environmental worldviews in higher education: a case study of turkish college students
DESCRIPTION
Environmental Worldviews in higher education: A Case Study of Turkish College Students. Doç.Dr . Nazmiye Erdoğan Baskent University. Environmental / ecological crisis. Industrial Production Distrubution Consumption. A n anthropocentric worldview. (a) H uman are superior and above nature - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Environmental Worldviews in higher education: A Case Study of Turkish College
Students
Doç.Dr. Nazmiye ErdoğanBaskent University
Environmental/ecological crisisIndustrial
ProductionDistrubutionConsumption
An anthropocentric worldview(a) Human are superior and above
nature(b) There is abundance of natural
resources and there is no need for conservation
(c) Human beings, by virtue of possessing culture and technology, are able to adapt nature to human aims, rather than adapt to the natural environment
Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) (1)A belief in limitless resources,
continuous progress, and the necessity of growth
(2) Faith in the problem solving abilities of science and technology
(1)High valuation of nature(2)Generalized compassion toward
other species, other peoples and other generations
(3)Careful planning and acting to avoid risks to humans and nature
(4)Recognition that there are limits to growth to which humans must adapt
(5)Consultative and participatory new politics emphasizing on foresight and planning
Ecocentric worldview
METHOD
This study was designed to Explore the environmental worldviews of Turkish University Students
Test hypothesized relations on environmental views, environmental course status, gender, school status and socio-economic status
• H1 : Although more students are expected to have pro-environmental views, they are not expected to embrace high level of pro-environmental orientation.
• H2 : Students who took a course in environment and students who did not take any will differ in their environmental worldviews.
• H3: First year students and fourth year students will differ in their environmental views.
• H4: There is a gender difference in environmental views: more female than male students have pro-environmental views, while more male than female students have pro-DSP view.
• H5: There is relationship between socio-economic status and environmental views.
Study Population and Sample
Study Population and Sample 1295 Undergraduate Students941 Baskent University145 students Mustafa Kemal University107 Karadeniz Teknik University 102 Ankara University
Measurement and Analysis
A 25 item questionnaire was developed by using the related
studies and the revised NEP scale
Each item were measured on a scale
1- strongly disagree 5- strongly agree
• School status was defined first-year, second-year, third-year
and fourth-year students.
• Environmental course was defined “yes” (course-taker) and “no”
(non-taker).
• SES was measured by family income and grouped as “low”, “medium” and “high”.
FINDINGS
Students’ environmental worldviews
• 56.5 % of students hold pro-environmental views
• 24.6 % embrace pro-DSP views• 18.8 % have unsure/ambivalent
views
1. Dünyanın barındırabileceği insan sayısının üst sınırına yaklaşıyoruz
2. İnsanlar doğaya müdahale ettiğinde genellikle yıkıcı sonuçlar ortaya çıkar.
3. Bitkiler ev hayvanlar da insanlar kadar var olma hakkına sahiptir
4. İnsan çevreyi/doğayı ciddi şekilde kötü kullanıyor5. Özel yeteneklerimize rağmen, biz hala doğanın
yasalarına tabiyiz6. Doğal denge çok hassastır ve kolayca bozulabilir7. Her şey böyle giderse yakında büyük bir ekolojik
faciayla karşılaşacağız8. Bilimin faydası kadar zararı da vardır9. Teknolojik gelişme faydalı olduğu kadar zarar da verir10.İnsan varlığını sürdürebilmek için doğa ile uyum içinde
yaşamalı11.Hızlı ekonomik gelişme çoğu kez faydadan çok zarar
ortaya çıkarır12.Ülkemizin kaynaklarını korumak için güçlü tedbirler
almalıyız13.Çevre kirliliğini önlemek için endüstri üzerinde kontrol
olmalı14.İnsanların, doğayı kendi ihtiyaçlarına uygun şekilde
düzenleme hakkı vardır 15.Turizm çevreyi korumada sorumluluklarını yerine
getirmelidir
1. İnsanların, doğayı kendi ihtiyaçlarına uygun şekilde düzenleme hakkı vardır
2. İnsan zekâsı dünyayı yaşanamaz bir hale getirmemizi önleyecektir.
3. Doğal denge endüstrilerin olumsuz etkileriyle baş edecek kadar güçlüdür
4. İnsanlığın yüz yüze geldiği söylenen ekolojik kriz çok abartılmaktadır
5. İnsan doğaya hükmetmek için yaratılmıştır6. İnsan doğayı kontrol edebilmek için onun nasıl
çalıştığını sonunda öğrenecek7. Teknolojik gelişme ile çoğu sorun çözülebilir8. Son yıllarda çevre kirliliği yasaları haddinden fazla
katılaştı9. Çevre yasaları endüstri üzerine haksız yük
getirmektedir10.Turizmin gelişmesi için kaynaklar sınırsız olarak
kullanılabilir
Statements
% Distribution
MeanbSD D U A SA
We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support 7.5 8.5 22.0 33.5 28.5 3.67
When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences 5.2 9.3 13.9 35.4 36.2 3.88
Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist 2.4 2.4 4.2 16.5 74.5 4.58
Humans are severely abusing the environment 3.6 6.0 6.4 35.3 48.7 4.19
Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature 4.7 7.6 20.6 37.9 29.2 3.79
Balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset 3.1 12.0 14.6 35.7 34.6 3.87
If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. 2.9 4.8 19.9 36.8 35.6 3.97
Science cause harm as much as benefit 9.4 10.9 21.7 31.2 26.8 3.55
Technological development cause harm as much as benefit 4.7 8.1 14.2 38.8 34.2 3.90
Human should live in harmony with the nature in order to survive 1.4 2.4 9.4 29.7 57.1 4.39
Fast economical growth engenders more harm than benefit most of the time 4.1 14.6 28.5 32.7 20.1 3.50
Environmental laws should be enforced vigorously 2.0 5.1 9.1 28.9 54.9 4.30
We should take strong measures to protect resources of our country 1.4 3.1 6.9 21.0 67.6 4.50
There should be control over the industry in order to prevent environmental problems 1.9 4.0 11.8 35.1 47.2 4.22
Tourism should meet its responsibility to protect the environment 1.9 3.2 8.6 18.5 67.8 4.47
Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs 38.6 26.5 15.1 13.6 6.2 3.78
Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unliveable 8.6 16.7 34.6 25.2 14.9 2.79
Balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industries 18.3 27.9 28.8 16.6 8.4 3.31
The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated 29.3 30.0 25.5 11.1 4.1 3.69
Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature 31.3 22.2 19.6 18.7 8.2 3.50
Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it 6.4 10.2 30.0 32.1 21.3 2.48
Most problems can be solved by technological development 6.9 20.1 32.9 31.6 8.5 2.85
Environmental protection laws got too strict in recent years 28.5 26.0 22.8 13.0 9.7 3.51
Environmental laws put unfair burden on industry 26.3 23.8 30.6 13.5 5.8 3.51
Resources can be used limitlessly for the development of tourism 37.5 21.7 18.4 13.8 8.6 3.66
Overall Orientation Index 11.5 13.1 18.8 26.2 30.3 3.75
The mean score for the 25 items• The mean score for the 25
items, after correcting for the directionality of the items
• was found to be 3.75 which indicate that the overall environmental views of students falls at the lower rank of pro-environmental orientation.
Distributions on the Pro-environmental items (items 1-15)
• 75.3 % students agree on these statements
• Only 10.5 % disagree • 14.1 % are undecided.
• In terms of overall mean index of pro-environmental items, general orientation of students is at 4.05 (mildly agree) level.
Distributions on the pro-DSP items (items 16-25)
• reveal that 28.5% agree with the statements,
• while there are considerable numbers of disagreeing (45.7%)
• undecided (25.8%) students. • Regarding overall mean index of
pro-DSP items, general orientation of students is at 3.31 point.
Difference between the environmental course-takers and non-takers
• Agreements on items by course-takers range from 61.8 to 81.0% for pro-environmental items
• 17.4 to 40.6% for the pro-DSP items.
• Agreements by non-takers range from
• 49.7 to 84.6% for the pro-environmental items and 23.2 to 39.9% for the pro-DSP items.
Item 4 (Humans are severely abusing the environment)
• Undecided percentage of 6.6 for course-takers and 6.5% for non-takers.
The remaining undecided responses range from 11.5 to 39.6% for course-takers
• and 20.7 to 32.9% for non-takers.
ResponseStatements
SD D U A SA Test results
4Humans are severely abusing the environment Yes
No2.54.0
10.0
4.96.66.5
41.633.3
39.4=8151.3=84,6
df=4p=.02
11Fast economical growth
engenders more harm than benefit most of the time
YesNo
2.54.6
11.51 5.7
24.230.0
36.631.3
25.218.4
df=4p=.003
17Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unliveable
YesNo
6.99.2
12.918.0
39.632.9
23.625.7
17.014.2
df=4p=.04
18Balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industries
YesNo
12.020.3
31.926.6
30.628.2
14.816.6
10.77.6
df=4p=.004
20Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature Yes
No37.729.2
25.621.1
19.319.8
11.421.1
6.08.9
df=4p=.046
25 Resources can be used limitlessly for the development of tourism
YesNo
46.434.5
22.121.6
11.520.7
12.814.1
7.29.1
df=4p=.001
Environmental course takers or nontakers
humans are severely abusing the environment
• Distribution of agreement with the statement that is
• 81.0% for the course-takers • 84.6 % for non-takers.
• 12.5% of course takers • 8.9% of non-takers disagree with
the same statement.
Fast economical growth mostly engenders more harm than benefit.
• 61.8 % of course-takers • 49.7 % of non-takers agree with the
statement
• Disagreement is relatively low:• 14.0% for course-takers • 10.3% for non-takers. • More non-takers (30.0%) than
course-takers (24.2 %) are undecided.
Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unlivable • Those who think that comprise• 39.9 % of non-takers • 40.6 % course-takers.
• More non-takers (27.2 %) than course-takers (19.8 %) do not agree with the statement.
• There are 32.9 % non-takers and 39.6 % course-takers that are undecided.
Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.• There is a considerable
difference between the two groups in the idea
• 63.3 % of course-takers • 50.3 % of non-takers do not
agree with the idea. • Correspondingly,• 17.4 % of course-takers • 30.0 % of non-takers agree with
it.
School status37.6% first year32.3% second year16.8% third year 13.4% fourth year students.
• There were significant differences of opinion on only three statements at .05 level (items 9, 19, 25).
• Frequency distributions on the three items show that there are considerable differences between first year students and fourth year students
Technological development cause harm as much as benefit• 76.3% of the first year • 62.8 % of last year students
agree with
• 10.7% of first years students • 17.2% of last year students
do not agree with
Humans were meant to rule over rest of nature
• 28.8% of first year students agree• 23.1% of fourth year students
agree.
• 22.2% undecided first year students
• 13.6 % fourth year students• Less first year students (49.0%)
than fourth year students (63.3%) disagree with
Gender differences54.7% female• More females than males agree
with all 13 significant pro-environmental statements.
• On the other hand, more males than females agree with all significant pro-DSP statements.
• These results overwhelmingly support the hypothesis stating existence of gender difference on environmental worldviews
• Similarly, there are no striking gender differences in the pro-DSP items:
• Agreements• range from 11.9 to 52.9% for
females • 19.3 to 53.9% for males
• whereas disagreements • range from 14.8 to 69.2% for
females • 18.9 to 60.3% for males.
Item Statements SD D U A SAa Test results
1 We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support
MaleFemale
10.05.5
10.07.2
24.420.1
29.936.5
25.730.7
df=4p=.001
3 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist MaleFemale
3.31.7
2.92.0
5.82.8
19.713.9
68.379.6
df=4p=.001
4 Humans are severely abusing the environment MaleFemale
4.13.3
8.14.5
8.45.0
34.136.4
45.350.9
df=4p=.004
6 Balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset MaleFemale
4.52.0
13.610.8
16.313.2
34.137.0
31.637.0
df=4p=.008
7 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.
MaleFemale
3.92.0
7.03.0
21.418.7
36.537.2
31.239.1
df=4p=.001
8 Science cause harm as much as benefit MaleFemale
11.97.4
12.69.5
20.023.0
29.532.7
26.027.3
df=4p=.016
9 Technological development cause harm as much as benefit
MaleFemale
6.53.3
10.65.9
14.613.9
36.840.5
31.536.4
df=4p=.001
10 Human should live in harmony with the nature in order to survive
MaleFemale
1.51.3
3.41.6
11.57.6
30.429.1
53.160.4
df=4p=.011
11 fast economical growth engenders more harm than benefit most of the time
MaleFemale
5.62.8
17.112.6
27.729.1
30.434.5
19.120.9
df=4p=.011
12 Environmental laws should be enforced vigorously MaleFemale
2.71.3
6.83.7
11.87.0
29.628.4
49.159.7
df=4p=.001
13 We should take strong measures to protect resources of our country
MaleFemale
2.70.3
4.02.4
8.65.5
22.220.1
62.571.7
df=4p=.001
14 There should be control over the industry in order to prevent environmental problems
MaleFemale
2.21.7
5.32.9
14.59.7
34.335.8
43.749.9
df=4p=.007
15 Tourism should meet its responsibility to protect the environment
MaleFemale
2.61.4
2.73.5
10.37.2
21.715.8
62.772.0
df=4p=.002
16 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs
MaleFemale
36.640.1
23.729.1
15.414.9
16.111.5
8.44.4
df=4p=.001
17 Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unliveable
MaleFemale
11.06.5
16.716.8
33.435.6
23.127.0
15.714.2
df=4p=.032
19 The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated
MaleFemale
23.933.7
29.630.3
27.224.1
15.27.8
4.14.1
df=4p=.001
20 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature MaleFemale
29.133.0
20.723.5
20.518.8
18.319.1
11.45.6
df=4p=.002
21 Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it
MaleFemale
9.14.2
9.810.6
27.132.4
32.931.4
21.021.5
df=4p=.003
22 Most problems can be solved by technological development
MaleFemale
7.06.8
16.423.0
32.133.6
34.729.1
9.77.5
df=4p=.016
23 Environmental protection laws got too strict in recent years
MaleFemale
27.828.9
22.129.4
25.220.9
15.510.9
9.59.9
df=4p=.006
Significant differences according to gender
Socio-economic status• Of 1295 students, 504 (%
38.9%) declined to answer to this question.
• These results provide partial support for the hypothesis (H5) on the existence of relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and environmental orientation.
• Regarding the significant relations, • low SES students agree with all pro-
environmental statements more than medium SES and high SES students.
• Expectedly, low SES students agree less with pro-DSP statements.
• Similar results were found in most statements between the medium SES and high SES students.
• Agreement responses on the• pro-environmental items were
in the range• 65.4% - 96.1% for low SES
group,• 69.0- 90.6% for the medium
SES group• 59.9% - 88.2% for the high
SES group.
Statements% Distribution
Test resultsSD D U A SA
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support
LowMediumHigh
12.05.97.0
9.05.17.0
13.618.125.1
32.233.934.8
33.237.026.0
df=8p=.002
3. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist LowMedium High
1.32.03.1
1.33.12.6
1.34.34.4
13.411.821.8
82.778.868.1
df=8p=.004
4. Humans are severely abusing the environment LowMediumHigh
5.24.30.9
5.25.58.8
4.67.57.9
32.434.941.2
52.647.841.2
df=8p=.013
5. Balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset LowMediumHigh
3.32.43.5
7.915.515.3
12.212.321.4
40.531.734.1
36.238.125.8
df=8p=.001
6. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.
LowMediumHigh
2.61.64.8
4.24.36.1
13.722.421.1
37.932.737.7
41.539.030.3
df=8p=.02
7. Technological development cause harm as much as benefit LowMediumHigh
4.62.47.9
7.28.211.0
9.220.415.9
41.532.937.9
37.636.127.3
df=8p=.001
8. Human should live in harmony with the nature in order to survive
LowMediumHigh
0.71.20.0
2.02.73.1
5.69.012.7
20.627.138.6
71.260.045.6
df=8p=.001
12. Environmental laws should be enforced vigorously LowMediumHigh
2.02.00.9
3.95.16.1
7.87.113.1
21.930.233.6
64.455.746.3
df=8p=.003
13. We should take strong measures to protect resources of our country
LowMediumHigh
2.30.80.4
2.62.05.7
4.67.57.5
14.419.725.4
76.170.161.0
df=8p=.001
11. Tourism should meet its responsibility to protect the environment
LowMediumHigh
1.60.82.6
1.63.14.4
5.68.28.3
11.418.023.2
79.769.861.4
df=8p=.001
16. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs
LowMediumHigh
42.242.531.9
29.126.425.3
11.415.720.1
10.812.214.8
6.53.17.9
df=8p=.018
18. Balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industries
LowMediumHigh
23.322.411.4
26.631.533.2
29.522.430.1
13.416.914.0
7.26.711.4
df=8p=.005
20. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature LowMediumHigh
37.034.525.6
21.119.623.8
14.916.924.2
17.522.018.1
9.67.18.4
df=8p=.046
23. Environmental protection laws got too strict in recent years LowMediumHigh
37.328.924.6
26.126.525.9
19.621.724.6
7.512.616.2
9.510.38.8
df=8p=.022
24. Environmental laws put unfair burden on industry LowMediumHigh
31.527.428.5
27.926.219.3
27.927.827.2
8.913.514.9
3.95.210.1
df=8p=.02
25.Resources can be used limitlessly for the development of tourism
LowMediumHigh
45.541.231.3
16.820.826.0
16.216.122.0
13.214.513.7
8.37.57.0
df=8p=.049
Conclusion and Discussion
Conclusion• The present study results show
that majority of students (56.0%) hold pro-Env views.
• However, about one fourth of students have pro-DSP oriented ideas in varying degree.
• Results provided partial support for the hypothesized relationships.
• Female students with low socio-economic status and first-year students have higher pro-environmental orientations.
• Taking a course on environment makes only slight difference in opinions.
• It was concluded that students’ environmental orientations change varying extent according to gender, socio-economic status and education which are probably determined by the historical and cultural context and characteristics of the population under study.
• Results suggest that there exists a reasonable level of environmental awareness; however university policies and practices on the environmental education and issues need to be reassessed and geared toward cultivating environmental sensitivity.
• These findings suggest that the students’ environmental worldviews do not reflect a widespread adoption of the pro-environmental orientation.
• The previous studies mostly indicate positive relationship between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors.