Environmental perceptions of Irish and Bavarian pupils: an empirical study

Environmental perceptions of Irish

and Bavarian pupils: an empirical study

FRANZ X. BOGNER*

Didactic of Biology, Department of Natural Sciences, LN 014, PaÈdagogische Hochschule,Reuteallee 46, D-71634 Ludwigsburg, Germany

Summary

The present study deals with the evaluation of environmental/ecological perceptions ofsecondary school pupils. It has two major objectives. Firstly, to administer a measurementinstrument to explore ecological/environmental perceptions for a sample of approxi-mately 900 Irish secondary school pupils aged between 12 and 16 years. The operationand use of three subscales, ènvironmental behaviour', ùtilization of nature' and `con-sideration for conservation', was based on a previous study undertaken in Bavaria, but itsstructure, dimensionality and reliability was further assessed using psychometric proce-dures. Secondly, the study monitored the differences in these dimensions between Irishand Bavarian pupils. Common items within the subscale structure were selected fromboth samples to form a truncated item selection and to function subsequently as the basisfor the ®nal factor analysis applied to the combined Irish±Bavarian sample. Comparisonson this basis indicated substantial differences in attitudes and environmental behaviourbetween pupils from both regions: the Irish sample favoured less conservational values,but more patronage for the utilization of nature and it revealed less willingness to take andplan action in individual environmental behaviour. In addition, the Irish sample discloseda signi®cantly greater gender difference in the two subscales.

Introduction

The understanding of ecological and environ-mental perceptions is commonly approached bythe concept of world views which describe beliefs,values and perceptions of the environment and ofhumankind's relation to it (e.g. Arcury et al., 1986;Disinger and Tomsen, 1995). These environmentalworld views generally portray a dichotomy high-lighting contrary positions. The ®rst one favoursvalues emphasizing the exploitation of naturalresources for human utility. It includes beliefs inabundance and progress, support of growth andprosperity, faith in technology and commitment toa laissez-faire economy which contributes to en-vironmental degradation (see, for example, Dun-lap (1980) on the `dominant social paradigm'); itconceptualizes nature as a resource to be con-trolled for human ends (White, 1965) and viewsnature solely as a provider of comfort for humanbeings. Previously it was argued that at the root ofthe ecological crisis are the basic values which

have built our society (Swan, 1971). E�orts tomaximize individual well-being are a primarycause of the erosion of environmental well-being.The second world view acknowledges a moreecocentric ethic (Merchant, 1990), favouring al-truistic principles such as stewardship and con-servation, limits to growth, a steady-stateeconomy, a balance of nature and the rejection ofanthropocentric notions in picturing the space-ship±earth metaphor (see, for example, Cattonand Dunlap (1978) and Dunlap and Van Liere(1978) on the `new environmental paradigm'). Thedichotomy has been viewed as separate beliefsystems (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1984) or as op-posite ends of a continuum (Milbrath, 1984).However, both world views undoubtedly in¯uenceindividual environmental behaviour and the will-ingness to make adjustments in order to safeguardthe environment. Subsequently, various studieshave approached the empirical operation of bothworld views (e.g. Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978;Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980; Milbrath, 1984). Theinstrument applied in this study was based onprevious studies but adjusted to the age group ofsecondary school pupils (Bogner and Wilhelm,1996).

* Professor Franz X. Bogner has recently joined the PedagogicUniversity of Ludwigsburg. The research of the present study wasundertaken at the University of Munich.

The Environmentalist 18, 27±38 (1998)

0251-1088 Ó 1998 Chapman & Hall 27

Both world views are important sources ofopposition to each other (e.g. Dunlap and VanLiere, 1984; Bogner and Wilhelm, 1996). Trans-mitted from generation to generation via parentaland institutional socialization, the general guide ofindividual behaviour within di�erent Europeansocieties may be an anthropocentric view, as this isthe core of cultural heritage. However, the supportfor either world view may vary as a consequenceof exposure to di�erent environmental problemswhich presumably weaken people's faith in theirtraditional world view (e.g. Howe, 1990); for in-stance, Arcury and Christianson (1990) recordedan incremental change in people's environmentalview in the context of a statewide drought inKentucky where water-use restrictions had beenimposed. The support for whatever individualworld view functions as a ®lter for the perceptionsand perspectives through which perceptions occur(Disinger and Tomsen, 1995). Therefore, theconceptualization of the world around us is un-doubtedly not constant as attitudes and beliefs arepermanently shaped and modi®ed by new experi-ences and feedback over time. Nevertheless, it hasbeen demonstrated that there is a great likelihoodthat individuals develop similar attitudes andvalues if they share similar life experiences (e.g.Pepitone and Triandis, 1988).

Triandis (1991) recommended the use of con-struct-validation procedures in studies dealingwith subjective culture and cross-cultural research,since di�erent cultures or subcultures could sub-stantially di�er in their concepts and becausecommon bases are not given automatically.Therefore, two-step processes should be endorsed:®rstly, to earmark the attributes of the conceptsinvestigated in both cultures and, secondly, to se-lect the attributes that are common. Only undersuch circumstances could di�erences be rated asmeaningful and signi®cant (Triandis, 1991).Merging individuals of di�erent populations intoone inclusive category could obscure importantdi�erences in dimensions that shed some light onhow cultural processes a�ect environmental worldviews. However, comparing psychometric evalua-tions within di�erent countries requires a solidfoundation to provide even a minimum scope ofgeneralizability and to draw valid conclusions incross-cultural research. A major number of pre-vious studies have not tested the validities, relia-bilities and/or dimensionalities of the measure-ment instrument and, therefore, have failed toprovide valid instruments (Arbuthnot and Lingg,1975; Blum, 1987; Leeming et al., 1993). A scale,as a reasonable basis for comparison, must beconsistent across various populations and, amongother aspects, be based upon comparable factorstructures. Without such modi®cations, scaleswould have poor generalizability and, therefore,be of very limited use.

The present study monitors the attitudes andreported behaviour in Ireland and Bavaria. From a

global view, both regions share a similar culturegenerally described as modern West where tradi-tional values and beliefs could be portrayed by theaforementioned dominant social paradigm. Nev-ertheless, in recent times this traditional world viewhas been challenged by alternative environmentalmovements (Milbrath, 1984). Ireland was chosento be compared with Bavaria since, although sim-ilar in area, substantial di�erences exist betweenthe regions in population density, populationstructure, economic standard and environmentalquality, which would be parameters in¯uencingboth world views (e.g. Catton and Dunlap, 1978).The people of the Republic of Ireland, as a countrywith a high degree of agriculture, could be expectedto hold di�erent views to those of Bavaria. Thecomparison is based on an established researchinstrument ®rst administered in Bavaria and thenlinguistically adjusted to Ireland. Therefore, in thispresent analysis, two primary new research ques-tions as they related to secondary school pupilswere addressed. Firstly, the evaluation of a validscale of the administered questionnaire to Irishpupils provided by a principal component factoranalysis was used to extract and con®rm the sub-scale structure for the Irish survey. Secondly, aftervalidation of a common subscale framework forboth regions and after the introduction of the re-gion of residence as a control variable, the com-parison was made of the similarities and di�erencesin environmental perspectives between both di-vergent populations. The hypothesis behind thesecond approach anticipated quite di�erent pat-terns of support for the attitudinal and environ-mental behavioural values which may be linked toregion-speci®c cultural patterns.

Materials and methods

The pupil sample

The data in this present study were collected intwo separate surveys, both in rural areas withinsimilar time ranges. Since educational attainmenthas been shown to be a reliable predictor of en-vironmental attitudes (e.g. Dunlap, 1980), bothsurveys were administered to pupils of secondaryschools. In the Irish survey, 916 pupils of all sec-ondary school grades participated in answeringthe questionnaire (of whom 50.5% were boys).Selection was made on the basis of convenience,although care was taken to ensure that the schoolswere from di�erent regions of the country. Noneof the schools which were asked to take part in thestudy refused to participate and the cooperationfrom the pupils was generally excellent. The datafrom the Bavarian sample were taken from thestudy of Bogner and Wilhelm (1996).Both regions have similar areas of approxi-

mately 70 000 km2 but di�erent population sizes:Bavaria has 11.8 million inhabitants (two-thirds ofwhom are Catholic) while the Republic of Ireland

28 The Environmentalist

Bogner

has 3.6 million (96% Catholic). Both regions enjoysovereignty in their education systems and bothapply centrally enforced ®nal examinations (whichis not the rule in most of the other German states)(see also Elvin, 1981). However, three major dif-ferences distinguish the school systems. Bavarianpupils enter secondary school as ®fth graders (10year olds) while the Irish do this as seventhgraders. Secondly, Irish schools have day-longschedules (i.e. 7 h) while Bavarian schools nor-mally close shortly after noon (i.e. 5 h session).Thirdly, in Bavaria co-education is widely estab-lished while in Ireland it is still the exception (all ofthe Irish data therefore come from schools thatwere not co-educational). Both surveys were ad-ministered to pupils in rural areas where tourism,which could be a major industry in both regions, isnot dominant.

The instrument

The basic instrument consisted of 69 items and itwas taken from a previous study (see the literaturein Bogner and Wilhelm, 1996) where attention waspaid to the construction of the measurement in-strument as well as to the adjustment of the in-strument to the age group of secondary schoolpupils; that study detailed the conceptualgrounding, the connection to the literature and theselection of items from previous studies. Using amultiple-choice questionnaire, the instrument wasdesigned to identify and measure existing factorsthat underlie concern for ecological/environmen-tal problems and behaviour towards the environ-ment/nature in the age group of 10±16 year oldpupils. As is customary for a bipolar Likert scale,the response scale ranged from `strongly agree' to`strongly disagree' in combination with an ùnde-cided' category.

All data examined in subsequent analyses wereobtained from a single questionnaire administeredin the various schools and which took the pupilsapproximately 45 min to complete. The method ofscoring has been proven to be suitable in previousstudies and does not a�ect the reliability of theinstrument (Smith-Sebasto, 1992). In order toadjust the questionnaire for the Irish pupils, thewording of all statements was checked by nativeteachers and pre-tested on pupils of two secondaryschools in Ireland.

Due to the administration of the questionnairewithin schools, various restrictions of the stateschool authorities had to be taken into account.Therefore, it was not permitted to collect detailedsociometric data (e.g. reports of socioeconomicproperties or parental occupation) and socializa-tion data (e.g. parental environmental perceptions).

The design and procedure

The design of the whole study is displayed inFig. 1. The instrument administered to the Irish

sample was separately con®rmed via factor anal-ysis. Three principal dimensions emerged from thefactor analysis covering the two world views andverbally expressed individual behaviour (forthe procedure, see Bogner and Wilhelm, 1996).The second purpose of the study was to comparethe perspectives of the pupils of both regions.Therefore, a scale introduced for a comparison ofsamples must be consistent across the variouspopulations. Scales based on di�erent item setsacross di�erent populations would have poorgeneralizability. To compare the results of bothregions, a common basis had to be employed bytesting the factor structure to ®t the data for bothpopulations adequately. Common items within thecomplete item pool were determined (i.e. associ-ating identical meanings given by pupils of bothregions) by applying separate factor analyses foreach sample. Subsequently, the combined sampleprovided the factor analytical basis which yieldedthe data for the application of descriptive statis-tics. At this point it is safe to assume that atruncated scale re¯ects a common structure.

Fig. 1. Design of the potential environmental gapanalysis between Irish (IRL) and Bavarian (BY) sec-ondary school pupils: (BY, IRL) boxes indicate thedatabases and shaded boxes indicate the application offactor analysis. (MANOVA = multivariate analysis ofvariance.)

29

Environmental perceptions of Irish and Bavarian pupils

Nevertheless, two further independent tests wereundertaken in order to compare both samples. Afactor similarity coe�cient was evaluated (afterWiseman, 1993) and a cluster analysis was alsoperformed.

Statistical procedure

The statistical analyses used pupils rather thanclasses or schools as the unit of analysis. Aftersampling the responses, all scores were subjectedto a principal component extraction followed byan oblique rotation procedure in order to takepotential dependencies between the subscales intoaccount. A Cronbach's a analysis assessed theinternal consistency of the questionnaire (Cron-bach, 1960).

The responses of both populations were sub-jected to a factor analysis and items which did not®t the same subscales in both populations werediscarded. The oblique rotation procedure (in-stead of orthogonal), a MANOVA and a step-down analysis, was chosen which excludesdependencies within the factors; the latter pro-vided calculations in a step-down F-test excludingthe dependencies of the factors from each other.The possible (linear) in¯uence of individual dif-ferences in age (shown in Bogner and Wilhelm,1996) was removed by treating the age variable asa co-variate (procedure; see Bogner and Wiseman,1996). The co-linearity resulting from unequal anddisproportionate cell sizes was corrected by theregression method, yielding ùncontaminated' es-timates of e�ects.

The subjects were classi®ed by one or morediscrete variables (e.g. region of origin or genderof the respondent) and various measurements (asattitude scores) were obtained from these subjects.The obvious questions asked of such data are asfollows. Do the subjects of one region yield sig-ni®cantly di�erent mean responses from those ofanother? Do the mean responses of girls di�erfrom those of boys within both regions? Themultivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)examines the di�erences between such means,both by testing the main e�ects (region or gender)and by testing whether the main e�ects are inter-dependent of each other: if they are not, an ìn-teraction e�ect' results and special tests arenecessary to take this into account, so that esti-mates of the main e�ects uncontaminated by in-teraction e�ects may be computed. The question,Ìs there a di�erent gender e�ect?', for example, isthe test of the main e�ect `gender', conducted bytesting for signi®cant di�erences between the dif-ferent mean values of boys and girls. This is alegitimate procedure if `gender' and `region' areindependent of each other. On the other hand, theexistence of a signi®cant interaction between bothe�ects would demonstrate that they are interre-lated and therefore confounded (for more details,see Bogner and Wiseman, 1996).

Factor solutions obtained from the same set ofvariables but from di�erent samples will rarely beidentical. Factor similarity coe�cients, as pro-posed by Kaiser et al. (1969), quantify the simi-larity between two factor solutions by ®rstrotating one solution rigidly to maximum con-formity with the second and then taking the co-sines of the angles between each pair of factors ascorrelation-like coe�cients, ranging from )1(perfect dissimilarity) to +1 (perfect similarity).Of particular interest in the present case are thediagonal elements of the matrix of similarity co-e�cients, which quantify the similarity betweenequivalent factors in the two solutions. Anoverall coe�cient of factor similarity (de®ned byKaiser et al. (1969) as the mean cosine over allpossible pairs of factors) is of less interest, re-¯ecting as it does the di�erences between theinternal interfactor correlation matrices of thetwo solutions (for details, see Bogner and Wise-man, 1996).Cluster analysis attempts to identify groups of

subjects who are similar with respect to a set ofindependent variables. De®ning clusters in termsof a `centre' enables us to be a little more pre-cise. Subjects may be assigned to that cluster towhose centre they are closest in some mathe-matical sense (e.g. the smallest Euclidean dis-tance from the centre). It is customary to call asubject's set of scores on the independent vari-ables the `pro®le'. Cluster analysis tends to as-sign subjects with similar pro®les to a commoncluster. The purely mathematical assignment ofsubjects to a cluster in no way guarantees thatthe cluster will possess any practical meaning.The interpretation of cluster membership in-cludes the characteristics of cluster members,that is of variables which were themselves notemployed in the cluster analysis.All computations were performed using the

Statistical Package of Social Sciences SPSS forWindows (see Norusis, 1993a, b).

Results

The principal component analysis followed by anoblique rotation revealed three basic subscaleswith the labellings ènvironmental behaviour',`consideration for conservation' and ùtilization ofnature'. Examples of the items (Table 1) and ofthe discarded items (Table 2) are shown; all itemswere subsequently surveyed in terms of ®tting tothe factors by reason of factor loading, item-totalscores, individual interpretation and Cronbach's aevaluation (Table 3). The environmental behav-iour factor was subsequently subdivided on thebasis of a further factor analysis into the second-ary factors `(verbally expressed) saving behaviour'and ìntention of support'.In the second stage of the study, the structure of

the Irish sample was compared with that ofthe Bavarian sample (taken from Bogner and


Bogner

Wilhelm, 1996). Therefore, items were reviewed asto whether they ®tted the identical subscale itemsand, subsequently, any which did not loadidentically in both samples were discarded (high-lighted in Table 3 and shown in Table 2). Thus, atruncated questionnaire remained for the com-bined sample of both surveys which was againsubjected to a factor analysis (discarded items, seeTable 2). The ®nal structure of the truncated itemnumber is shown in Table 3. For all of the sub-scales Cronbach's a values, which always exceeded0.64, are shown in detail in Table 3.

Subsequently, according to their individualitem loading values, subscale scores from eachindividual region were formed, a procedure whichprovided the basis of calculating the di�erencesbetween the samples. Within this constellation,negative values point to more agreement within

the selected subscale (Figs 2 and 3). A step-downF-test was applied to exclude all dependencieswithin the singular subscales, all subscales yieldedsigni®cantly di�erent scores within both regions(Fig. 2). The di�erences between the subscalesfrom the regions followed a consistent trend.In addition, two further independent analyses

were performed: a factor similarity test for thetruncated questionnaire revealed very close simi-larities, showing a 0.94 coe�cient and a clusteranalysis of all participants' factor scores yieldedtwo clusters (Fig. 3). Therefore, both additionalprocedures, although of independent background,yielded identical results in terms of assemblingpopulations. This is obviously a strong indicationof the validity of the battery, where the word`validity' is used in the classic sense of `measuringwhat it is intended to measure'.

Table 1. Five questionnaire examples from each of the subscales used in this analysis

Behaviour(Reported) Saving I always switch the light o� when I do not need it any more

Whenever possible, I take a shower instead of a bath in order to conservewaterI never buy drinks in cans even from drink dispensersI purposefully walk short distances rather than asking for a lift in orderto protect the atmosphereI make sure that during the winter the heating system in my room isnot switched on too high

Intention of support Environmental protection costs a lot of money. I am prepared to help outin a fund-raising e�ortIf I ever get extra pocket money I will donate some money toan environmental organizationWhen I am older I am going to join and actively participate inan environmentalist group should I already not be a memberI would be prepared to help an environmentalist to erect a toad-protectingfence, alongside a road which has heavy tra�cI would be willing to clean up a creek where people had dumped rubbish

Consideration for conservation If the number of people in the world rises further we will no longer be able tomaintain our environmentIn order to keep the environment clean, it is necessary to spend considerablymore moneyIt really annoys me that the penalties against environmental o�ences are sominorThere should be special nature reserves into which nobody be allowed enterIt really upsets me to see how increasingly larger tracts of countryside havebeen taken over by the construction of roads

Utilization of nature I prefer a well-cared-for lawn to a wild meadow where ¯owers grow in anunordered wayPeople should keep open air swimming ponds free from creepers and climbingplantsConstruction of motorways and bypass roads is so important that it justi®esthe removal of forests and meadowsIn order to feed human beings, nature must be cleared, so that, for example,grain can be grownIn our country, other issues are more important than those concerning thepreservation of plants and animals

Scores: 1 strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 unsure, 4 disagree, 5 strongly disagree.

31


Another di�erence was apparent when genderwas considered which had already been shown forthe Bavarian sample (Fig. 4). However, the scorecomparisons between gender of both regions re-vealed higher discrepancies in the Irish pupils(Fig. 4). The scores within the `pleasure of being apupil' scale (question: `How well do you likeschool?') revealed a mean grade of 3.34 � 1.30(SD) which did not di�er (signi®cantly) from thevalue of 3.25 � 1.27 (SD) for Bavaria.

Discussion

The hypothesis behind this study, that the indi-vidual's region of residence would bias the en-vironmental world views as well as the relatedbehaviour, is strongly supported by the presentstudy. The (sub-)cultural background couldbe one factor associated with these systematicdi�erences. The comparison of Irish and Bavarianpupils with regard to this anthropocentric±ecocentric dichotomy revealed a gap in the level ofenvironmental concern between the pupils of thetwo regions. The pupils assess environmental is-sues di�erently whether behaviourally or a�ec-tively. This remained true when sociodemographicvariables, such as age or gender, which are knownto bias the analysis (Fig. 2), were controlled.

Republic of Ireland evaluation

The Irish study, in itself, supports the notion thathigher commitments to the values covered by

consideration of conservation are associated withlower scores than within those of utilization ofnature. Therefore, the picture emerging from thisinvestigation appears to be rational. The values ofthe responses are congruent (e.g. higher values inthe conservation subscale are positively associatedwith the verbal report of saving behaviour andintention of support). In other words, high scoresin environmental behaviour are linked to dis-agreement with a prospecting of nature or hu-mankind's dominance over nature. This is againsupport for the validity of the battery. The ratio-nale for linking environmental perspectives andenvironmental behaviour matches that shown by adetailed regression analysis in Bogner andWilhelm(1996) in the case of the Bavarian survey as it doeswith previous studies evaluated on the basis ofadults' responses (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1984). Inthe latter paper, the subjective problem of holdingcon¯icting cognitions, providing an explanationfor the frequent fact that the negative relationshipis far from being perfect, is also discussed.In general, it appears that most pupils have a

relatively high score on the factor of `(self-re-ported) saving behaviour'. Nevertheless, it must bekept in mind that the selection of the individualitems was designed to address the potential actionsrelating to the `real' everyday life of pupils and notto that of adults. Some discarded items (Table 2)display such a discrepancy of adult (expert) facevalidity and pupils' sentiment when, for instance,they were not recognized as an environmentalbehaviour item by Irish youth.

Table 2. Items discarded following a separate factor analysis for the Irish and Bavarian samples and the results ofcommon factor analyses of the combined sample

Republic of IrelandI am not interested in learning about the reasons behind the disappearance of our forestsYour friends are throwing stones at frogs in a pond. They ask you to do the same. Even if you think it is wrong,you eventually give inEvery individual must make a noticeable contribution towards preserving the environmentMore people should leave the car at home by using public transport and so reduce exhaust fumesIt really annoys me that the penalties against environmental o�ences are so minorThreatened nature areas should be bought by the state even if it means that the state then has less money forother purposesI normally leave the water running when I brush my teethPeople should keep open air swimming ponds free from creepers and climbing plantsEndangered plant and animal species must be preserved even if this involves great ®nancial costs

BavariaYour friends are throwing stones at frogs in a pond. They ask you to do the same. Even if you think it is wrong,you eventually give inI am not interested in learning about the reasons behind the disappearance of our forests

Bavaria and the Republic of IrelandOnly fools protect the environment because the environment is still a�ected by the abuse and actions of otherpeopleWe must spare no e�ort to save the tropical rainforestsWhenever possible, I take a shower instead of a bath in order to conserve water

Scores: 1 strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 unsure, 4 disagree, 5 strongly disagree.


Bogner

Table 3. Common items basis revealed with separate factor analysis within the Irish sample and within thecombined samples

Republic of Ireland Republic of Ireland and Bavaria

Item Environmentalbehaviour

Utilizationof nature

Conservation Item Environmentalbehaviour


Conservation

VC AC

38 0.74 ± ± 38 0.75 ± ± ±48 0.62 ± ± 48 0.70 ± ± ±78 0.62 ± ± 40 0.68 ± ± ±73 0.58 ± ± 78 0.63 ± ± ±35 0.57 ± ± 35 0.58 ± ± ±40 0.57 ± ± 73 0.58 ± ± ±77 0.55 ± ± 68 0.57 ± ± ±64 0.54 ± ± 39 0.53 ± ± ±68 0.54 ± ± 86 0.49 ± ± ±24 0.54 ± ± 34 0.46 ± ± ±26 0.52 ± ± 36 0.43 ± ± ±57 0.49 ± ± 22 0.42 ± ± ±86 0.49 ± ± 57 0.40 ± ± ±22 0.49 ± ± 52 0.40 ± ± ±52 0.49 ± ± 45 0.34 ± ± ±29 0.48a ± ± 88 0.34 ± ± ±42 0.48 ± ± ± ± ± ± ±39 0.48 ± ± 76 ± 0.66 ± ±36 0.45 ± ± 26 ± 0.66 ± ±34 0.45 ± ± 64 ± 0.61 ± ±33 0.43 ± ± 77 ± 0.47 ± ±65 0.42 ± ± 42 ± 0.42 ± ±45 0.41 ± ± 24 ± 0.41 ± ±88 0.38 ± ± 33 ± 0.38 ± ±58 0.37a ± ± 65 ± 0.37 ± ±71 0.37a ± ± ± ± ± ± ±70 0.37a ± ± 72 ± ± 0.54 ±76 0.33 ± ± 79 ± ± 0.54 ±61 ± ± ± 69 ± ± 0.53 ±55 ± ± ± 46 ± ± 0.53 ±37 ±a ± ± 53 ± ± 0.52 ±21 ± ± ± 83 ± ± 0.51 ±± ± ± ± 50 ± ± 0.50 ±81 ± 0.56 ± 51 ± ± 0.49 ±49 ± 0.54 ± 31 ± ± 0.49 ±69 ± 0.55 ± 81 ± ± 0.48 ±72 ± 0.54 ± 43 ± ± 0.48 ±32 ± 0.53 ± 20 ± ± 0.46 ±74 ± 0.52 ± 49 ± ± 0.46 ±79 ± 0.49 ± 54 ± ± 0.44 ±54 ± 0.48 ± 75 ± ± 0.42 ±53 ± 0.47 ± 32 ± ± 0.42 ±20 ± 0.43 ± 28 ± ± 0.37 ±46 ± 0.43 ± ± ± ± ± ±30 ± 0.42 ± 59 ± ± ± 0.5566 ± 0.42 ± 63 ± ± ± 0.4843 ± 0.40 ± 84 ± ± ± 0.4428 ± 0.38 ± 80 ± ± ± 0.4351 ± 0.38 ± 60 ± ± ± 0.3883 ± 0.36 ± 71 ± ± ± 0.3731 ± 0.35 ± 82 ± ± ± 0.36

33


Comparison of the Irish and Bavarian samples

Comparisons require comparability and, hence, acommon base must be established. Therefore,within the present study, those parameters whichwere known to bias the subscales investigated werekept constant (e.g. type of residence, formal edu-cational attainment or gender distribution). Previ-ously, constancy was assumed to be proven by theuse of identical questionnaires alone. Blum (1987),for instance, did precisely this when he applied anAmerican questionnaire to an Israeli sample.

Some of the discarded items which apparentlyevoked di�erent reactions from the two pupilpopulations were self-explanatory. For instance,some of the items displayed in Table 2 indicatedi�erent associations in a region with up to2500 mm of annual precipitation as comparedwith those in Bavaria of approximately 700 mm.Items dealing with either governmental orindividual ®nancial contribution in favour ofconservation (Table 2) also di�ered. This is un-derstandable for in the Republic of Ireland lowerpersonal income and quite high unemploymentrates certainly a�ect the pupils' families. However,individual socioeconomic backgrounds were notevaluated, since restrictions prevented the sam-pling of such data in the Bavarian survey. Otherdiscarded items dealt with the locus of control(subscale consideration for conservation) and hu-

man-changed nature; both segments ®t into thedi�erent picture of support for the two monitoredworld views.A wide range of studies suggests that there may

be some commonality in the models that studentsconstruct to interpret events in the natural world.This claim has been supported in other contexts byprevious cross-cultural studies (Mali and Howe,1979; Shipstone et al., 1988). Culturally baseddi�erences in the values investigated were foundpreviously, for instance in administering the newenvironmental paradigm in Japanese and Ameri-can samples (Pierce et al., 1987). In that study, amethod possessing general validity is discussed.However, within such comparisons a principalquestion arises as to whether the method used isculture bound or not and this question requiresnot merely the skills of linguists for its solution.When identical questionnaires were administeredin two regions and/or the data were used addi-tionally for a comparison of both samples, as, forinstance, in the case of African±Americans withEuropean±Americans (Caron, 1989; Sheppard,1995), the measurement instrument has to beconstructed by the usual psychometric procedures.Nonetheless, these studies claim the existence ofrelationships between environmental perceptionsand human experience, for instance that di�erentexperiences can lead to di�erent value systems(Taylor, 1989) which re¯ect how individuals rec-

Table 3 (contd.)

Republic of Ireland Republic of Ireland and Bavaria

Item Environmentalbehaviour


Conservation Item EnvironmentalBehaviour


Conservation

VC AC

75 ± 0.34 ± 56 ± ± ± 0.3650 ± 0.34 ± 67 ± ± ± 0.3541 ± 0.33a ± 44 ± ± ± 0.3487 ± ±a ± 47 ± ± ± ±± ± ± ± 62 ± ± ± ±59 ± ± 0.50 74 ± ± ± ±80 ± ± 0.46 30 ± ± ± ±63 ± ± 0.45 66 ± ± ± ±84 ± ± 0.45 ± ± ± ± ±62 ± ± 0.38a ± ± ± ± ±60 ± ± 0.34 ± ± ± ± ±67 ± ± 0.33 ± ± ± ± ±82 ± ± 0.32 ± ± ± ± ±25 ± ± 0.30 ± ± ± ± ±47 ± ± 0.29 ± ± ± ± ±44 ± 0.27 0.29a ± ± ± ± ±23 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

aDiscarded items. The subdivision of the behaviour subscale portrays VC (intention of support) and AC(environmental saving behaviour) (literature: verbal/actual commitment). Combined samples' a values: environ-mental behaviour VC, 0.8676; environmental behaviour AC, 0.7964; utilization of nature, 0.8319; conservation,0.6474.


Bogner

ognize and verbalize their awareness. In addition,Francescato and Mebane (1973) concluded thatindividuals may be sensitized to those aspects oftheir surroundings with which they have the mostexperience and contact. Therefore, some scientistsargue that people will not act to preserve the en-vironment if they perceive no threats to it (Kottakand Costa, 1993). Potential support for that ar-gument is contained in a Canadian paper where itwas suggested that economic interests were his-torically identi®ed with resource exploitation andexpectations of limitless resource availability(Williams, 1992).

The respondents from the Irish secondaryschools were found to be di�erent from theircontinental counterparts in all the subscales in-vestigated; di�erent in terms of being less in fa-vour of environmental values. A higher percentageof the Irish pupils supported a more human-dominated nature and agreed with the exploita-

tion of nature. This could be explained by the factthat in the Republic of Ireland the agriculturalsector is still more important than in Bavaria andpopulation pressure is substantially lower. Con-sequently, the Irish pupils demonstrated a lessertendency to embrace conservation of nature andthe value they assigned to nature appears to bemore focused on nature as a sustainer of humanlife. Thus, they are more aligned with a more an-thropocentric ethic which is implanted by reasonof, for instance, family, peer and teacher in¯uences(see also Conrad, 1970). Therefore, di�erencesfrom region to region could be judged as being(sub-)culturally based. Moreover, it could bepossible that the results of the present study pointto a fundamental societal shift away from a do-minionistic/utilitarian world view to a naturalisticone which has progressed further in one regionthan in the other. Consequently, these di�erencespoint to the extent to which the new environ-

Fig. 2. Multivariate analysis of variance model in-cluding stepdown procedure of the Irish/Bavarian sur-vey, applied for the four subscales chosen. Negativevalues indicate agreement within the scale items. (F =freedom, DF = degrees of freedom, SS = sum ofsquares and MS = mean square.)

Fig. 3. (A) Factor similarity analysis between bothsurveys. (B) Cluster analysis of the common data basisof both surveys. Note that negative values indicateagreement within the scale items. The subdivision of thebehaviour subscale portrays VC (intention of support)and AC (environmental saving behaviour) (literature:verbal/actual commitment).

35


mental paradigm constitutes a departure from thetraditional anthropocentric world view (see also,Pierce et al., 1987).

The di�erences portrayed have led to a contro-versy concerning environmentalism and eÂ litism,which implies that the socioeconomic status tem-pers support for environmental protection, as wellas the impact of eÂ litism, which implies regressiverather than progressive distributional impacts, fo-cusing on the costs of environmental reforms.Originally, this controversy had linked environ-mentalism with socioeconomic standards and coststo the general public while the environment takesthe bene®t. However, both arguments have weakempirical support (Morrison and Dunlap, 1986),although some mechanism behind the culturaldi�erences could be suggested. There could bedi�erences in the level of exposure to environ-mental problems. Secondly, there could exist dis-similarities in the general perspective on theenvironment. Thirdly, non-equivalent values couldin¯uence attitudes and environmental behaviour.

A consistent predictor of environmental per-spectives is gender and within the Irish survey suchgender di�erences could have been expected fromprevious studies (Bogner and Wilhelm, 1996), i.e.girls have higher scores in the subscales environ-mental behaviour and conservation but lower onesin utilization of nature. However, the most inter-esting fact from this part of the present study liesin the unequal di�erences between gender in bothregions, since the gap monitored was signi®cantly

larger in two subscales within the Republic ofIreland: intention of support and considerationfor conservation. The most apparent explanationfor the di�erence could lie in the di�erent schoolsituations within both regions, since all the girlsfrom the Irish sample attended all-girl schoolsrather than co-education schools as was the case inthe Bavarian sample. However, this present studycould not prove any link in the causal chain pro-ducing this gap, since the school situation un-doubtedly is not the only source of bias in the lifeof children. Nevertheless, it is interesting that sucha discrepancy did not show up when two regionswith regular co-educational schools were com-pared with each other (Bavaria and Denmark;Bogner and Wiseman, 1996).

Conclusions

As would be expected, the ranking of environ-mental problems di�ers from region to region,each of which possesses a di�erent cultural back-ground. The data supported expectations that amore environmental perspective could be envis-aged when critical environmental experiences haveoccurred and resources have been valued as lim-ited. Therefore, Irish pupils apparently are lesslikely to be concerned about limiting growth andconserving resources and they are less likely toview resources as being limited, due, for instance,to the substantially lower population densities.Bavarians, in contrast, are generally considered tobe more concerned with the preservation of theenvironment in its natural state. It has often beenstated that this concern grew as a response topollution and other industrial-related problems. Itis not surprising that in a region with more hu-man-in¯uenced resources the prospecting of na-ture is less favoured and any restrictions on thiswill be judged as appropriate. This associationwith one or the other side of the dichotomy in-teracts with the scope of pupils' environmentalbehaviour.Monitoring environmental perceptions o�ers a

further implication when educational programmescome into play. In transferring educational pro-grammes to other regions one should ensure thatthey ®t into the respective framework, in particularwhen it is intended to initiate linkages to individ-ual behaviour. Therefore, monitoring establishedoutdoor educational programmes in order to ob-serve how they could in¯uence the subscales cho-sen, a procedure which has been done successfullyin a pilot study in Bavaria (Bogner, 1997), couldprovide the information required. This would beeven more suitable since individual programmeswill have to build on di�erent baselines and con-solidating the existing environmental programmesinto advanced courses would require substantialinformation about the pupils' status. Therefore, inthe desire to promote and achieve a more e�ectiveand sensitive teaching, a solid database is not

Fig. 4. Di�erences in the responses of the four sub-scales for the Republic of Ireland and Bavaria split bygender (p � 0.01).


Bogner

merely required to recognize, understand andfoster the present world views of pupils as well asto promote environmental action, but also it isrequired to acknowledge the concept as well as thereality of world views.

Pupils live in two `worlds' simultaneously: theworld of nature and the world of culture, the for-mer increasingly dominated by the latter. Linkingboth is a permanent challenge for adults as well asfor the young. Consequently, educators must un-derstand the world views of their pupils as well asthe rationales of world views in principle (Smith,1992) in particular since their e�orts reach out topupils, to touch their lives, to shape the way theyview and interact with the world and to preparethem to interact positively with it. Educationalapproaches must of necessity build on the existingworld view, as it permeates and in¯uences theworld views of pupils ± whether intentionally ornot ± and must challenge the consequences of en-vironmentally destructive human activity. How-ever, educational systems tend to provide a stronginstitutional base for reinforcing commitments tosociety's traditional values and preventing para-digmatic shifts or even replacements. Monitoringvarious populations in terms of how diversely theyperceive environmental issues and how they reactto them might well provide educators with crucialinformation with which to develop programmesthat might help, ®rstly, to hasten the remediationof the most pressing environmental problems,secondly, to question the traditional anthropo-centric world view which still poses a substantialbarrier to the fostering of a strong pro-environ-mental orientation, thirdly, to broaden the socialbasis of environmental concern, fourthly, to guidechanges away from maladaptive behaviour and,lastly, to bridge the frequently existing gap be-tween (knowledge and) attitudes and behaviour.

Acknowledgements

The author expresses his appreciation of the as-sistance of T. Blaine in sampling the data as wellas the cooperation of the teachers and pupils in-volved in this study. The author is also verygrateful to T. Blaine, W. Killermann, K. Preisslerand M. Wiseman for constructive discussions, toW. Killermann for essential facilities and to K.Roderer for programming the (Optical MarkReader) OMR procedures. The study was sup-ported by the European Commission as well as bythe Bavarian State Ministry of Education.

References

Arbuthnot, J. and Lingg, S. (1975) A comparison of Frenchand American environmental behaviours, knowledgeand attitudes. Int. J. Psychol. 10, 275±81.

Arcury, T.A. and Christianson, E.H. (1990) Environmentalworld view in response to environmental problems:

Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environ. Behav. 22,387±407.

Arcury, T.A., Johnson, T.P. and Scollay, S.J. (1986) Eco-logical world view and environmental knowledge: the`new environmental paradigm'. J. Environ. Educ. 17, 35±40.

Blum, A. (1987) Student's knowledge and beliefs concerningenvironmental issues in four countries. J. Environ. Educ.18, 31±7.

Bogner, F.X. (1997) Does short-term experience of outdoorecology education in¯uence long-term variables of en-vironmental perspectives? An empirical study. J. Envi-ron. Educ. (in press).

Bogner, F.X. and Wilhelm, M.G. (1996) Environmental per-spectives of pupils: the development of an attitude andbehaviour scale. The Environmentalist 16, 95±110.

Bogner, F.X. and Wiseman, M. (1996) Environmental per-spectives of Danish and Bavarian pupils. Towards amethodological framework. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 41, 53±71.

Caron, J. (1989) Environmental perspectives of Blacks: ac-ceptance of the new environmental paradigm. J. Envi-ron. Educ. 20, 21±6.

Catton, W.R. and Dunlap, R.E. (1978) Environmental soci-ology: a new paradigm. Am. Sociol. 13, 41±9.

Conrad, L. (1970) The teacher out of doors. In Outdoor edu-cation (D.R. Hammerman and W. Hammerman, eds)Minneapolis: Burgruss Publ.

Cronbach, L.J. (1960) Essentials of Psychological Testing.New York: Harper.

Disinger, J.F. and Tomsen, J.L. (1995) Environmental edu-cation research news. The Environmentalist 15, 3±9.

Dunlap, R.-E. (1980) Paradigmatic change in social science:from human exemptions to an ecological paradigm. Am.Behav. Sci. 24, 5±14.

Dunlap, R. and Van Liere, K.D. (1978) The `new environ-mental paradigm'. J. Environ. Educ. 9, 10±19.

Dunlap, R. and Van Liere, K.D. (1984) Commitment to thedominant social paradigm and concern for environ-mental quality. Soc. Sci. Q. 65, 1013±28.

Elvin, L. (ed.) (1981) The Educational System in the EuropeanCommunity. A Guide. European Commission: Brussels.

Francescato, D. and Mebane, W. (1973) How citizens viewtwo great cities: Milan and Rome. In Image and Envi-ronment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behaviour(R.M. Downs and M. Stea, eds.), p. 131±47. Chicago:Aldine.

Howe, H.L. (1990) Public concern about chemicals in theenvironment: regional di�erences based on a threat po-tential. Public Health Records 105, 186-95.

Kaiser, H.F., Hunka, S. and Bianchini, J. (1969) Relating fac-tors between studies basing upon di�erent individuals.In Personality structure of measurement (H.J. Eysenckand S.B. Eysenck, eds) pp. 336±43. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Kottak, C.P. and Costa, H.C. (1993) Ecological awareness,environmental action and international conservationstrategy. Human Organizat. 52, 335±43.

Leeming, F.C., Dwyer, W.O., Porter, B.E. and Cobern, M.K.(1993) Outcome research in environmental education. J.Environ. Educ. 24, 8±21.

Mali, G.B. and Howe, A. (1979) Development of earth andgravity concepts among Nepali children. Sci. Educ.63(5), 685±91.

37


Merchant, C. (1990) Environmental ethics and political con-¯ict: a view from California. Environ. Ethics 12, 45±68.

Milbrath, L.W. (1984) Environmentalists: Vanguard for a NewSociety. Albany: SUNY Press.

Morrison, D.F. and Dunlap, R.E. (1986) Environmentalismand elitism: a conceptual and empirical analysis. Envi-ron. Manage. 10, 581±9.

Norusis, M.J. (1993a) SPSS for Windows: Base System User'sGuide. SPSS Inc.: Chicago, IL.

Norusis, M.J. (1993b) SPSS for Windows: Professional Sta-tistics. SPSS Inc.: Chicago, IL.

Pepitone, A. and Triandis, H.C. (1988) On the universality ofsocial psychological theories. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol.18, 471±97.

Pierce, J.C., Loverich, N., Tsurutani, T. and Abe, T. (1987)Culture, politics and mass public: traditional and mod-ern supporters of the new environmental paradigm inJapan and the United States. J. Politics 49, 54±79.

Sheppard, J.A. (1995) The Black±White environmental con-cern gap: an examination of environmental paradigms.J. Environ. Educ. 26, 24±35.

Shipstone, D.M., Roeneck, C., Kaerquist, C., Dupin, J.J.,Johsua, S. and Licht, P. (1988) A study of students'understanding of electricity in ®ve European countries.Int. J. Sci. Educ. 10, 303±16.

Smith, G.A. (1992) Education and the Environment: Learningto Live with Limits. Albany: SUNY Press.

Smith-Sebasto, N.J. (1992) The revised perceived environ-mental control measure: a review and analysis. J. Envi-ron. Educ. 23, 24±33.

Swan, J. (1971) Environmental education: one approach toresolving the environmental crisis. Environ. Behav. 3,223±9.

Taylor, D.E. (1989) Blacks and the environment: toward anexplanation of the concern and action gap betweenBlacks and Whites. Environ. Behav. 21, 175-205.

Triandis, H.C. (1991) Attitude and attitude change. Ency.Hum. Biol. 1, 485±496.

Van Liere, K.D. and Dunlap, R.E. (1980) The social bases ofenvironmental concern: a review of hypotheses, expla-nations and empirical evidence. Public Opin. Q. 44, 181±97.

White, L. (1965) The historical roots of our ecological ethic.Science 155, 1203±7.

Williams, R.M. (1992) Greening the new political economy.Studies Political Econ. 37, 5±30.

Wiseman, M. (1993) An e�cient method for computing factorsimilarity coe�cients: a computional note and an algo-rithm. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 15, 111±15.


Bogner

Documents

Environmental perceptions of Irish and Bavarian pupils: an empirical study