFSINST FENVNEWS MEMENVO ENVAWARL ENVATTL ENVBEHL
Variable definition Female=0, Male=1 Age (year old) Household size (people) Mother education (year) Father education (year) If student lives in rural residences =1, other = 0 Household monthly income (₺, Turkish Lira) If the student takes two or more courses about environment =1, other = 0 If the main information source of environmental awareness is the media =1, others=0 If the main information source of environmental awareness is university =1, others=0 If the main information source of environmental awareness is the state institutions =1, others=0 If student follows usually or always environmental news =1, other = 0 If student is a member of voluntary environmental organizations=1, other=0 Level of environmental awareness (˂2.5=low awareness level, 2.5-3.5= moderate awareness level and, 3.5 ˃ high awareness level) Level of environmental attitude (˂2.5=low sense level, 2.5-3.5= moderate sense level and, 3.5 ˃ high sense level) Level of environmental behavior (˂2.5=low behavior level, 2.5-3.5= moderate behavior level and, 3.5 ˃ high behavior level)
1247
by PSP
Volume 25 – No. 4/2016, pages 1243-1257
Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
The ordered model, for which the dependent variable was coded 0 as low, 1 as moderate, and 2
yi* βxi i , i
as high each for awareness, attitude or behavior, is expressed as
F i | , E i | xi 0, and Var i | xi 1
where y* is the unobserved “latent” dependent variable, β is a vector of coefficients to be estimated, x is a vector of explanatory variables, ε a vector of error terms (e.g., we assume normal
yi 0 if yi 0 ,
(1)
distribution as ε ~N[0,1]) and F stands for any distribution that a researcher might consider. The above observation mechanism results from a complete censoring of the latent limited dependent variable as follows:
yi 1 if 0 yi 1 ,
(2)
yi 2 if 1 yi 2 , where y is the observed counterpart to y* , while μj represents the threshold values or the cutoff points. The cutoff points vary with the individual respondents. We expect students with similar sociodemographic and economic characteristics, and environmental awareness, attitude or behavior to
have similar cutoff points, resulting with the cutoff points being normally distributed [57, 58]. If we assume that the ε is normally distributed across observations, then the probability of choosing a specific ranking by a respondent can be expressed as [54, 57, 59].
Pr ob yi j Pr ob yi* is in the jth range j βxi j 1 βxi j 0,1, 2. where is the normal cumulative density function (cdf), μj and μj+1 represent the upper and lower threshold values for category j, respectively.
(3)
Note that µ-1 = -∞ and µ0 = 0.These probabilities are specifically as follows:
Pr ob yi 0 βxi Pr ob yi 1 1 βxi βxi
(4)
Pr ob yi 2 2 βxi 1 βxi The log likelihood function is:
log L yij log j βxi j 1 βxi N
2
i 1 j 0
y 0 log βxi y 1 log 1 βxi βxi i
yi 2
(5)
i
log 2 βxi 1 βxi
Marginal effects were calculated to determine a unitary effect of each exogenous variable on each of the three categories of the dependent variable.
The marginal effect of a continuous variable for the ordered probit model for three categories can be calculated as [57, 60].
1248
by PSP
Volume 25 – No. 4/2016, pages 1243-1257
Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
Pr ob yi 0 βˆ xi ˆk , xk
Pr ob yi 1 βˆ xi ˆ1 βˆ xi ˆk , xk
(6)
Pr ob yi 2 ˆ1 βˆ xi ˆk xk
between of the corresponding probability with and without the presence of the variable in question. For example:
where is the normal probability density function. Marginal effects for a dummy variable, on the other hand, can be calculated as the difference
Pr ob yi 0 βˆ xi xm
xm 1
βˆ x
The standard errors of these marginal effects can be obtained by utilizing the delta method.
i
xm 0
(7)
main information source, respectively. There were a statistical difference among the environmental attitude and behavior groups in terms of the variable of university information source (p
