THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION BEHAVIOR STATUS AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS AT

UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA

Arbaat HassanUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

arbaat@yahoo.com

Norshariani Abd. RahmanUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

yaniey_84@yahoo.com

ABSTRACTLiterature review showed that awareness on environmental issues increased in the society but the level of individual involvement in the environmental activities was still “low.” This study was to investigate the status of intention and environmental behavior among undergraduate students in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). The survey employed a quantitative approach using questionnaires involving 377 respondents (n=377). The two types of variables: independent (gender, disciplines, and years of study) and dependent (intention involving attitudes, personal norms, locus of control, and environmental conservation behavior) were used. Results from descriptive analysis showed “high” intention but demonstrated “moderate” behavior towards environmental conservation. The constructs under intention variables were attitude, and personal norms, were at “high” level, whereas the locus of control was at “moderate” level. Overall finding showed that there was a high correlation between intention and behavior. This suggested that the method of teaching and learning should be more focus to their direct experience and “hands-on” activity in order to improve responsible environmental behavior. Keywords: environment, awareness, conservation behavior, intention, attitude

INTRODUCTION

Nature is a gift from God to all living things. People were given responsibility to manage environment for the benefit to all. However, in recent years, environmental imbalances occur as a result of misbehaviors of many people changing the atmosphere in the name of “Development”. Imbalance between human need and environmental have caused endangered natural treasures over period of time (Mohd. Faizal, 2008).

Government has taken various initiatives in conserving the environment by applying in the staggered plans or policies methods. However, the need to protect the environment also requires participation to each of its citizen. Therefore, environment education is one of the best to prepare next generation to master high knowledge and awareness of environment (Norjan et. al, 2005).

Consistence with this phenomenon, environmental education was introduced with aimed to produce people who are knowledgeable about biophysical and its association with environmental problems, awareness of how to help solve these problems, and motivation to work towards a solution (Stapp, 1969).

In Malaysia, Environmental Education is implemented through the integration of teaching and learning across the curriculum in the primary and secondary schools. At the tertiary level, the Environmental Education is taught through specialized courses and course options to mean of creating a society that has awareness of the environment. In addition, Malaysia is aimed to produce a more ethical society that value and concern on the environment (Jamaluddin, 2001).

1

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Increasingly widespread environmental destruction at the present was due to human behavior exploiting natural resources without thinking about the right of future generations (Ibrahim, 2005). Therefore, the increase on environmental awareness is an important element in the national building towards sustainable development (Zurina & Norjan, 2003).

Previous research findings showed that knowledge, attitudes and awareness of the environment among students in Malaysia were at “good” level (Fadzilah 1999; Ismail 2005; Mohd Yusop et. al, 2003; Norjan et. al, 2005; Norlila, 2007; Ramli, 2003; Ruhaya, 2001; Seow & Nor Wariza, 2004; Zurina & Norjan, 2003). This was in line with the opinion (Ridener, 1997) which stated that “most” students had already have wide range of environmental awareness. However, the results of the studies from the aspects of behavior dealing with environmental problems, were found that the level of involvement among students was “moderate” and “low” (Zurina & Norjan, 2003; Mohd Yusop et. al, 2003).

Research findings were consistent with the previous opinion (Azizan, 2008) which said that students have a good awareness about environmental problems but awareness was not changed to a “more” practical. This was also supported by Wahida et. al (2004) which stated that awareness of environmental issues and awareness that the environment had increased in the society but the level of individual involvement in the activities of environment protection was still in a “low". According to the final goal of environmental education was to form human behavior (Hungerford & Volk, 1990), so this study was aimed to examine the intention and environmental behavior and it associated with gender, disciplines and year of study. This study was focused on students of higher education institutions. It was they believed that the most qualified people who would lead country in the future. In addition, direct or indirect their thoughts and behavior would affect the status of the environment in the future.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study was a survey research using quantitative data. Questionnaire was employed using instruments. Questionnaire consist of five (5) sections, namely student demographics, attitude, personal norms, locus of control and behavior. The responses were measured using 5 points Likert scale. Number of undergraduate students UKM, Bangi were 14.286 consisted of 8 faculties. The number of sample involved in the study was 377 people. In this study, the faculties were divided into four (4) categories of Pure Science, Social Sciences, Professional and Islamic Studies. Sampling techniques used were random and stratified random sampling. Stratified random sampling was used to obtain respondents from 8 faculties representing 4 disciplines. This study used SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 11.5 to analyze data.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Research findings from descriptive statistics showed that majority of respondents showed the level of intention to care environment was at the “high” level while the environmental behavior was at the level of “moderate”. The construct under intention variable; attitudes and personal norms showed “high” while the locus of control at “moderate” level (Table 1).

2

Table 1 Level of Intention, Attitudes, Personal Norms, Locus of Control and Behavior.

Variable N Mean Standard deviation

Percentage (%)

Mean Interpretation

Intention 377 3.572 0.370 71.440 High

Attitudes 377 4.303 0.395 86.060 High

Personal norms 377 3.947 0.497 78.940 High

Locus of control 377 3.191 0.430 63.820 Moderate

Behavior 3773.018 0.691 60.360 Moderate

Result from t-tests shown in Table 2 showed that there was no significant difference between male and female students in terms of attitude, personal norms, locus of control, and the intention of environmental care. However, there were significant differences between male and female students in terms of behavior. Male showed “higher” environmental behavior as compared to female students. From Table 3, the result of one-way ANOVA indicated that there were significant differences in terms of attitudes, personal norms and intention among students of different streams. Table 4 showed that there were significant differences in terms of attitudes, and personal norms among students of different years of study. While the locus of control, intention and behavior, showed no significant differences among students of different years of study. Pearson correlation analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between attitudes, personal norm, locus of control and behavior but the relationship is “low”. Overall findings showed “very high” relationship exists between the intention and behavior (Table 5).

Table 2 Level of Intention, Attitude, Personal norms, Locus of Control and Behavior Based on Gender

Variables Gender Number of sample

Mean Standard deviation

t-value Significant level

Intention Male 133 3.620 0.432 1.856 0.064

Female 244 3.546 0.330

Attitudes Male

Female

133

244

4.278

4.317

0.423

0.380

-0.916 0.360

Personal norms

Male

Female

133

244

3.965

3.937

0.569

0.454

0.532 0.595

Locusof control

Male

Female

133

244

3.174

3.201

0.471

0.406

-0.571 0.568

Behavior Male

Female

133

244

3.206

2.916

0.748

0.637

3.966 0.000

3

Table 3 Level of Intention, Attitude, Personal Norms, Locus of Control and Behavior Based on Disciplines

Variables Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.level

Intention Between group 1.341 3 0.447 3.321 0.020

Within groups 50.205 373 0.135

Total 51.546 376

Attitudes Between groups 5.291 3 1.764 12.299 0.000

Within groups 53.487 373 0.143

Total 58.778 376

Personalnorms

Between groups 6.461 3 2.154 9.294 0.000

Within groups 86.436 373 0.232

Total 92.897 376

Locus of control Between groups 1.275 3 0.425 2.327 0.074

Within groups 68.117 373 0.183

Total 69.391 376

Behavior Between groups 0.416 3 0.139 0.288 0.834

Within groups 179.319 373 0.481

Total 179.735 376

Table 4 Level of Intention, Attitude, Personal Norms, Locus of Control, and Behavior Based on Years of Study

Variables Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.level

Intention Between groups

0.621 3 0.207 1.515 0.210

Within groups 50.926 373 0.137

Total 51.546 376

Attitudes Between groups

2.503 3 0.834 5.530 0.001

Within groups 56.275 373 0.151

Total 58.778 376

Personalnorms

Between groups

2.322 3 0.774 3.187 0.024

Within groups 90.575 373 0.243

Total 92.897 376

Locus of control

Between groups

0.386 3 0.129 0.696 0.555

Within groups 69.005 373 0.185

Total 69.391 376

Behavior Between groups

1.813 3 0.604 1.267 0.285

Within groups 177.922 373 0.477

Total 179.735 376

4

Table 5 Correlation Between the Intention, Attitudes, Personal Norms, Locus of Control and Environmental Behavior

Variables relationship Behavior Significant level

Intention r = 0.808** 0.000

Attitudes r = 0.262** 0.000

Personal norms r = 0.391** 0.000

Locus of control r = 0.288** 0.000

** Significant at level p<0.01

DISCUSSION

Overall findings, the intention of environmental care practices among students in UKM, Bangi was located at "high" level. Student attitudes were also at the "high” level. In terms of the aspects of studies in attitude constructs showed that the four aspects studied; commitment to protect the environment, Egocentric, Environment and Emotional care of the environment were also showed "high" level. Comparison of attitudes between male and female students also found that there was no significant difference existed between male and female students. This finding seemed to be contradicting to the previous research findings (Anderson et. al, 2007; Ewert & Baker, 2001; Mainieri, 1997; Olofsson & Ohman, 2006; Tikka et. al, 2002), which found that females behave more pro-environment than male.

On the other hand, One-way ANOVA showed that there was significant difference in terms of attitudes between groups of students from different disciplines of study. Students from Professional disciplines had lower attitudes as compared to students from Pure Science, Social Science and Islamic Studies. Overall mean found to be that Islamic Studies students showed more pro-environmental attitude. This was followed by students from Social Sciences and Pure Science. The findings of the research from abroad also showed the same situation where students from different disciplines had different attitude towards environment (Tikka et. al, 2002; Hodgkinson & Innes, 2001; Anderson et. al, 2007). In terms of personal norms, study findings showed that UKM, Bangi students had "High" personal responsibility attitude to environmental care practices. When seeing from the different aspect of studies of this construct, it was founded that found the six aspects of studied was at “high” level of responsibility in Reducing Waste, the Consumer Responsibility, Natural Resources Conservation, Action Involving the Law, Enhancing Knowledge and practice To Protect the Environment. Findings showed that UKM, Bangi students were at "Moderate" locus of control. The internal locus of control was in the studied, aspects of Effort and Ability was at the "High” level. This shows that students belief that the Efforts and Abilities they can change the environmental conditions better. For aspect of external locus of control, the aspect of influence from others was at "High” level, while the aspect of task difficulty and fate were at “Medium”. This also showed that although students had belief that their effort and ability could better the quality of environment but at the same time they also had the belief that environmental protection was also influence by other factors.

Behavior in environmental care practices among students in UKM, Bangi was at the "Medium" level. This showed that Environmental Education in UKM has not been able to foster behavior that is consistent practices in protecting the environment. This study findings were in line in previous research findings by Kuhlemeier et. al (1999); Mohd. Yusop et. al (2003); Zurina & Norjan (2003) who found that although students had high level of attitude towards the environment and by intention to maintain high environmental attitude but the responsible behavior for the environment did not achieved the level

5

required. However, aspects of the behavior studied, found to be one of the behavioral aspects at "High" level. The level mentioned was Conservation of Natural Resources. The attitude behavior for Reduce Waste, Consumer Responsibility to Protect and Improve Knowledge Environment were at "Medium" while the action that involved Law was "Low". This showed that students were less involved in protecting the environment as related to legal aspects. Therefore, applying the law in Environmental Education was applied (Muhammad Rizal et. al, 2004).

The t-test analysis indicated differences in terms of environmental behavior among male and female students. The male students had more positive attitude compared to female students. These findings were unexpected and contradict to the findings of previous studies (Dietz, Stern & Guagnano, 1998; Meinhold & Malkus, 2005).

In terms of disciplines and years of study, research findings also showed that there was no significant difference in terms of behavior between students with different disciplines studies.

Pearson Correlation analysis showed there was a positive relationship between the variables of attitude, personal norms and locus of control with the behavior of environmental care practices. However, the relationship was "Low". The Overall, the intention variable, however showed "Very High" relationship with the behavior. Findings of this study along with research findings by Hsu and Roth (1999) indicated that the variables of intention, attitude, personal norms and locus of control have a significant relationship with the behavior. However, Cottrell and Graefe (1997) also stated that predict environment behavior was diverse and complex task. Therefore, ensuring the quality of nature in the future require supervisory attitudes, values, opinions and actual behavior related to various environmental issues.

 CONCLUSION

Overall research findings showed that intention was closed related to environmental behavior. Therefore, other than to increase knowledge and skills to protect environment, students should be given skill of awareness through psychological methods such as increasing student motivation, commitment and responsible attitude towards the environment. With this, students can demonstrate better behavior in solving environmental problems during their everyday lives.

The teaching and learning also had to be more focus on the methods for field work such as issue investigation and case study research to solve environmental issues. Students need to be exposed to the direct experience with environment and more "hands-on". Teaching and learning approaches in environmental education "in" and "to" more appropriate used at the university level because at the primary and secondary school, learning use more approach on "about" the environment.

Assessment of learning achievement for the objectives of environmental education should be done systematically. This is because the evaluation of students input in was the effective method to check the effectiveness on the teaching, learning and the curriculum related to environmental education. Evaluation is useful in improving teaching and learning methods in the future. However, the most important thing to improve the practices of environmental behavior is to change in lifestyle of individuals themselves. A sustainable lifestyle requires a little sacrifice to ensure that future generations can enjoy the environment in good condition.

6

REFERENCES

Anderson, M.W., Teisl, M., Criner, G., Tisher, S., Smith, S., Hunter, M, Norton, S. A., Jellison, J., Alyokkin, A., Galland, T.E., Haggard, S. & Bicknell, E. (2007). Attitude changes of undergraduate university students in general education courses. The Journal of General Education, 56 (2).

Azizan Abu Samah. (2008). Kita hanya menumpang. Pemanasan global. Estidotmy 76, 16-17.

Cottrell, S.T.& Graefe, A. R. (1997). Testing a conceptual framework of responsible environmental behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education 29 (1), 17-27.

Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Journal of Environment & Behavior 30, 687-707.

Ewert, A. & Baker, D. (2001). Standing for where you sit. An exploratory analysis of the relationship between academic major and environment belief. Journal of Environment & Behavior, 33 (5), 687-707.

Fadzilah Muhamad Ali. (1999). Tahap kesedaran alam sekitar di kalangan pelajar di sekolah rendah dan menengah. Satu kajian kes. Unpublished doctoral’s thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Hodgkinson, S.P. & Innes, J.M. (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.

Hsu, S.J & Roth, R.E. (1999). Predicting Taiwanese secondary teachers’ responsible environmental behavior through environmental literacy variables. Journal of Environmental Education, 30 (4): 11-18.

Hungerford, H.R. & Volk, T.L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through Environmental Education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21 (3), 8-21.

Ismail Hussin. (2005). Tahap kesedaran alam sekitar di kalangan pelajar-pelajar SMK di Daerah Jerantut, Pahang. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Jamaluddin Md. Jahi. (2001). Pengurusan alam sekitar di Malaysia: dari Stockholm ke Rio de Janeiro dan seterusnya. Syarahan perdana Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Kuhlemeier, H., Bergh, H.V.D. & Lagerweij, L. (1999). Environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in Dutch secondary education. Journal of Environmental Education, 30 (2), 4-14.

Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. 1997. GreenBuying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journalof Social Psychology, 137, 189-204.

Meinhold, J. L & Malkus, A. J. (2005). Adolescent environmental behaviors. Can knowledge, attitudes, and self–efficacy make a difference. Journal of Environmental

Education, 37 (4), 511-532.Milfont, T.L, Duckitt, J., & Cameron, L. D. (2006). A Cross - cultural study of

environmental motive concerns and their implication for environmental behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38 (6), 745-767.

Mohd. Faizal Aziz. 2008. Cuaca dunia tidak menentu. Pemanasan global. Estidotmy, 76, 14-15.

Mohd.Yusop Ab. Hadi, Jailani Mohd. Yunos & Ahmad Esa. (2003). Meningkatkan pengetahuan, amalan dan sikap terhadap pendidikan alam di kalangan pelajar. Prosiding Seminar Kebangsaan Pengurusan Persekitaran. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Muhammad Rizal Razman, Mazalisah Matsah, Jamaluddin Md. Jahi & Kadir Arifin. (2004). Pendekatan undang-undang di dalam Pendidikan Alam Sekitar di Malaysia. Seminar kebangsaan Geografi dan alam sekitar. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

7

Norjan Yusuf, Nur Ibtisam Ibrahim, Rohana Sulaiman & Rohayati Mamat. (2005). Tinjauan pengetahuan dan kesedaran alam sekitar di kalangan pelajar Orang

Asli. Prosiding seminar kebangsaan pengurusan persekitaran. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Norlia Binti Talib. (2007). Pelaksanaan Pendidikan Alam Sekitar di sekolah - sekolah menengah daerah Seremban. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia.Olofsson, A. & Ohman, S. (2006). General beliefs and environmental concern. Journal of

Environment and Behavior, 38, 768-790.Ramli bin Setapa. (2003). Tahap pengetahuan alam sekitar di kalangan guru-guru pelatih

kursus diploma perguruan Malaysia, Maktab Perguruan Raja Melewar, Negeri Sembilan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Ridener, L.R. 1997. “University student’s attitude to the environment: An Australian/USA comparison and the effects of an educational program”. Australia Journal of Environmental Education, 13, 77-84.

Ruhaya Daud. (2001). Perbandingan pengetahuan dan kesedaran antara pelajar Geografi dan bukan Geografi mengenai isu alam sekitar dan persepsi mengenai alam sekitar. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Seow Ta Wee & Nor Wariza Bt. Jufri. (2004). Keberkesanan kurikulum Kejuruteraan Awam berkaitan alam sekitar dalam pembentukan kesedaran pelajar terhadap alam sekitar: kajian kes di Politeknik Ungku Omar. Seminar kebangsaan Geografi dan alam sekitar. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Stapp, W.B. (1969). The concept of environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 1 (1), 30-31.

Tikka, P.M., Kuitunen, T.M., & Tynys, S. M. (2002). Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 31 (3), 12-19.

Wahida Ayob, Hamidi Ismail & Tuan Rokiyah Syed Hussain. (2004). Sokongan dan penglibatan masyarakat kearah pemantapan pengurusan alam sekitar mampan. Seminar Kebangsaan Geografi dan Alam Sekitar. Bangi: Universiti

Zurina Mahadi & Norjan Yusof. (2003). Kesedaran alam sekitar: Tinjauan awal di kalangan pelajar Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Prosiding seminar kebangsaan pengurusan persekitaran. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

8