the effects of carbon footprint calculation on student trip leaders

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION 1

The Effects of Carbon Footprint Calculation on Student Trip Leaders: A Pilot Study

Lee Collette and Keith Crawford

Appalachian State University


Abstract

The purpose of this pilot study is to conduct an in-depth investigation of the

characteristics and possible relationship between having University-Sponsored Outdoor Program

(OP) student leaders calculate the carbon footprint of an OP trip and the decisions they make

while planning that trip. The decisions the researchers focused on are the distance traveled and

food choices. This intervention may be useful to other programs at colleges and universities

across the United States as a means of promoting environmentally sustainable programs

throughout the outdoor recreation industry.

Researchers collected archival data from the previous academic year to calculate

carbon footprint data prior to any intervention. To encourage student trip leaders to analyze the

ecological impacts of their proposed trips, a carbon footprint calculator was included with all trip

proposal forms in the fall of 2011. The trip proposal form has been in use at OP since the 2010-

2011 school year and collects basic trip details (such as destination, meals, and travel needs),

which makes it a logical place to have trip staff begin to think about the carbon footprint of their

trip. The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and other variables were compared to those of the

previous semesters’ proposed trips. Data analysis revealed significantly lower average carbon

footprints for the post-intervention semester. A -47.1% magnitude of change from the fall 2010

semester and a -54.9% magnitude of change from the spring 2011 semester.

Researchers also investigated the environmental attitudes of student trip leaders

compared to those of a representative sample of students. Online surveys using the New

Ecological Paradigm (NEPR) (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000) were used to make

this comparison. The analysis of the surveys revealed that student trip leaders had a slightly

lower NEPR scores than the control group.


To provide insight into the quantitative results from survey responses student

trip leaders were invited to a focus group. Major trends from these groups included: study

participants feeling that there was a positive impact (sustainably speaking) on their trip proposals

as a result of completing the carbon footprint calculation, OP should continue the practice of

having student trip leaders calculate carbon footprints for proposed trips, and lastly that an

educational workshop would have been beneficial prior to the trip proposal so that they would

have a better understanding of why they were calculating carbon footprint.

If outdoor professionals proclaim to be stewards for the environment, then how

can college outdoor programs begin to create awareness in staff about their impacts on the

environment? The authors believe educating student trip leaders in the early stages of their

development will lead to a ripple effect of positive changes within and beyond the outdoor

industry. This pilot study will provide insight into educational interventions with OP student

leaders and methods to measure carbon footprint of university sponsored OP trips.

Keywords: carbon footprint, college outdoor program, environmental attitude,

environmental sustainability


The Effects of Carbon Footprint Calculation on Student Trip Leaders: A Pilot Study

According to President Barrack Obama, “the threat from climate change is serious, it

is urgent, and it is growing. (2009)”. While many college outdoor recreation programs place

great emphasis on respecting and caring for the environment while in the field, few programs are

aware of the impacts their decisions outside of the field are having on our planet. The purpose of

this pilot study is to use Appalachian State University’s Outdoor Programs (ASU OP) to conduct

and in-depth investigation of the characteristics and possible relationship between having student

leaders calculate the carbon footprint of a trip and the decisions they make while planning that

trip. For example, if a student calculates the amount of carbon produced by a trip they are

proposing, will this impact student decision-making on issues such as the distance that they will

travel or the types of food they will purchase? This study will also provide a model of how to

measure greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of outdoor programs. This model may be useful to

other programs at colleges and universities across the United States as a means of promoting

environmentally sustainable programs throughout the outdoor recreation industry.

Researchers collected archival data from the previous academic year to calculate

carbon footprint data prior to any intervention. In the fall student trip leaders will then receive

an updated version of the trip proposal form, which will have a new section asking them to

calculate the GHG emissions created by the travel and food consumption associated with their

proposed trip. These will then be collected by researchers and the GHG emissions and other

variables compared to those of the previous semester’s proposed trips. Surveys will also be used

to compare the trip leaders’ environmental attitudes to those of a representative sample of the

ASU student population. Additionally, focus-groups will be held clarify the meaning of the data

collected.


By using student trip leaders, the researchers plan to reveal how educating staff about

GHG emissions and asking them to calculate their trip’s carbon footprint affect their trip

planning decisions and environmental attitudes. The decisions we will focus on are the distance

traveled and food choices. While there are many other aspects of outdoor recreation trips which

impact the environment we have chosen to focus on these for two reasons. The first reason is

that these are the factors which student trip leaders at ASU OP have direct control of, the second

reason we chose these factors is because they are two which are currently easiest to quantify in

terms of GHG emissions.

If outdoor professionals proclaim to be stewards for the environment, then how

can college outdoor programs begin to create awareness in staff about their impacts on the

environment? The authors believe educating student trip leaders in the early stages of their

development will lead to a ripple effect of positive changes within and beyond the outdoor

industry.

Research Questions

1. What is the relationship between having student trip leaders calculate their trips’ carbon

footprint and their decisions for trip planning?

2. What is the relationship between carbon footprint calculation and environmental

attitudes?

Review of the Literature

Literature in the fields of outdoor recreation and higher education is void of research on

the behavioral and attitudinal effects of calculating carbon footprint. Only one published article

is available that discusses the carbon footprint of an outdoor recreation program. This case study

from Texas Tech University analyzed the carbon footprint of its Outdoor Pursuits Center (Lloyd-


Strovas and Hayhoe, 2009) and that study was a catalyst for the creation of this project. This

article does an excellent job of explaining the methodology behind measuring the carbon

footprint of a college outdoor program and the reasons why they measured certain components

and not others. The researchers will utilize the information from the Lloyd-Strovas and Hayhoe

(2009) article and create a pilot study to determine if carbon footprint education and calculation

is an effective means of reducing carbon footprint and creating more environmentally aware

student trip leaders at Appalachian State University.

There are a number of articles in the outdoor recreation and higher education literature

which act as a call to action, imploring these industries to take measures to lessen their overall

impact on the planet (Cortes, 2009; O'Connell, Potter, Curthoys, Dyment & Cuthbertson, 2005;

Irwin, 2010; Ross, 1996) These articles provide inspiration and good ideas yet stop at the point

of putting the ideas into practice and evaluating their effects.

Behavior and Attitude Modification As It Relates to Sustainability

Two articles have reported that training people about carbon footprint is an effective

way to create positive change in their environmental attitudes and behaviors. (Graham, Koo

& Wilson, 2011; Wakeland, Sears & Venkat, 2009) Using a computerized carbon footprint

education tool Wakeland, Sears and Venkat (2009) were able to show increased knowledge and

environmental influence beliefs in food consumers while Ghramam, Koo and Wilson (2011)

were able to decrease people’s driving by having them visit a website every other day and log

how many times they had avoided using their cars and then providing them with feedback about

money and/or pollution saved. Both of the aforementioned studies used college students. The

Wakeland, Sears and Venkat (2009) studies utilized college students who were taking courses in

Sustainability and Supply Chain Management, these students are likely to be more prone to adapt


positive environmental attitudes and behaviors due to their previous interest in the subject. Both

of these studies provide optimism that education and implementation of a new tool may prove to

be an effective method for changing Appalachian State University Outdoor Program’s student

trip leaders’ environmental attitudes and actions.

Bamberg (2002) found that implementation intentions, or having someone create

concrete plans to implement a behavior (the use of a new bus route as an example), were

important in modifying the habits of the college students participating in his studies. Bamberg

states, “the results of both presented studies confirm that also in the field of environmentally

related behaviours the initiation of an intended new behaviour seems to be a barrier at which

people often fail” (2002, p. 408). The authors of this study are curious to discover if the

calculation of a trip’s GHG emissions will act as an implementation intention and assist trip

leaders in becoming environmental stewards. A limitation to Bamberg’s study is the use of

incentives to encourage participants to follow through with the intervention. The offer of

incentives may have skewed the data concerning the effectiveness of implementation intentions,

as more people may have followed through due to their desire to receive the incentive than based

solely on the fact that they created a plan.

Sustainability Education in Academe and Outdoor Recreation

There is a vast amount of literature discussing the integration of sustainability literacy

education in both higher education and outdoor recreation (Higgins & Kirg, 2006; Lugg, 2007;

Nicol, 2002; Parkin, Johnston, Brookes & White, 2004; O’Connell, Potter, Curthoys, Dyment &

Cuthberson, 2005). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) have created an initiative to "re-orient teacher education towards sustainable futures”

(2004). According to Lugg (2007), “Higher Education has a role to play in developing


sustainability literacy but understanding of what knowledge and skills are required is

emerging...” (p. 108). Wright (2009) expands on this notion stating “our institutions of higher

education are failing in that they teach skills and knowledge, yet do not provide a situation where

students can adopt positive attitudes towards the environment and society, and therefore graduate

ill equipped to deal with sustainability problems” (p. 112).

In reviewing these various authors’ statements, there is a common thread centered on

the need for a more holistic approach to how institutions deliver sustainability related curricula

(Cortesse, 2003; Ecologist, 2009; Lugg, 2007; Wright, 2009). Lugg goes on to state “there

is considerable potential for experiential methods such as community-based and/or outdoor

pedagogy to make a significant contribution to developing sustainability-literate graduates” (p.

103, 2007). One can infer from this passage that through a blending of traditional methods of

education and the experiential process associated with “outdoor pedagogy”, that institutions

stand to enhance the relevancy of sustainability for its’ students. Supporting this idea for

collaborative efforts, Cortese (2003) writes “designing a sustainable human future requires a

paradigm shift toward a systemic perspective emphasizing collaboration and cooperation. Much

of higher education stresses individual learning and competition, resulting in professionals who

are ill prepared for cooperative efforts” (p. 16).

Cortese (2003) goes on to state “Higher education institutions bear a profound, moral

responsibility to increase the awareness, knowledge, skills, and values needed to create a just

and sustainable future. Higher education plays a critical but often overlooked role in making

this vision a reality” (pg. 17). This statement provides insight into the imperative nature of

incorporating a holistic approach towards sustainability education for students. It suggests that

through a multi-pronged approach (i.e. theoretical curricula, practical application, and value


assessment) students can take ownership over their role in creating a sustainable culture.

As this study seeks to use Outdoor Programs staff as it’s’ target population,

acknowledgement must be made of the “impediments” that stand to hinder educative sustainable

initiatives and subsequent student development (O’Connell et al., 2005). O’Connell et al. list

six factors that impede this development. These being: complexity of changing values and

lifestyles, Western society’s psychosocial history and conceptualization of the out-of-doors, the

lack of inclusiveness in outdoor recreation, the development of technology and implications for

outdoor recreation, the commodification of outdoor recreation, and disempowerment (pg. 82-

84). While this list is far from exhaustive, it does present some foundational ideas that must

be addressed in order for institutions of Higher Education to effectively create a culture of

sustainability in their respective outdoor student staff.

Most notably of these six, complexity of changing values and lifestyles is at the forefront

of consideration for creating sustainably literate students. O’Connell et al. (2005) state that

Many of these people, including outdoor recreation students, dutifully practice

LNT…However, when it comes to complex external stressors affecting protecting areas,

such as pollution, it becomes a much more difficult task to explore the relationship

between actions/behaviors and morality/ethics/personal philosophy. In this way, it has

become easier for students to embrace environmental ethics as a series of ‘rules’ to

follow and disregard factors external to their immediate experiences…Yet it is this task

that is central to sustainability education…(pg. 82).

This notion suggests that sustainability education must incorporate a broader spectrum of

impacting forces in an effort to empower students to consider implications of the entire

experience, not just time spent in wilderness areas.


Additionally, authors Raines and Hobbs have stated “...many organizations have done

an excellent job of incorporating LNT into their backbountry operations, fewer have examined

their entire organization from a more holistic perspective” (Raines and Hobbs, 2007). This

sentiment furthers the idea put forth by O’Connell et al. that in order for Outdoor Programs to

instill a sustainable attitude in its staff, it must take intentional steps to alter its front country

programmatic culture.

What Others Are Doing

The National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) is not only the world leader in

wilderness education but also seems to be leading the way in environmental sustainability in

outdoor recreation. NOLS has three full-time staff dedicated to environmental stewardship and

education. With the help of these staff they have created a sustainability initiative which

encompasses their entire organization and includes several different methods of reducing their

impact on the earth. One of the many things NOLS has done is implement the third largest solar

panel array in Wyoming to power several of their buildings, this is part of a goals NOLS has to

reduce its carbon footprint by twenty percent before 2020 (NOLS). To measure their progress in

meeting this goal, NOLS has created an online reporting system that allows the manager of each

of their branches to report the carbon emissions associated with that branch’s activities

(NOLS). Another impressive thing NOLS has done is hire an external reviewer to produce a

sustainability report for the entire organization. This was done in 2008 and NOLS made the

results available to all of their employees through an internal website (NOLS).

On April 20th of 2010 the Outdoor Recreation program at the University of South

Carolina (USC) began their carbon neutral campaign (University of South Carolina). To

accomplish this, the program calculated their total carbon footprint, in this calculation they


included travel and office electricity and paper usage, but not food. They then planted an

equivalent number of trees to offset their footprint (University of South Carolina). The program

has also hired a Service and Sustainability Manager to help coordinate the carbon neutral

efforts (University of South Carolina). The researchers feel that Appalachian State University’s

Outdoor Programs unit could look to the efforts of USC as a model for its practices related to

carbon emissions reduction.

Outdoor Programs at Appalachian State University in Boone, N.C. has been looking for

ways to become more environmentally friendly for several years and one of the ways they have

done that is by offsetting the GHG emissions associated with their Student Outdoor Learning

Expeditions (SOLE). These are typically month-long expeditions and may involve international

travel. The GHG emissions associated with these trips are calculated using a calculator created

with the help of a professor in the Sustainable Development department and trees are planted to

offset total footprint calculated (R. Cambell, personal communication, March 5, 2011).

One of the researchers of this study sent out an informal survey to the Association

of Outdoor Recreation and Education email listserv to determine if any college or university

programs were regularly calculating the carbon footprint of their trips. None of the seven

schools that responded said they did. One of the respondents mentioned their university was

considering selling carbon offsets as an option when signing-up for a trip (AORE Listserv,

personal communication, February5, 2011) (see Appendix C).

To gain a broader perspective the researchers looked to the Association for the

Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). AASHE stands as a unifying

body for institutions of higher education in terms of sustainability practices. Through their

mission, “to empower higher education to lead the sustainability transformation...by providing


resources, professional development, and a network of support to enable institutions of higher

education to model and advance sustainability in everything they do, from governance and

operations to education and research”, AASHE has the potential to generate a powerful

presence in the movement to create sustainable campuses that also educate students about living

harmoniously with nature (AASHE: Mission, Vision, and Goals, 2011).

Just as much of the aforementioned literature (Higgins & Kirg, 2006; Lugg, 2007;

Nicol, 2002; Parkin, Johnston, Brookes & White, 2004; O’Connell, Potter, Curthoys, Dyment &

Cuthberson, 2005) suggests, AASHE has developed a measurable, multi-pronged approach to

sustainability action through education and practical application of research initiatives. While

AASHE tends to focus on campus-wide interventions, in the future Outdoor Programs could use

AASHE ideas as a staging ground for implementing sustainability practices.

Higher Education & Sustainability

Based on the literature reviewed, we feel it is critical for institutions of higher education

to look at their current methods of sustainability education and training in its students and

student staff. The research has shown that by adding an educational element combined with

a concrete goal, positive change is possible. The various studies mentioned above serve as a

springboard for our research to move forward. The relative lack of research, as it specifically

applies to our study, leads us to believe that this study will stand to contribute to the existing

body of knowledge surrounding carbon footprint education and its effects on participants.

Intentional interventions and collaborative efforts between educational and administrative

bodies are the foundation for institutions to establish positive practices for creating “sustainably

literate” graduates (Graham, Koo & Wilson, 2011; Lugg, 2007; O’Connell, 2005; Wakeland,

Sears & Venkat, 2009; Wright, 2009). This study will offer a lens from which the research


questions can be critically assessed through implementing both a research and intervention

structure that utilizes: behavior and attitudinal modification, curricula development, and study of

environmental awareness.

Methodology

This project has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at Appalachian State

University and was exempt from further review; the project has the support of the professional

staff at Appalachian State University Outdoor Programs (ASU OP). The researchers utilized a

mixed-methods approach to determine the effects of carbon footprint calculation.

Background

The Trip Proposal Form at ASU OP provided a great place to collect carbon footprint

information because it is where the logistics and the goals of the trip are first expressed by the

Trip Leader. Trip proposal forms have been in use at ASU OP since the 2010-2011 academic

year. The original forms collect the following information: staff name(s), trip location, activities,

date(s), risk management strategies, minimum and maximum number of participants and meeting

location.

Measuring Carbon Footprint

Trip proposals from the previous academic year (August 2010 - May 2011) were

collected from ASU OP administrators and the researchers utilized this archival data to calculate

the Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from trips prior to any intervention. In the subsequent

semester, a carbon footprint calculator was sent as an attachment to all trip proposal forms (see

Appendix D). This calculator was used as a tool by trip leaders to calculate their carbon

footprint as they planned their trip. The method of delivery for these forms was an email

attachment in the form of an editable Adobe Acrobat file; student Trip Leaders also had the


option of having the form printed for them in the Outdoor Programs office. The electronic

version of the calculator was created in a way that automatically calculated the travel, food and

total GHG once the Trip Leader input their trip’s number of participants, mileage and number of

meals to prevent mathematical errors as much as possible. This calculator contained a space to

enter mileage, number of breakfasts, lunches, dinners and snacks and a way to note if these

meals contain meat. The multipliers for these categories were provided. To encourage

consistency in mileage calculations student trip leaders were asked to use Google Maps to

measure distance traveled. They were also be told to measure mileage to the put-in for water-

based trips and to the trail head for land-based trips.

The multiplier used to determine carbon emissions from travel is based on information

provided by Transport Direct. The gas mileage for the vehicles was collected from the

Environmental Protection Agency’s fuel economy website (Environmental Protection Agency,

2011). The numbers used to calculate the carbon emissions associated with food were retrieved

from the The Nature Conservancy. Knowing a vegetarian meal creates 42% less GHG than the

average American meal, the researchers will reduce the GHG of each vegetarian meal by this

amount (Eshel & Martin, 2006).

Measuring Environmental Attitude

Through analyzing literature, the researchers found an appropriate instrument to measure

the environmental attitudes of trip leaders and the general population of ASU, the New

Ecological Paradigm (NEP) created by Dunlap and Van Liere in 1978 was chosen. The NEP has

become a widely-used measure of pro-environmental orientation (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig &

Jones, 2000), in fact according to Cordano, Welcomer and Scherer (2003) “the impact of the

original NEP is difficult to overestimate given the continuing stream of studies using the scale”


(p. 23). In 2000 the NEP was revised to address concerns about its validity and dimensionality

(Cordano, Welcomer and Scherer, 2003), this updated version of the NEP is named the New

Ecological Paradigm Revised (NEPR) and has a “good deal of internal consistency (coefficient

alpha of .81)” according to Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones (2000). The revised version

contains 15 questions, divided into five sections to measure: (a) limits to growth, (b) anti-

anthropocentrism, (c) fragility of nature’s balance, (d) rejection of human exemptionalism, and

(e) belief in eco-crisis (Dunlap et al., 2000). The research team has received permission to use

this scale from Dr. Riley Dunlap (personal communication, April 5, 2011) (see Appendix E).

Another instrument considered by the researchers was the General Ecological Behavior

Measure (GEB) (Kaiser and Wilson, 2000). However, it seemed to be targeted at cross-cultural

applications. Also, the number of questions in the GEB could have a negative impact on the rate

of return considering our University setting.

An Internet-based NEPR (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000) survey was

used to compare the environmental attitudes of ASU OP’s trip post-carbon footprint calculation

and those of a representative, random sample of ASU students. The surveys were created using

Google Forms and the data were stored in a private Google Spreadsheet until the surveys closed

(see Appendix A). In addition to the questions based on the NEPR, several demographic

questions were included to gather information on the population surveyed (Dillman and Dillman,

2000). Also, a question was included on the survey to assess the previous experience of

participants with environmental sustainability education and carbon footprint calculation to

moderate this possible influence (see Appendix A). Using Dillman and Dillman (2000) as a basis

for implementation methods, researchers attempted to reach respondents with “multiple

contacts” in an effort to ensure a maximum rate of return. Additionally, it is suggested by


Dillman and Dillman (2000) that the use of token incentives for participants is of vital

importance to entice a response (Dillman and Dillman, 2000). As an incentive, anyone who

completed the survey had a chance to win tickets to the Banff Mountain Film Festival in Boone,

North Carolina in 2012. Identical surveys were provided to student trip leaders and the control

sample of ASU students. The responses of the two groups were stored in separate spreadsheets

as a means of easily defining the groups from one another.

To provide further insight into the findings based on survey responses, student

trip leaders were invited to participate in one of two focus group sessions. To ensure validity,

the focus group questions (see Appendix B) were reviewed by ASU OP professional staff,

student development professionals from other departments, as well as published authors in the

field of recreation management. These focus groups were modeled on the suggestions provided

by Schuh and Upcraft (2001) and Pickering, Paredes, Zerwas & Danner (2010). These

suggestions include providing incentives to encourage participation (Pickering, Paredes, Zerwas

& Danner, 2010) and ensuring that the location is easily accessible to trip leaders (Schuh and

Upcraft, 2001). To accomplish this the researchers provided food and beverage and the

interviews took place in the Outdoor Programs facility. Schuh and Upcraft ( 2001) also suggest

that moderators have no stake in the study and begin with an opening statement and alert the

group that participation is voluntary. To accomplish this the researchers trained moderators,

who are college student development professionals and have not participated in this study, and

provided them with an outline for the meeting (Pickering, Paredes, Zerwas & Danner, 2010).

The moderators were asked by the researchers to ensure that only one person spoke at a time,

that people used names and that everyone felt comfortable to answer freely (Schuh and Upcraft,

2001). To refresh the memories of the student trip leaders a copy of the carbon footprint


calculator was provided. The focus group was audio recorded and then transcribed verbatim into

an electronic text document. Each researcher independently examined the contents of the

transcripts to identify themes and the researchers compared their findings. An electronic text

parser was also used as another resource to identify repeating phrases in the focus group

transcripts.

Analysis

Researchers used a pre and post test method to compare the effects of carbon footprint

calculation. To compare the quantitative data raw scores were downloaded into a Microsoft

Excel Spreadsheet. The average carbon footprint per person per day of ASU OP collectively, of

each of the semesters before and after the intervention was computed. Calculations were then

performed to calculate the magnitude of change between the post-intervention semester and each

of the previous semesters.

To compare the environmental attitudes of student trip leaders to those of other students

the researchers exported a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet from the Google Docs survey. In

Excel, the researchers cleaned the data by removing incomplete surveys, coded each response

for previous carbon footprint calculation, and removed participants from the control group who

had an extensive background in this area. The researchers calculated the average the scores of

the control group and the student trip leaders and the average age of each group. The average

environmental attitude scores were used to construct graphs in Microsoft Excel to provide a

visual representation of the data. Furthermore, the data was imported into Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 19 to perform a one-sample T-test to help determine significance

between the (2) group means.

To compare qualitative data the researchers began by creating transcripts of the audio


recordings from each focus group. Researchers then independently analyzed the transcripts

and noted trends discovered. The researchers then compared their independently created

lists of trends to create a master list. These trends were then compared to the literature for

help in determining their importance. The researchers discussed the trends with a broad

range of outdoor education professionals for further assistance in determining which trends to

highlight. Researchers implemented member checking to increase the accuracy and validity of

the qualitative section of the research (Yanow, & Schwartz-Shea, 2006).

Findings

Analysis of the proposed trips carbon footprint produced exciting results. There was a

significant decrease in the average carbon produced per person per day.

Figure 1. Average Carbon Produced on Proposed ASU OP Trips by Semester. This figure illustrates the average

carbon produced per person per day on proposed ASU OP trips by semester.

The results of the carbon footprint calculation were compared using simple means and then

analyzed further using a delta. As shown in Figure 1 the pre-intervention semesters produced


much higher averages of carbon emissions per person per day than after the student trip leaders

began to calculate their trips’ carbon footprints. The fall 2010 semester average was 218.16

pounds of carbon per person per day with a sample size of 4. In the spring 2011 semester the

average increased to 255.76 with a sample size of 5. In the fall semester of 2011, when student

trip leaders calculated the carbon footprint as they planned their trip, the average decreased to

115.44 with a sample size of size of 6. This is a -47.1% magnitude of change from the fall 2010

semester and a -54.9% magnitude of change from the spring 2011 semester. This provides a

limited, yet intriguing, answer to the question, what is the relationship between having student

trip leaders calculate their trips’ carbon footprint and their decisions for trip planning?

In this pilot study, it appears the effect of asking student trip leaders to calculate their

trip’s carbon footprint has been to lower overall Greenhouse Gas (GHG) production in proposed

trips at Appalachian State University Outdoor Programs (ASU OP). These results align with

what Bamberg (2002) has previously found, that having a college student concretely identify

steps to help them meet a goal is an effective way to create positive change. The authors feel

that having an option to plan vegetarian meals may have been a major factor in the decrease. As

noted in the methodology section a vegetarian meal creates 42% less greenhouse gas emissions

on average than a meal containing meat (Eshel & Martin, 2006). Of the six trips proposed in the

fall 2011 semester, four of them included at least one vegetarian meal request.

The environmental attitude surveys showed that ASU OP student trip leaders had slightly

lower NEPR scores than a representative, random sample of ASU students.


Figure 2. Average NEPR Scores. This figure illustrates the average NEPR score of a control group compared to

ASU OP student trip leaders. The minimum score is 15 (Anthropocentric) and the maximum score is 75 (Ecocentric).

(Dunlap et al., 2000)

The Internet-based surveys used to score environmental attitudes were sent out to six student

trip leaders (four male, two female) and had a response rate of 100%. The survey was also sent

to a random, representative sample of 1,000 Appalachian State University students and had a

response rate of 10.4% (n=104). Researchers determined that any control group participant that

noted any type (previous class, readings, major of study, etc) of sustainability training would not

have their responses used. After accounting for previous environmental sustainability education

the researchers were able to use the results of 71 (29 male, 42 female) of these surveys. The

average age of the control group was 20.54 and of the student trip leaders was 22.67.


The post-intervention environmental attitudes of student trip leaders as compared to

a random, representative sample of Appalachian State University students showed that the

random sample scored slightly higher. ASU OP student trip leaders scored an average of

49.83 on a scale based on the New Ecological Paradigm Revised (NEPR) (Dunlap, Van Liere,

Mertig & Jones, 2000) and had a sample size of six. The control group had a sample size of

71 and scored an average of 55.66 on the same scale. The NEPR scores were shown to not be

significant in relation to being a student trip leader by performing a one-sample T-test (p = .13).

It is hard to draw any formal conclusions from this data for several reasons. A huge reason is

the discrepancy in sample sizes. Another reason is the fact that the averages are so close. The

researchers believe this data would be much more compelling had a more formal, educational

intervention been able to take place (see Limitations).

Independent analysis by the researchers revealed a few trends in the focus group data.

One trend that stood out is that student trip leaders would have liked to have had more education

about carbon footprint and sustainable practices in trip planning prior to performing the

calculation. When asked what could have been improved about the carbon footprint calculation

process one student trip leader said “I would have liked to have some background information,

and also to know what was high and what was low.” This education would help with the fact

that several participants reported not knowing exactly what it was they were calculating.

An additional theme that came about is exemplified by a participant’s response to the

question of whether the act of calculating a trip’s carbon footprint had effects on their life outside

of Appalachian State University Outdoor Programs (ASU OP). The respondent stated “I can

see how if this was put on every trip, it’s kind of right there in front of you all the time...then I

could definitely see that having an affect on your daily living in general considering your job


is so close to that.” Specifically speaking to this study’s population, student trip leaders, there

is a notion that positive reinforcement of sustainability education and assessment of carbon

emissions has a powerful tie between one’s personal and professional practices.

Despite reporting some technical difficulties with the electronic version of the calculator,

focus group participants unanimously stated they think ASU OP should continue to ask student

trip leaders to calculate carbon footprint. Several trip leaders mentioned, in some manner, that

calculating carbon footprint helps to illustrate that logistical planning decisions have implications

beyond just their trip. In this vein, several focus group participants mentioned that some type

of cumulative measure should be made for the entire program in terms of carbon emissions. In

respondents’ minds, being able to see an overall carbon footprint for the program would clarify

how their trip’s carbon footprint fits into the bigger picture.

To conclude, researchers found that there was a significant decrease in the GHG

emissions of trips that were proposed post intervention (-47% from fall 2010 and -54.9%

from spring 2011). While the researchers found no significance between being a student trip

leader and NEPR scores there were some interesting points which came out of focus groups.

Of greatest importance was the student trip leaders feeling that the act of calculating a carbon

footprint for a proposed trip is positive. Other notable trends from focus groups included trip

leaders not feeling there was a clear sense of why they were calculating their carbon footprint as

well as their desire to have a cumulative measure of ASU OP’s carbon footprint in an effort to

understand the overall impact of their decisions.

Discussion and Recommendations

Haque and Roper (2005) state “the adage that every journey starts with a single step

comes to mind when reviewing student actions. Each of these small steps is multiplied when


they ask their roommates, friends or family to participate as well.” (p. 59) Numerous focus

group participants noted, the simple process of having to calculate one’s carbon footprint at least;

if only for a moment, creates an awareness that they as programmers are using consumptive

practices in their efforts. This notion put forward by the student trip leaders exemplifies this

sentiment put forth by Haque and Roper (2005). As such, it is the recommendation of the

authors that the practice of carbon footprint calculation continue to be used at ASU OP. While

present transportation and programming options truly limit the reality of a program being able

to go “carbon neutral” there is much to be said for generating discussions around changes in

programmatic culture that have this ideal at the forefront of its mission and guiding principles.

The authors feel that simply providing the carbon footprint calculator to the trip leaders will

make a positive impact.

Based on focus group results and the literature (Graham, Koo & Wilson, 2011;

Wakeland, Sears & Venkat, 2009) the researchers suggest that ASU OP add an educational

component prior to carbon footprint calculation. This should include: a definition of carbon

footprint, how the student trip leaders can affect their trip’s carbon footprint and information on

how to gauge the numbers they receive when calculating a carbon footprint. This last piece of

information could be simply included on the calculator itself. Beyond a single workshop for

student trip leaders, it should also be noted that professional development opportunities be

provided for professional staff as well. As we continue to enter an age where sustainability

becomes more and more important, it must be the aim of institutions to provide its professional

staff with guidance and meaningful educational opportunities. In having other campus entities

such the Office of Sustainability or the Appropriate Technologies department provide OP

professional staff with educational sessions, the program sets itself up to more effectively train


its student staff in sustainable practices. Efforts such as this have the potential to have a ripple

effect where student staff then take these lessons into the field and train student participants, then

participants inform their friends and also take these lessons other jobs on campus, etc.

ASU OP should continue to offer the option of vegetarian meals on trips. The

researchers speculate that this is a major reason for the decrease in average carbon produced in

the fall 2011 semester. There were also several positive comments in focus groups regarding the

vegetarian menu options. This would be an area where the educational background previously

mentioned would be vital to prevent confusion in regards to the reasoning behind vegetarian

menus.

As O’Connel et al. (2005) suggest, the development and introspection of a programs

front-country identity must be addressed. It is no longer enough for programs to simply

teach and train leaders to use the ubiquitous “Leave No Trace” ethic. While this sentiment is

promoting a generation of outdoor leaders to serve as stewards for the environment, it is also

having the potential of limiting these individuals scope of how large the concept of “Trace”

really is. The ethic must extend to preservation and conservation practices in the office, in trip

planning decisions, as well as the wilderness. As noted previously, intentional interventions

and collaborative efforts between educational and administrative bodies are the foundation for

institutions to establish positive practices for creating “sustainably literate” graduates (Graham,

Koo & Wilson, 2011; Lugg, 2007; O’Connell, 2005; Wakeland, Sears & Venkat, 2009; Wright,

2009. OP units often stand as a powerful leadership development tool for student trip leaders

that they will take with them into professional careers in a variety of fields, often not related

to the outdoors. In this vein, it can be inferred that OP should seek opportunities for further

development of these individuals’ greater awareness of how decisions they make as professionals


have far reaching ramifications. This instance of allowing them to recognize that the carbon

footprint of their proposed trip has global implication affords yet another developmental lens for

these students to develop their own perceptions and awareness from.

One major factor in the success of initiatives such as this must come from collaborative

efforts between universities on a national scale. Through using organizations such as the

Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education (AORE), the Association of Experiential

Education (AEE), the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education

(AASHE), and the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA) we can begin a

national dialogue among industry professionals to establish programmatic practices and

standards for OP units. This can only come from a concerted effort to develop committees and

create standards. This would be mutually beneficial to the continued development of positive

programming opportunities and environmentally sound practices.

Limitations

The findings of this study should be considered only in light of the following potential

limitations. One limitation occurred because of an unexpected schedule change by the

Appalachian State University Outdoor Programs (ASU OP) coordinators. In the fall semester

of 2011 the coordinators decided to send out trip proposal forms electronically for the first time

and to do this at a much earlier point than in previous semesters. This prevented the researchers

from presenting an educational workshop on carbon footprint as an intervention to the student

trip leaders prior to them filling out the carbon footprint calculators. As mentioned in the review

of literature, the inclusion of education to promote sustainability is pivotal to the success of

intervention strategies.

Through our focus group discussions we determined that many of the student trip leaders


have a high regard for issues of sustainability. This is exemplified by their statements to the

question of whether the process had any effects on their lives outside of OP. Most stated that

they already lived in a way that reflected having a solid definition of their personal ethics as it

relates to environmental sustainability. Due to this we can not conclude the reduction of trip

carbon footprints to our intervention of carbon footprint calculation.

Another limitation of this study is the small number of proposals and the small sample

size. Several proposals were not used in the calculations because they were proposed by one of

the researchers. The small sample size makes it impossible to generalize the results of this study

outside of ASU OP.

Additionally, there are potentially alternative explanations for the research findings

which the researchers were not able to account for. These could include, but are not limited

to: other programs on carbon footprint calculation on campus, weather in the region affecting

trip planning decisions, the turnover of student trip leaders, gear availability differing between

semesters.

As with all self-reported data, our surveys and carbon footprint calculators relied on the

participants to provide truthful answers. Since mistakes and misrepresentation are always

possible, we must list this as a limitation to our study.

Further Research

This pilot study has left much room for continued research in the area of the effects of

carbon footprint calculation. The researchers suggest conducting a longitudinal study using

multiple university outdoor programs units. Having a control group of student trip leaders to

compare to an experimental group of student trip leaders would also add to the validity of the

research. Increasing the sample sizes would dramatically improve the study as well.


References

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2011) AASHE:

mission,vision, and goals. Retrieved from

http://www.aashe.org/about/aashe-mission-vision-goals

Bamberg, S. (2002). Effects of implementation intentions on the actual performance of new

environmentally friendly behaviours: Results of two field experiments. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 22, 399-411.

Cordano, M., Welcomer, S. A., & Scherer, R. F. (2003). An analysis of the predictive validity

of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 34(3), 22-

28.

Cortese, A. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Society

for College and University Planning. Retrieved on 27 February 2011 from: http://

www.aashe.org/resources/pdf/Cortese_PHE.pdf

Dillman, D. A., & Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method.

New York: Wiley.

Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring

instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of

the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),

425-442.

Ecoversity putting eco into the university. (2009). Ecologist, 39(2), 70-71.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2011, March 25). Fuel economy. Retrieved from

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/










Eshel, G., & Martin, P. A. (2006). Diet, energy, and global warming. Earth Interactions, 10(1),

1-17.

Graham, J., Koo, M., & Wilson, T. (2011). Conserving energy by inducing people to drive

less. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 106-118.

Haque, M., & Roper, C. (2005). Ecological footprints: measuring and reducing students'

consumption of the earth's resources. North American Colleges and Teachers of

Agriculture, 49(1), 57-61.

Higgins, P., & Kirk, G. (2006). Sustainability education in Scotland: The impact of national and

international initiatives on teacher education and outdoor education. Journal of

Geography in Higher Education, 30(2), 313–326.

Irwin, David. (2010). Weaving the threads of education for sustainability and outdoor

education. Unpublished manuscript, Adventure Recreation and Outdoor Education,

University of

Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ. Retrieved from http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/

10092/3637/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf

Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing people's general ecological behavior: A

cross-cultural measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(5), 952-978

Lloyd-Strovas, J, & Hayhoe, K. (2009). Tracking the carbon footprint of outdoor recreation

programs: a case study of Texas Tech University's outdoor pursuits center. Journal of Outdoor

Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 1(2)

Lugg, A. (2007, December). Developing sustainability-literate citizens through outdoor learning:

possibilities for outdoor education in Higher Education. Journal of Adventure Education

and Outdoor Learning, 7(2), 97-112.

http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/3637/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf



















National Outdoor Leadership School. (n.d.). Environmental stewardship and sustainability home.

Retrieved from https://rendezvous.nols.edu/content/section/19/407/

The Nature Conservancy. (n.d.). Climate change: carbon calculator - greenhouse

gas and carbon dioxide calculation information. Retrieved from http:/

/www.nature.org/groups/webcontent/@web/documents/webcontent/

carbon_calculation_information.html#food_diet

Nicol, R. (2002). Outdoor environmental education in the United Kingdom: A conceptual

framework of epistemological diversity and its educational implications. Canadian

Journal of Environmental Education, 7(2), 207–223.

Obama, Barack. “United Nations Summit on Climate Change.” New York, NY. 22 Sept. 2009.

O'Connell, T. S., Potter, T. G., Curthoys, L. P., Dyment, J. E., & Cuthbertson, B. (2005). A call

for sustainability education in post-secondary outdoor recreation programs. International

Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(1), 81-94.

Parkin, S., Johnston, A., Buckland, H., Brookes, F. & White, E. (2004). On course for

sustainability: Report of the Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability 2000–2003.

London: Forum for the Future.

Pickering, J., Paredes, T., Zerwas, S., & Danner, M. (2010). Building an assessment toolbox:

toolbox: designing designing rigorous and relevant focus groups. Retrieved from http://

www.odu.edu/ao/ira/assessment/toolbox/FocusGroupPresent_files/FocusGroups2.pdf

Raines, T., & Hobbs, W., (2007). Greening your outdoor recreation program. Proceedings and

Research Symposium Abstracts of the 21st Association of Outdoor Recreation and

Education Conference. (pp 25-28). Whitmore Lake, MI: Association of Outdoor

https://rendezvous.nols.edu/content/section/19/407/













Recreation and Education.

Ross, J. (1996). Will the real eco-educator please stand up? Association of Outdoor

Recreation & Education Conference Proceedings, 145-154.

Schuh, J. H. , & Upcraft, M. L. (2001). Assessment practice in student affairs: an applications

manual. San Fransisco: Josey-Bass.

Transport Direct. (n.d.). Route planner, online journey planner & travel news | transport direct.

Retrieved from http://www.transportdirect.info/

UNESCO (2004). United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development:

International Implementation Scheme. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 27 February 2011.

University of South Carolina. (n.d.). Carbon footprint | outdoor recreation. Retrieved from

http://campusrec.sc.edu/orec/carbonfootprint

Wakeland, W., Sears, L., & Venkat, K. (2009). Measuring the effects of food carbon footprint

training on consumers. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 2(1), 45-52.

Wright, T. (2009). Sustainability, internationalization, and higher education. New Directions for

Teaching & Learning, 2009(118), 105-115. doi:10.1002/tl.357

Yanow, D, & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Interpretation and method: empirical research methods

and the interpretive turn. M E Sharpe Inc.

Appendix A


Environmental Attitudes Survey and Informed Consent

This survey is part of a research project entitled: The Effects of Carbon Footprint Calculation

on Student Trip Leaders: A Pilot Study

Principal Investigators: Keith Crawford & Lee Collette

Department: Human Development & Psychological Counseling

Contact Information: Keith Crawford - (704)223-0460 - 173 Howard St. Boone, NC 28607,

Daisy Waryold - (828)262-6067 - Duncan Hall, Boone, NC 28608

You are being invited to take part in a research study about the effects of carbon footprint

calculation. If you take part in this study, you will be one of about 400 people to do so. By

doing this study we hope to learn how sustainability education and carbon footprint calculation

change a student trip leaders decision making.

The research procedures will be conducted at https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?

formkey=dElnVkJhOXF4LS1ZOWxVanpkZ2NCcFE6MQ. You will need to complete this

survey one time, which will take a maximum of 15 minutes.

You will be asked to answer an 18 multiple choice questions about yourself and your

environmental beliefs.

You should not volunteer for this study if are under 18 years of age.

There are no foreseeable risks in participating in this research.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dElnVkJhOXF4LS1ZOWxVanpkZ2NCcFE6MQ























There may be no personal benefit from your participation but the information gained by doing

this research may help others in the future.

We will not pay you for the time you volunteer while being in this study. By completing the

survey you are able to enter a random drawing for a pair of tickets to the Banff Mountain Film

Festival in Boone, NC in 2012.

Your information will be combined with information from other people taking part in the study.

When we write up the study to share it with other researchers, we will write about the combined

information. You will not be identified in any published or presented materials.

We will make every effort to prevent anyone who is not on the research team from knowing

that you gave us information or what that information is. Your email address, if you decide

to provide it, will be removed from the rest of the data and will be kept for a maximum of 1

year. Email addresses will then completely be erased from any computer systems.

The people conducting this study will be available to answer any questions concerning this

research, now or in the future. You may contact the Principal Investigator, Keith Crawford, at

704-223-0460. If you have questions about your rights as someone taking part in research,

contact the Appalachian Institutional Review Board Administrator at 828-262-2130 (days),

through email at [email protected] or at Appalachian State University, Office of Research and

Sponsored Programs, IRB Administrator, Boone, NC 28608.

Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. If you choose not to volunteer, there


will be no penalty and you will not lose any benefits or rights you would normally have. If you

decide to take part in the study you still have the right to decide at any time that you no longer

want to continue. There will be no penalty and no loss of benefits or rights if you decide at any

time to stop participating in the study.

This research project has been approved, as required, by the Institutional Review Board of

Appalachian State University. This study was approved on [Approval Date]. This approval will

expire on [Expiration Date] unless the IRB renews the approval of this research.

A Survey to Determine Environmental Attitudes at Appalachian State University

We would like to get your opinion on a wide range of environmental issues. For each of the

following statements please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree.

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

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

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


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


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



Humans are severely abusing the environment.


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


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


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


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


Human destruction of the natural environment has been greatly exaggerated.


The earth has only limited room and resources.



Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.


The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.


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


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


If you would like to be entered to win a pair of tickets to the Banff Mountain Film Festival in

Boone, NC in 2012 enter your email address below. This is optional

What is your age?

What is your gender?


Please list, below, any experience you have with carbon footprint or environmental sustainability

education.

Note. From “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale,” by R. Dunlap, K. Van Liere, A. Mertig A. and R. Jones, 2000, Journal of Social Issues, 56, 3, pp. 425-442. Copyright 2000 by The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Reprinted with permission.


Appendix B

Focus Group Questions and Informed Consent

I agree to participate in a focus group described in this research project, which concerns the

effects of carbon footprint calculation. I understand that my comments will be audio recorded

and transcribed and used for a class project to be conducted by Keith Crawford and Lee Collette,

Masters students in the College Student Development program. The focus group will take place

one time and last for no longer than one hour. I understand that there are no foreseeable risks

associated with my participation. I also know that this study will be used as an assessment tool

for Outdoor Programs and its environmental sustainability.

During the course of the focus group discussions, I will not mention any personal or private,

identifiable information (such as names) of individuals who are not participating in the focus

group. In addition, I agree that all conversations, which take place in the focus group, should not

be discussed with anyone outside of the focus group and its participants.

I give Keith Crawford and Lee Collette ownership of the tapes and transcripts from the focus

group and understand that tapes and transcripts will be kept in researchers’ possession. I

understand that information or quotations from the transcripts may be published and that no

identifiers will be associated with these.

I understand that my participation is voluntary and I can end it at any time without

consequence. I also understand that if I have questions about this research project, I can call the

Faculty Advisor, Diane Waryold, at 828-262-6067 or contact the IRB Administrator at (828)

262-7981 or [email protected]. By participating I confirm that I am 18 years of age or older.


Signature:________________________________

Questions:

1. Did you change any parts of your trip plan (such as location or menu options)as a result of

calculating its carbon footprint?

2. Has calculating carbon footprint caused you to change the way you use resources

(electricity, fossil fuels, water, etc) outside of OP? Has it changed anything else about your

life, big or small?

3. Has calculating a carbon footprint related to your trip changed your perceptions of OP in

any way?

4. What did you like about the carbon footprint calculator itself? What would you change

about it? (provide copy of calculator)

5. Do you believe you understood what it was you were calculating?

6. Should ASU OP continue to have trip leaders calculate the carbon footprint of their trips?

Why or why not?

7. If ASU OP does continue to have trip leaders continue to calculate their proposed trip’s

carbon footprint, what should they change about the calculation process?


Appendix C

Informal Survey of Other Higher Education Outdoor Programs Results

Respondent Do you calculate carbon

footprint?

Lynchburg College Outdoor Leadership Program No

University of Michigan Outdoor Adventures No

Appalachian State University No

Colorado School of Mines No

North Idaho College Outdoor Pursuits No

CSU-Chico No

Sam Houston State University Outdoor Recreation

Program

No


Appendix D

Carbon Footprint Calculator Worksheet


Appendix E

NEPR Permission Email

Hi Dr. Dunlap,Myself and my colleague, Lee Collette, are Master's students at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina. We are currently working on a research project entitled "The Effects of Carbon Footprint Calculation on Student Trip Leaders." We are hoping to use the scale created by you and your colleagues to compare the environmental attitudes of the trip leaders who go through our workshop to those of students who do not participate in this training. Please let me know how we could go about obtaining your consent to use the NEPR scale in our project. Our plan is to reproduce the scale in an internet-based survey. The only additions would be an informed consent section and a few questions to determine the participant's age, sex and major. Our project advisor is Dr. Diane Waryold ([email protected]). Thanks,Keith Crawford Dear Keith, It's fine for you and Lee to use the Revised NEP Scale in your project. I'm attaching an essay I wrote to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the publication of the original NEP Scale as it may provide some helpful background material for your project. Good luck with it. Riley E. Dunlap, ChairASA Task Force on Sociologyand Global Climate ChangeRegents ProfessorDepartment of SociologyOklahoma State UniversityStillwater, OK 74078405-744-6108

the effects of carbon footprint calculation on student trip leaders

Documents