Environmental Worldviews in higher education: A Case Study of Turkish College

Students

Doç.Dr. Nazmiye ErdoğanBaskent University

Environmental/ecological crisisIndustrial

ProductionDistrubutionConsumption

An anthropocentric worldview(a) Human are superior and above

nature(b) There is abundance of natural

resources and there is no need for conservation

(c) Human beings, by virtue of possessing culture and technology, are able to adapt nature to human aims, rather than adapt to the natural environment

Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) (1)A belief in limitless resources,

continuous progress, and the necessity of growth

(2) Faith in the problem solving abilities of science and technology

(1)High valuation of nature(2)Generalized compassion toward

other species, other peoples and other generations

(3)Careful planning and acting to avoid risks to humans and nature

(4)Recognition that there are limits to growth to which humans must adapt

(5)Consultative and participatory new politics emphasizing on foresight and planning

Ecocentric worldview

METHOD

This study was designed to Explore the environmental worldviews of Turkish University Students

Test hypothesized relations on environmental views, environmental course status, gender, school status and socio-economic status

• H1 : Although more students are expected to have pro-environmental views, they are not expected to embrace high level of pro-environmental orientation.

• H2 : Students who took a course in environment and students who did not take any will differ in their environmental worldviews.

• H3: First year students and fourth year students will differ in their environmental views.

• H4: There is a gender difference in environmental views: more female than male students have pro-environmental views, while more male than female students have pro-DSP view.

• H5: There is relationship between socio-economic status and environmental views.

Study Population and Sample

Study Population and Sample 1295 Undergraduate Students941 Baskent University145 students Mustafa Kemal University107 Karadeniz Teknik University 102 Ankara University

Measurement and Analysis

A 25 item questionnaire was developed by using the related

studies and the revised NEP scale

Each item were measured on a scale

1- strongly disagree 5- strongly agree

• School status was defined first-year, second-year, third-year

and fourth-year students.

• Environmental course was defined “yes” (course-taker) and “no”

(non-taker).

• SES was measured by family income and grouped as “low”, “medium” and “high”.

FINDINGS

Students’ environmental worldviews

• 56.5 % of students hold pro-environmental views

• 24.6 % embrace pro-DSP views• 18.8 % have unsure/ambivalent

views

1. Dünyanın barındırabileceği insan sayısının üst sınırına yaklaşıyoruz

2. İnsanlar doğaya müdahale ettiğinde genellikle yıkıcı sonuçlar ortaya çıkar.

3. Bitkiler ev hayvanlar da insanlar kadar var olma hakkına sahiptir

4. İnsan çevreyi/doğayı ciddi şekilde kötü kullanıyor5. Özel yeteneklerimize rağmen, biz hala doğanın

yasalarına tabiyiz6. Doğal denge çok hassastır ve kolayca bozulabilir7. Her şey böyle giderse yakında büyük bir ekolojik

faciayla karşılaşacağız8. Bilimin faydası kadar zararı da vardır9. Teknolojik gelişme faydalı olduğu kadar zarar da verir10.İnsan varlığını sürdürebilmek için doğa ile uyum içinde

yaşamalı11.Hızlı ekonomik gelişme çoğu kez faydadan çok zarar

ortaya çıkarır12.Ülkemizin kaynaklarını korumak için güçlü tedbirler

almalıyız13.Çevre kirliliğini önlemek için endüstri üzerinde kontrol

olmalı14.İnsanların, doğayı kendi ihtiyaçlarına uygun şekilde

düzenleme hakkı vardır 15.Turizm çevreyi korumada sorumluluklarını yerine

getirmelidir

1. İnsanların, doğayı kendi ihtiyaçlarına uygun şekilde düzenleme hakkı vardır

2. İnsan zekâsı dünyayı yaşanamaz bir hale getirmemizi önleyecektir.

3. Doğal denge endüstrilerin olumsuz etkileriyle baş edecek kadar güçlüdür

4. İnsanlığın yüz yüze geldiği söylenen ekolojik kriz çok abartılmaktadır

5. İnsan doğaya hükmetmek için yaratılmıştır6. İnsan doğayı kontrol edebilmek için onun nasıl

çalıştığını sonunda öğrenecek7. Teknolojik gelişme ile çoğu sorun çözülebilir8. Son yıllarda çevre kirliliği yasaları haddinden fazla

katılaştı9. Çevre yasaları endüstri üzerine haksız yük

getirmektedir10.Turizmin gelişmesi için kaynaklar sınırsız olarak

kullanılabilir

Statements

% Distribution

MeanbSD D U A SA

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support 7.5 8.5 22.0 33.5 28.5 3.67

When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences 5.2 9.3 13.9 35.4 36.2 3.88

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist 2.4 2.4 4.2 16.5 74.5 4.58

Humans are severely abusing the environment 3.6 6.0 6.4 35.3 48.7 4.19

Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature 4.7 7.6 20.6 37.9 29.2 3.79

Balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset 3.1 12.0 14.6 35.7 34.6 3.87

If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. 2.9 4.8 19.9 36.8 35.6 3.97

Science cause harm as much as benefit 9.4 10.9 21.7 31.2 26.8 3.55

Technological development cause harm as much as benefit 4.7 8.1 14.2 38.8 34.2 3.90

Human should live in harmony with the nature in order to survive 1.4 2.4 9.4 29.7 57.1 4.39

Fast economical growth engenders more harm than benefit most of the time 4.1 14.6 28.5 32.7 20.1 3.50

Environmental laws should be enforced vigorously 2.0 5.1 9.1 28.9 54.9 4.30

We should take strong measures to protect resources of our country 1.4 3.1 6.9 21.0 67.6 4.50

There should be control over the industry in order to prevent environmental problems 1.9 4.0 11.8 35.1 47.2 4.22

Tourism should meet its responsibility to protect the environment 1.9 3.2 8.6 18.5 67.8 4.47

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs 38.6 26.5 15.1 13.6 6.2 3.78

Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unliveable 8.6 16.7 34.6 25.2 14.9 2.79

Balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industries 18.3 27.9 28.8 16.6 8.4 3.31

The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated 29.3 30.0 25.5 11.1 4.1 3.69

Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature 31.3 22.2 19.6 18.7 8.2 3.50

Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it 6.4 10.2 30.0 32.1 21.3 2.48

Most problems can be solved by technological development 6.9 20.1 32.9 31.6 8.5 2.85

Environmental protection laws got too strict in recent years 28.5 26.0 22.8 13.0 9.7 3.51

Environmental laws put unfair burden on industry 26.3 23.8 30.6 13.5 5.8 3.51

Resources can be used limitlessly for the development of tourism 37.5 21.7 18.4 13.8 8.6 3.66

Overall Orientation Index 11.5 13.1 18.8 26.2 30.3 3.75

The mean score for the 25 items• The mean score for the 25

items, after correcting for the directionality of the items

• was found to be 3.75 which indicate that the overall environmental views of students falls at the lower rank of pro-environmental orientation.

Distributions on the Pro-environmental items (items 1-15)

• 75.3 % students agree on these statements

• Only 10.5 % disagree • 14.1 % are undecided.

• In terms of overall mean index of pro-environmental items, general orientation of students is at 4.05 (mildly agree) level.

Distributions on the pro-DSP items (items 16-25)

• reveal that 28.5% agree with the statements,

• while there are considerable numbers of disagreeing (45.7%)

• undecided (25.8%) students. • Regarding overall mean index of

pro-DSP items, general orientation of students is at 3.31 point.

Difference between the environmental course-takers and non-takers

• Agreements on items by course-takers range from 61.8 to 81.0% for pro-environmental items

• 17.4 to 40.6% for the pro-DSP items.

• Agreements by non-takers range from

• 49.7 to 84.6% for the pro-environmental items and 23.2 to 39.9% for the pro-DSP items.

Item 4 (Humans are severely abusing the environment)

• Undecided percentage of 6.6 for course-takers and 6.5% for non-takers.

The remaining undecided responses range from 11.5 to 39.6% for course-takers

• and 20.7 to 32.9% for non-takers.

ResponseStatements

SD D U A SA Test results

4Humans are severely abusing the environment Yes

No2.54.0

10.0

4.96.66.5

41.633.3

39.4=8151.3=84,6

df=4p=.02

11Fast economical growth

engenders more harm than benefit most of the time

YesNo

2.54.6

11.51 5.7

24.230.0

36.631.3

25.218.4

df=4p=.003

17Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unliveable

YesNo

6.99.2

12.918.0

39.632.9

23.625.7

17.014.2

df=4p=.04

18Balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industries

YesNo

12.020.3

31.926.6

30.628.2

14.816.6

10.77.6

df=4p=.004

20Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature Yes

No37.729.2

25.621.1

19.319.8

11.421.1

6.08.9

df=4p=.046

25 Resources can be used limitlessly for the development of tourism

YesNo

46.434.5

22.121.6

11.520.7

12.814.1

7.29.1

df=4p=.001

Environmental course takers or nontakers

humans are severely abusing the environment

• Distribution of agreement with the statement that is

• 81.0% for the course-takers • 84.6 % for non-takers.

• 12.5% of course takers • 8.9% of non-takers disagree with

the same statement.

Fast economical growth mostly engenders more harm than benefit.

• 61.8 % of course-takers • 49.7 % of non-takers agree with the

statement

• Disagreement is relatively low:• 14.0% for course-takers • 10.3% for non-takers. • More non-takers (30.0%) than

course-takers (24.2 %) are undecided.

Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unlivable • Those who think that comprise• 39.9 % of non-takers • 40.6 % course-takers.

• More non-takers (27.2 %) than course-takers (19.8 %) do not agree with the statement.

• There are 32.9 % non-takers and 39.6 % course-takers that are undecided.

Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.• There is a considerable

difference between the two groups in the idea

• 63.3 % of course-takers • 50.3 % of non-takers do not

agree with the idea. • Correspondingly,• 17.4 % of course-takers • 30.0 % of non-takers agree with

it.

School status37.6% first year32.3% second year16.8% third year 13.4% fourth year students.

• There were significant differences of opinion on only three statements at .05 level (items 9, 19, 25).

• Frequency distributions on the three items show that there are considerable differences between first year students and fourth year students

Technological development cause harm as much as benefit• 76.3% of the first year • 62.8 % of last year students

agree with

• 10.7% of first years students • 17.2% of last year students

do not agree with

Humans were meant to rule over rest of nature

• 28.8% of first year students agree• 23.1% of fourth year students

agree.

• 22.2% undecided first year students

• 13.6 % fourth year students• Less first year students (49.0%)

than fourth year students (63.3%) disagree with

Gender differences54.7% female• More females than males agree

with all 13 significant pro-environmental statements.

• On the other hand, more males than females agree with all significant pro-DSP statements.

• These results overwhelmingly support the hypothesis stating existence of gender difference on environmental worldviews

• Similarly, there are no striking gender differences in the pro-DSP items:

• Agreements• range from 11.9 to 52.9% for

females • 19.3 to 53.9% for males

• whereas disagreements • range from 14.8 to 69.2% for

females • 18.9 to 60.3% for males.

Item Statements SD D U A SAa Test results

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

MaleFemale

10.05.5

10.07.2

24.420.1

29.936.5

25.730.7

df=4p=.001

3 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist MaleFemale

3.31.7

2.92.0

5.82.8

19.713.9

68.379.6

df=4p=.001

4 Humans are severely abusing the environment MaleFemale

4.13.3

8.14.5

8.45.0

34.136.4

45.350.9

df=4p=.004

6 Balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset MaleFemale

4.52.0

13.610.8

16.313.2

34.137.0

31.637.0

df=4p=.008

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

MaleFemale

3.92.0

7.03.0

21.418.7

36.537.2

31.239.1

df=4p=.001

8 Science cause harm as much as benefit MaleFemale

11.97.4

12.69.5

20.023.0

29.532.7

26.027.3

df=4p=.016

9 Technological development cause harm as much as benefit

MaleFemale

6.53.3

10.65.9

14.613.9

36.840.5

31.536.4

df=4p=.001

10 Human should live in harmony with the nature in order to survive

MaleFemale

1.51.3

3.41.6

11.57.6

30.429.1

53.160.4

df=4p=.011

11 fast economical growth engenders more harm than benefit most of the time

MaleFemale

5.62.8

17.112.6

27.729.1

30.434.5

19.120.9

df=4p=.011

12 Environmental laws should be enforced vigorously MaleFemale

2.71.3

6.83.7

11.87.0

29.628.4

49.159.7

df=4p=.001

13 We should take strong measures to protect resources of our country

MaleFemale

2.70.3

4.02.4

8.65.5

22.220.1

62.571.7

df=4p=.001

14 There should be control over the industry in order to prevent environmental problems

MaleFemale

2.21.7

5.32.9

14.59.7

34.335.8

43.749.9

df=4p=.007

15 Tourism should meet its responsibility to protect the environment

MaleFemale

2.61.4

2.73.5

10.37.2

21.715.8

62.772.0

df=4p=.002

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

MaleFemale

36.640.1

23.729.1

15.414.9

16.111.5

8.44.4

df=4p=.001

17 Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unliveable

MaleFemale

11.06.5

16.716.8

33.435.6

23.127.0

15.714.2

df=4p=.032

19 The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated

MaleFemale

23.933.7

29.630.3

27.224.1

15.27.8

4.14.1

df=4p=.001

20 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature MaleFemale

29.133.0

20.723.5

20.518.8

18.319.1

11.45.6

df=4p=.002

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

MaleFemale

9.14.2

9.810.6

27.132.4

32.931.4

21.021.5

df=4p=.003

22 Most problems can be solved by technological development

MaleFemale

7.06.8

16.423.0

32.133.6

34.729.1

9.77.5

df=4p=.016

23 Environmental protection laws got too strict in recent years

MaleFemale

27.828.9

22.129.4

25.220.9

15.510.9

9.59.9

df=4p=.006

Significant differences according to gender

Socio-economic status• Of 1295 students, 504 (%

38.9%) declined to answer to this question.

• These results provide partial support for the hypothesis (H5) on the existence of relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and environmental orientation.

• Regarding the significant relations, • low SES students agree with all pro-

environmental statements more than medium SES and high SES students.

• Expectedly, low SES students agree less with pro-DSP statements.

• Similar results were found in most statements between the medium SES and high SES students.

• Agreement responses on the• pro-environmental items were

in the range• 65.4% - 96.1% for low SES

group,• 69.0- 90.6% for the medium

SES group• 59.9% - 88.2% for the high

SES group.

Statements% Distribution

Test resultsSD D U A SA

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

LowMediumHigh

12.05.97.0

9.05.17.0

13.618.125.1

32.233.934.8

33.237.026.0

df=8p=.002

3. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist LowMedium High

1.32.03.1

1.33.12.6

1.34.34.4

13.411.821.8

82.778.868.1

df=8p=.004

4. Humans are severely abusing the environment LowMediumHigh

5.24.30.9

5.25.58.8

4.67.57.9

32.434.941.2

52.647.841.2

df=8p=.013

5. Balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset LowMediumHigh

3.32.43.5

7.915.515.3

12.212.321.4

40.531.734.1

36.238.125.8

df=8p=.001

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

LowMediumHigh

2.61.64.8

4.24.36.1

13.722.421.1

37.932.737.7

41.539.030.3

df=8p=.02

7. Technological development cause harm as much as benefit LowMediumHigh

4.62.47.9

7.28.211.0

9.220.415.9

41.532.937.9

37.636.127.3

df=8p=.001

8. Human should live in harmony with the nature in order to survive

LowMediumHigh

0.71.20.0

2.02.73.1

5.69.012.7

20.627.138.6

71.260.045.6

df=8p=.001

12. Environmental laws should be enforced vigorously LowMediumHigh

2.02.00.9

3.95.16.1

7.87.113.1

21.930.233.6

64.455.746.3

df=8p=.003

13. We should take strong measures to protect resources of our country

LowMediumHigh

2.30.80.4

2.62.05.7

4.67.57.5

14.419.725.4

76.170.161.0

df=8p=.001

11. Tourism should meet its responsibility to protect the environment

LowMediumHigh

1.60.82.6

1.63.14.4

5.68.28.3

11.418.023.2

79.769.861.4

df=8p=.001

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

LowMediumHigh

42.242.531.9

29.126.425.3

11.415.720.1

10.812.214.8

6.53.17.9

df=8p=.018

18. Balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industries

LowMediumHigh

23.322.411.4

26.631.533.2

29.522.430.1

13.416.914.0

7.26.711.4

df=8p=.005

20. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature LowMediumHigh

37.034.525.6

21.119.623.8

14.916.924.2

17.522.018.1

9.67.18.4

df=8p=.046

23. Environmental protection laws got too strict in recent years LowMediumHigh

37.328.924.6

26.126.525.9

19.621.724.6

7.512.616.2

9.510.38.8

df=8p=.022

24. Environmental laws put unfair burden on industry LowMediumHigh

31.527.428.5

27.926.219.3

27.927.827.2

8.913.514.9

3.95.210.1

df=8p=.02

25.Resources can be used limitlessly for the development of tourism

LowMediumHigh

45.541.231.3

16.820.826.0

16.216.122.0

13.214.513.7

8.37.57.0

df=8p=.049

Conclusion and Discussion

Conclusion• The present study results show

that majority of students (56.0%) hold pro-Env views.

• However, about one fourth of students have pro-DSP oriented ideas in varying degree.

• Results provided partial support for the hypothesized relationships.

• Female students with low socio-economic status and first-year students have higher pro-environmental orientations.

• Taking a course on environment makes only slight difference in opinions.

• It was concluded that students’ environmental orientations change varying extent according to gender, socio-economic status and education which are probably determined by the historical and cultural context and characteristics of the population under study.

• Results suggest that there exists a reasonable level of environmental awareness; however university policies and practices on the environmental education and issues need to be reassessed and geared toward cultivating environmental sensitivity.

• These findings suggest that the students’ environmental worldviews do not reflect a widespread adoption of the pro-environmental orientation.

• The previous studies mostly indicate positive relationship between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors.