An assessment of environmental learning center visitor attitudes towards environmental education

Item

Title

Eng An assessment of environmental learning center visitor attitudes towards environmental education

Date

2004

Creator

Eng Kraft, Karin Fernbach

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER VISITO
ATTITUDES TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

by
Karin Fernbach Kraft

A Thesis :

Submitted in partial fulfillment

. of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Environmental Studies

The Evergreen State College

June 2004

Printed on Recycled Paper


This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree

by

Karin Fembach Kraft


has been approved for

The Evergreen State College

by


q

~ CtL'-Jean}1MacGre
dC
~qov
or

Member of the Adjunct Faculty

Masters of Environmental Studies Program


Field Director Audubon Washington

An Assessment of Environmental Learning Center Visitor

Attitudes Towards Environmental Education


Karin Fernbach Kraft


Many studies have examined the public 's knowledge and attitudes a
environment. However, only a handful of questions have been asked regar
public 's attitudes towards environmental education (EE). This study involves a s
1165 respondents that was administered at a number of Environmental Learning
(ELCs) including zoos, aquariums and interpretive centers to assess visitor attit
awareness of EE.
This project was supported by Audubon Washington (the Washington Sta
of the National Audubon Society) who wanted to find out what EE messages
with visitors to ELCs within the state of Washington. The purpose was to deter
gaps in knowledge and awareness of EE, identify correlations between
demographic groups and specific messages that can be used in future marketin
and ELCs, and correlate visitors ' exposure to EE and degree of environmental
regarding the state of the environment. ELCs were chosen because of their
support for EE and their willingness to support the administration of this survey
site. Two comparison groups were also selected: participants to the Enviro
Education Association of Washington, which convened for its annual conferenc
the survey period, and visitors to the Centralia, Washington Post Office becau
more rural location and historically more conservative voting patterns .
Results from this survey were remarkable. There was strong support for e
claim tested from all three groups. Differences between demographic variab
small. In general , EEA W respondents were more highly supportive of EE than
two groups. Nonetheless, respondents from the Centralia Post Office and the E
very supportive of EE. Results from this study clearly show that a nationwide
study on EE is merited.

Chapter
1.

Introduction
Definitions

Support for Environmental Education: Brief Histo
Federal and State Environmental Education Legisl

Status of Environmental Education in Washington
Negative Critiques of Environmental Education
Environmental Education at the 35-Year Point
Assumptions

2.

Impetus for This Study and Background
Audubon Washington
Social Marketing

Differences Between Social and Commercial Mark
Community-Based Social Marketing
Social Marketing of Environmental Education
Review of Polls Regarding General Public.
Review of Teacher Surveys and Focus Groups
Summary of Literature Review

3

Research Design and Methods
Survey Development
Research Methods

Hypotheses

Survey Limitations

Statistical Tools

4.

Analysis
Demographic Analysis
Summary of Demographic Analysis

Environmental Learning Center Visitor Responses
Questions

Summary of Environmental Learning Center Visit
Responses to Questions

Comparisons of Environmental Learning Center G
Centralia Post Office and Environmental Educatio
Association of Washington Conference Groups

Summary of Comparisons of Environmental Learn
Center Group to Centralia Post Office and Environ
Education Association of Washington Conference
Evaluation of Hypotheses
Summary of Evaluation of Hypotheses
Chapter Summary

5.

Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations
Discussion
Environmental Learning Center Group

Comparisons of Environmental Learning Cente
to Centralia Post Office and Environmental Ed
Association of Washington Conference Groups
Hypotheses

Recommendations

Bibliography
Appendices

A. Odum's List of20 Concepts to be included in Environmental
Education Curriculum

B. Survey Document.
C. Map of Survey Locations

FIGURE
1.1

Mauna Loa Monthly Mean Carbon Dioxide

1.2

Temperature and C02 Readings for Past Millennium

1.3

Carbon Emissions per Person in Selected Countries, 2002

2.1

Steps of Social Marketing

2.2

Robinson Model of Social Marketing

4.1.1

Gender of Respondents of the Three Test Groups

4.1.2

Age Groups of Respondents of the Three Test Groups

4.1.3

Occupation of Respondents of the Three Test Groups

4.1.4

Level of Education of Respondents of the Three Test Groups

4.1.5

Parent/Grandparent Status of the Three Test Groups

4.1.6

Political Views of Respondents of the Three Test Groups

4.1.7

Area of Residence of Respondents of the Three Test Groups

4.1.8

Level of Community Involvement of Respondents of the
Three Test Groups


4.2.1

Question 1 Percent Responding

4.2.2

Question 2 Histogram

4.2.3

Question 3 Percent Responding

4.2.4.A

Question 4A Childhood and Teen Years

Environmental Learning Sources

4.2.4.B

Question 4B Current Adult

Environmental Learning Sources

4.2.5

Question 5 Percent Responding

4.2.6

Question 6 Percent Responding

4.2.8

Question 8 Percent Responding

4.2.9

Question 9 Percent Responding

4.3.1

Question 1 Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.2

Question 2 Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.3.A

Question 3A Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.3 .B

Question 3B Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.3.C

Question 3C Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.3.D

Question 3D Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.5.A

Question 5A Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.5.B

Question 5B Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.5.C

Question 5C Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.5.D

Question 5D Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.5.E

Question 5E Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.5.F

Question 5F Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.A

Question 6A Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.B

Question 6B Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.C

Question 6C Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.D

Question 6D Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.E

Question 6E Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.F

Question 6F Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.G

Question 6G Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.H

Question 6H Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.1

Question 61 Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.K

Question 6K Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.L

Question 6L Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.6.M

Question 6M Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.7.A

Question 7A Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.7.B

Question 7B Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.7.C

Question 7C Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.7.D

Question 7D Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.8 .A

Question 8A Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.8.B

Question 8B Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.8.C

Question 8C Compari son of Test Groups

4.3.8.D

Question 8D Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.8.E

Question 8E Comparison of Test Groups

4.3 .8.F

Question 8F Comparison of Test Groups

4.3.9

Question 9 Comparison of Test Groups

4.4.1

Hypothesis 1

4.4.2

Hypothesis 2

4.4.3

Hypothesis 3

4.4.4

Hypothesis 4

4.4.5

Hypothesis 5

4.4.6

Hypothesis 6

4.4.7

Hypothesis 7

4.4.9

Hypothesis 9

4.4.10

Hypothesis 10

4.4.11

Hypothesis 11

4.4.12

Hypothesis 12

List of Tables

2.3.1

Table of Differences Between Social and Commercial Marketing

3.2.1

Unemployment and Poverty Rates for Counties of Environmental
Learning Centers

First and foremost I thank my husband, Gene Kraft, for his encouragem
loving support. I thank my son, Fritz, for entering the survey data into the comp
my son, Karl, for all of the dishes that he washed, especially over the past six m
would not have been able to finish this thesis without the support of my family.
My deepest thanks go to Jean MacGregor, first for recommending me
project, and then for her knowledge, wisdom, and insight along the way. Man
for your guidance in the research and editing of my many drafts. You are an in
tome.
I wish to express gratitude to Audubon Washington for initiating and su
this project. A special thank you goes to Heath Packard at Audubon Washingto
insightful input in the survey design, his help in administering the survey and fo
this paper. Without Heath's support at the busiest survey locations and his
ability to draw in the most unlikely survey respondent (i.e. father with five-ye
the shoulders, infant in a front pack and toddler in a stroller), the sample size wo
been much smaller.
I appreciate the help in the survey design provided by Larry Geri, Direc
Masters in Public Administration Program at The Evergreen State College
Larry reviewed the survey and provided feedback a number of times d
development phase.
Many thanks go to Nina Carter, Policy Director for Audubon Washingto
Ruskey, President of the Board of the North American Association for Envir
Education and Co-Director of the National Environmental Education Adva
Project; Kevin Coyle, Director of the National Environmental Education and
Foundation; Joe Heimlich, Program Leader of Environmental Sciences at O
University; Kathryn Owen, Audience Research Coordinator at Woodland P
Rachelle Donnette, Education and Outreach Specialist of Thurston
Environmental Health for their help reviewing and providing feedback on th
design.
I thank Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle Aquarium, Point Defiance Zoo, N
Trek, The Port Townsend Marine Science Center, Wolf Haven International, C
Zoological Park, and the Centralia, Washington Post Office for opening their doo
A special thank you goes to John Perkins for his patience in helping me d
the best statistical analyses. I appreciate all of the time he spent with me on this
Many thanks go to Cheryl Simrell King, professor at TESC, for her h
SPSS, and to Vauhn Wittman-Grahler, Director of the Quantitative Reasoning
TESC, for her help with statistics.
Thank you to the volunteers who helped with the administration of th
including my husband, Gene, Kelly Hacker and her son, Daniel, Sue Danver
Johnson, and Bevin Protas from Western Washington; Gary Blevins, Lindell
Haggin, Joyce Alonzo, and Barbara Arnzen from Eastern Washington; and lo
school students, Kelly Maynard and Katie Gamble.
I want to thank fellow students, Cammy Mills and Jeanine Toth, for th
and constructive criticism during our weekly meetings over the past six months.
Finally, a special thank you to all 11 65 survey respondents for their time.

Introduction


How do people develop a deep and lasting concern for the natural environment? T
important question f or anyone who believes that a concerned and informed citizenry is
Roger Hart, Children's Participation: The Theory and Practice o
the healthy stewardship ofthe earth.

Young Citizens in Community Developm ent and Environmental C

For many indigenous cultures throughout the world, environmental teac

learning has been a way of life. However, in the developed and developin

environmental education (EE) is an extremely young field of study and pra
emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the United States. Rivers on fire,

spills and the publication of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, in 1962 co

brought the condition of the environment to the public consciousness. EE deve
response to the heightened awareness of environmental problems, and drew

interests and emphases in nature study, conservation education, experiential e

and outdoor education fields, which developed in the early part of the twentieth
(Braus and Disinger, 1996).

Thirty-five years after the first National Environmental Education Act
passed in 1970, EE is taught in many different contexts such as:
•
•
•
•
•

Formal education, i.e. K-12 schools, higher education,
Non-formal education, i.e. nature centers, zoos, aquariums, and interpreti
centers,
Print and electronic media,
Informal education, i.e. individuals learning on their own throug
observation and recreational pursuits,
Religious educational contexts.

Environmental education is offered by many agencies, organizations, and sch

includes many types of professional teachers, interpreters, communicators, an
outreach specialists. Over the past 15 years, EE has been in the process

educators (MacGregor, personal communication, February 6, 2004).

Environmental education is based on ecological principles with an emp
the interconnectedness among society, policy and the economy,

Ecology i

relatively new science, whose understanding is essential to full comprehension o

impacts on the environment. Ernst Haeckel first coined and defined ecology in

"the science of relations between organisms and their environment" (Bramwel

Ecology comes from the Greek root oikos, which means connectedness. Eugen

and his brother Howard moved ecology from its roots as a descriptive scie

modern science through initiation of quantitative studies. Eugene Odum publi

Fundamentals of Ecology in 1953 and in 1992 published a list of the 20 most i

ecological principles that should be included to improve environmental literac

included thermodynamics, natural selection, cyclic behavior, connectiveness

ecology and the ecology-economics interface (Odum, 1992). See Appendix A
complete list.

Definitions

The current definition of environmental education used in this study evol

a definition permed by William Stapp and his graduate student seminar (1969

stated that "environmental education is a process aimed to produce a citizenr

knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated p

aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their s

The United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) d

emphasized five instead of three objectives for environmental education:
awareness to the total environment and its allied problems,
knowledge of the total environment, its problems and society's
role in dealing with these problems, attitudes to help
individuals and social groups acquire the values and feelings
for participating in its protection and improvement, skills for
solving environmental problems, evaluation ability to
determine measures and educational programs to deal with
environmental issues and a sense of responsibility to participate
in solving environmental problems.
The definition combined these objectives into one statement:
environmental education is a learning process that increases
people's knowledge and awareness about the environment and
associated challenges, develops the necessary skills and
expertise to address the challenges, and fosters attitudes,
motivations, and commitments to make informed decisions and
take responsible action (UNESCO, 1978).

In the early 1970s, Stapp was asked to create the office of EE within UN

Paris. For the two years that he directed the office, he traveled throughout th

testing and getting feedback on this definition. He played a major role in plan

UNESCO sponsored conferences on EE: The International Environmental E

Workshop in Belgrade in 1975 and The Intergovernmental Conference on Envir

Education in Tbilisi in 1977. Both conferences created and endorsed similar de

of EE and made recommendations for its implementation (UNESCO-UNEP, 1

UNESCO, 1978). Remarkably quickly, these conferences propelled the field o

the consciousness of international educational leaders. In addition, 12 guiding p

emerged from the United Nations Tbilisi Conference on Environmental Educatio
•

Consider the environment in its totality-natural and built, technolog
social;

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

through all formal and non-formal stages;
Be interdisciplinary in its approach, drawing on specific content
discipline in making possible a holistic and balanced perspective;
Examine major environmental issues from local, national, regio
international points of view so that students receive insights into envir
conditions in other geographical areas;
Focus on current and potential environmental situations, while taking into
the historical perspective;
Promote the value and necessity of local, national , and international coo
in the prevention and solution of environmental problems;
Explicitly consider environmental aspects in plans for development and g
Enable learners to have a role in planning their learning experiences and
an opportunity for making decisions and accepting their consequences;
Relate environmental sensitivity, knowledge, problem-solving skills an
clarification to every age, but with special emphasis on environmental s
to the leamer's own community in early years;
Help learners discover the symptoms and real causes of environmental p
Emphasize the complexity of environmental problems and thus the
develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills ; and,
Utilize diverse learning environments and a broad array of educational ap
to teaching/learning about and from the environment with due stress on
activities andfirst-hand experience.

Nearly 20 years later, the United Nations Conference on Environm

Development held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil further delineated the fiel

One hundred heads of state met at what became known as the "Earth Summit" t
environmental protection and socio-economic development.

A 300-page p

adopted for achieving sustainable development in the 21 st century and was called

21. This plan called for the mobilization of the public at large and for the ad

policies and plans on sustainable development at the national level to be suppor
international, regional and local levels and by non-governmental organizations.

36 of Agenda 21 entitled "Promoting Education, Public Awareness and Train
three program areas for formal and non-formal education.
•
•

Reorienting education towards sustainable development.
Increasing public awareness towards sustainable development.

In the World Summit in Johannesburg, Africa 2002 , a great deal of fr

was expressed at the lack of progress over the 10 preceding years. Because of th

leaders at the summit stated that educators must be required to place an ethic f

sustainably at the center of society 's concerns . World leaders at the World Sum

that a lack of ethics of individuals, corporations, and governments had more to

environmental degradation than a lack of understanding of human impacts
environment.

They said that EE must be based upon principles of social

democracy, peace and ecological integrity (UNESCO, 2002).

Finally, in Oc

2003, 11 years after their first attempt to pass this resolution, the United

Education, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) General Conference

passed "The Earth Charter," which is an "instrument that provides the ethical fra

for a just, sustainable and peaceful global society." The Earth Charter includes

and responsibility for community life, ecological integrity, social and economi

and equity , democracy, alleviation of poverty, nonviolence and peace" (UNESCO

The Earth Charter has been featured on many EE and sustainability website
foldout brochure version has been circulated widely in the world: probably more

of the previous EE declarations from UNESCO , the Earth Charter has the most v

The current definition of EE used by the Environmental Protection Agenc

has been reworded slightly but is virtually the same definition as the definition c

Tbilisi with one significant exception. In 1996, the National Environmental E

Advisory Council (NEEAC), which is comprised of a group of representativ

organizations outside of the federal government who provide advice to the EPA a

that states "EE does not advocate a particular viewpoint or course of action
addendum by the NEEAC attempted to value nature and, at the same time,
environmental study as a neutral academic pursuit.
Disinger points out a fundamental confusion of the purpose in this field,

whether it should just be (l) a cognitive and academic endeavor, involving learnin

environmental concepts and processes, and exploration of problems with no conv

or judgment about opposing viewpoints, or (2) a cognitive and affective en

involving not only environmental learning but the development of attitudes of
and

motivation

to

engage

III

activities

of

problem

pre

resolution, and restoration, or activities having to do with sustainability (Disinger

Environmental educators generally support the "active" part of the de

The original Stapp definition and the Tbilisi definition did reflect an intention

attitudes, and action-taking, and civic engagement; these definitions did not lim
just a cognitive enterprise.

Support for EE: Brief History of Federal and State Environmental Educa
Legislation


The first federal legislation supporting EE was the National Enviro
Education Act in 1970.

This legislation resulted in the creation of the O

Environmental Education and was housed in the Department of Health, Educa

Welfare. The Office of EE coordinated a modest and poorly funded grants pro

EE projects in K-12 education. This office eventually closed in the 1980s due to

signed the 1990 National Environmental Education Act into law , and this time, th
of Environmental Education was placed within the EPA. It was nearly closed

2002 under the current Bush administration's proposal to place the office w

National Science Foundation (NSF) (Baker, 2000). The opposition to this p
voiced by many in the EE profession, was that an NSF-directed EE program

seen as just science, which in turn could restrict EE from being integrated throug

basic subject areas , thus interfering with student learning about the social, poli

economic implications of environmental issues (MacGregor, personal commu
2004).

In 1985, the Washington State legislature directed the Superintendent o

Instruction in 1985 to appoint an environmental education task force to create a d

of environmental literacy and determine the needs of environmental educatio
state.

The task force defined an environmentally literate person as one w

understand:
•
•
•
•

The components of the environment and their interactions,
The value of the environment to our physical, economic and emotional we
being,
How personal choice affects the environment, and
How to apply knowledge, skills and decision-making to cooperative action
behalf of the environment.

The task force recommended that an environmental education comm

established by the legislature. In 1986, a committee was established and placed u

Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). The committee recom
that the inclusion of science with an emphasis on environmental education be

the basic K-12 curriculum in all the schools in the state. In 1987, House Bill 77

28A.230.020; however, no public funding for EE was provided at that time.

In 1990 the Washington State School Board passed a mandate, Wa
Administrative Code (WAC) 180-50-115, that in section (6) states:

"Pursuant to RCW 28A.230 .020 instruction about conservation, natural resou
the environment shall be provided at all grade levels in an interdisciplinary
through science, the social studies, the humanities, and other appropriate areas
emphasis on solving the problems of human adaptation to the environment."

As of 1998, 12 states have K-12 instructional requirements for EE with an a

three states in the development phase of similar instructional requirements (Rusk

2001). These include Washington, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, L

Illinois, Georgia, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio, with l
being developed in California, Texas and Vermont.

In 1992, Washington State's OSPI charged 54 members of the EE comm

develop a comprehensive plan to meet the requirements of the mandate. This r

the formation of the Environmental Education Advisory Council (EEAC). Th

included representation from business leaders, the education community, resourc
representatives, the tribes, and environmental groups . They agreed upon five
recommendations:
•
•
•
•
•

Program planning , implementation and assessment.
Teacher in-service training.
Teacher pre-service training.
Environmentally sound practices-model facilities.
A systematic plan of evaluation.

integrated EE must be the result of partnerships between public, non-profit an
sectors (Billings et al., 1994).

In an attempt to address the lack of funding for EE in WA S
Environmental Education Partnership Fund was established by HB 1466 in
legislative session.

This bill had broad support on both sides of the aisle b

diverse coalition of many environmental, education, and industry organization

on developing and building support for the fund. HB 1466 created a competiti

fund that will be managed by OSPI to provide funding to support EE in Wa

through school bus rentals, scientific equipment, teacher training, and field
forests, wetlands or farms.

Subsequently, in Washington State's 2004 Supp

Operating Budget, $75,000 was appropriated for this grant fund (Audubon Wa
2004).

Status of EE in Washington State

In February of 2002, Washington State House and Senate Education Cha

the Governor's Council on Environmental Education (GCEE) to report on the st

in Washington. Status, funding needs and potential revenues sources for EE w

included this report. In the early 2000s , while interest in EE was apparently grow

a statewide professional EE organization, the Environmental Education Assoc

Washington (EEA W), was becoming robust, statewide leadership and coordin

EE was becoming weaker. Downturns in both federal and state funding ca
termination of two key EE positions in the state: the office of EE coordinator

agency EE efforts. This meant that volunteer task force of EE professionals h
created in order to complete the report requested by the legislative leadership.

To determine how effective EE is in the public schools, the task force lo

study in 1998 begun by the Environmental Education Assessment Project (EEA

EEAP was created to determine if using the environment to integrate subj
actually improved student learning among other things.

The EEAP con

environmental educators from Project Learning Tree, Washington State Forest P
Association (WEP A), Project WILD, the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (
Project WET, Department of Energy (DOE) and the WA OSPI.

The goa

assessment was to determine through sound quantitative analysis if EE improve
learning.

Their report was the first of its kind in the nation to examine

performance and student learning change as a result of EE.

This study

examining 2,116 public and private schools in the state of Washington.

In 2002, the EEAP completed its study of students in Washington Stat

included 77 pairs of EE and non-EE schools. The "EE schools" had EE for at le

years with a minimum of 20% of the teachers and a minimum of 33% of the
participating in an EE program.

Students attending schools with EE i

throughout the school and curriculum were found to have higher test sc

standardized tests over comparison schools with traditional curricula. In addi

mean percentage of students who met the standards for the WASL and the IT

higher in the schools with environmental programs (Bartosh, 2003) . It is remark
schools having only 20% of the teaching staff involved in teaching EE were

meeting the standards set by the state.

Included in the GCEE report was the first statewide record of
participating in EE in Washington State.

In 2002 , working collaborativ

Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (WA OS

Northwest Environmental Education Council (NWEEC), and the Washingt

Office of Environmental Education (WA OEE) produced the Washingto

Environmental Education Needs Assessment (WSEENA). WSEENA surveyed a

and private schools listed by the OSPI, which included 2,651 schools in an at

show that EE improved student learning. Of the 27% who responded to the surv

reported that including EE in their instruction improved student learn
development. Seventy-seven percent were aware of the mandate for EE to be

all parts of the K-12 curriculum. Seventy-four percent were aware of EE's a

with the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) and the WAS

Eighty-seven percent desired more information regarding how EE can improve

learning (McWayne and Ellis, 2003). In a follow up report on this study Tony

former Director of the OSPI OEE, concluded the most frequently noted barriers
EE in schools were time, money and training (2002).

The first recommendation for the future of EE in WA by the GCEE is fo

planning process with a clear outline of goals and objectives for unifying a coo

approach to elevating the quality, quantity and delivery ofEE. There are many n

educational organizations that are interested and equipped to provide EE: i
aquariums, marine science centers, and environmental organizations. There

education about their respective natural areas (such as wildlife refuges) ,
management goals (related to sewage treatment, forests, or solid waste),
regulations (such as air and water quality) .

Other recommendations by th

include: the statewide infrastructure needs to be improved; funding needs s

identified and prioritized through the state planning process ; and adequate
provisions allowed by the legislature (McAuliffe et al., 2003).

Negative Critiques of EE

While there have been some critiques of EE, most of them have been la
as the field has evolved.

In the 1990s, some of the negative critique fo

misleading or biased information appearing in textbooks used in K-12 schools

and Shaw, 1996). Sanera and Shaw were on the right track pointing to sloppy o
incorrect material in many K-12 textbooks.

However, Sanera and Shaw's

condemn textbooks revealed their lack of knowledge about how EE is undertaken

schools. In school settings, EE practice has taken a strong and deliberate step aw

the use of textbooks to study outdoors where students can learn first-hand abo

and environmental issues in their community. Elementary students learn how to

the natural world as they learn about the myriad plants and animals that live in
Some school classes are connecting to the Nature Mapping website in order

their observations for anyone to see (Tudor, 2001). Fifth graders on up learn

monitor water quality in streams and lakes as they learn about wetlands and wa

Middle school and high school students learn how to think critically about envir

environmentalleaming is field and community-based, not textbook-driven.

A second element of the critique by Sanera and Shaw (1996) was that
exposed to EE were being trained to become activists. Sanera and Shaw found

where children were writing Congressional representatives about things th
nothing about, or where school children were attending political events with

Sanera and Shaw generalized from isolated incidents such as these to paint the w

field as irresponsible and politically motivated by an activist "green agenda." Sa

Shaw also failed to comprehend that learning how to participate in a democ

process where skills develop over time. Other educators argue that teaching ch

write letters to their representatives and other acts of responsible citizen par

should have been an integral part of public schooling since its inception becau

democracy is based on an engaged, informed, and active citizenry (Orr, 1993, Pi

Learning how to become civically engaged is billed as one of strengths of EE

and Shaw created a firestorm over isolated bad practices when much of EE

strives hard to create a balance, so that students learn to think and decide for th

how best to solve environmental problems and also learn the varied poli

economic processes for prevention and resolution of environmental problems
2000).

Throughout the Clinton years, Sanera and Shaw worked collaborativ

various conservative organizations at the state level in many different states to a

stymie EE. In Washington state, The Center for Environmental Education Re
Tucson, Arizona teamed up with the Evergreen Freedom Foundation in

(1999).

This report, strongly criticized by EE professionals in Washingt

nowhere and the assault on EE in the state of Washington ceased shortly thereaft

Even though Sanera and Shaw are no longer active, the controversial nat

continues to flare up. The heart of the controversy seems to be political im

surrounding concepts of sustainability, environmental protection, public he
natural resource protection. On April 25, 2004 a full- page advertisement was

in the Oregonian that attacks "Education for Sustainability" as a subversive plo

by the Green Party and from environmental groups to the Democratic left to "br
teachers and children to the values of the International Green Party.

The adve

titled, "It's Not Nice to Brainwash Kids," was funded by the for-profit orga
Operation Green Out! (Oregonian, 2004).
This fear-based and highly exaggerated attack demonstrates a

understanding about the goals, objectives, and practices of environmental e

Operation Green Out! claims that students , parents and teachers are being bra
by "Green extremists" similar to dictators such as Hitler and Lenin. It also

group called Second Nature, which it calls the "brainchild" of Senator Joh
Second Nature has been a respected resource center for faculty and instructors
education on EE and sustainability for well over a decade (MacGregor,
communication, 2004).

While it may be true that some EE practices have been irresponsible and
delivered, on the whole the profession has strived for balance, objectivity and

EE focuses its work on the development of critical thinking skills and teaching

differing points of view in an attempt to understand what the conflicting intere

order to work towards win/win solutions (Kurfiss, 1998; Schindler and Lap
Hungerford, 1996).
Environmental Education at the 35 Year Point

The field of EE was born at a time of growing alarm about environmenta

degradation. While there have been some real improvements to air and water qu

the U.S. over the past 35 years , a number of environmental problems have becom
worse.
•

Carbon dioxide levels taken from 11,400 ft. summit of Mauna Loa, Ha

increased each year for the past 46 years that measurements have been taken

2004). The last 4 years have seen three of the larges t increases on record. See F

and Figure 1.2. Many scientists have expressed repeated warnings regarding th
of the implications if global warming remains unchecked.
-

- - - --

---

- - -.._ - --~

M a u na Loa Mo n t h ly Mea n Carbon Dio xid e
,~ "

I

r '

1-' - .

A t;lY.~ pt,~,: ,,~-r: Cll :lI:.-::. d" m :n·:"Il:" !l~I1'l::: m &

tt: : D u '" ro :f· o l -l~r ;,, ' I ,Y " :':"O::n'!'l"

I

". :

.;'~ P'P 1 ~;l :-: ~ t = n o ro",,*. Oil-'rt···

:;10 .

'.

1"
.1'1l=_:.;" :. " ::ID "M .. t-C:ll lhr ' ;a:JOlW O -",\n: - alle;"''''ll: ::p..'''Il · :.';'' 1n Jn:: :~"l~l .J : O AA . :
;""::Wlf: ' ~:,)'T ~ '~: ·.' '' 1: n~ .-o' oTl ," m O': : lI ll ·"
PlllF l?,,1 m": " "':6"l en I), h ..·.., ":".. , ~s II()..,. ..... C!.IDL C,. t rr:; c',.,": " ~r "";}l~ lI.'" (jJlS-' " U'. ~ ,., ':c1 r.,.. :1o, in ; ..:0 -0"'- :;.
t:OII" S O'."~ x ::>: ~' . 11""1: 0 1: ..r. Illll: : ; I ~ 1.,, ; 01:.. C: "' : ~"' I.J '" . olo . " ).:.· (): l1l ..1iA .-.l. ; 1I ~. :n.1 .-Q.'

l:Y'IO ll ·. "': lI - ~

r t.-lI~ ~n(.J

---- -

Figur e 1.1

--

____J

(NOAA 2003)

Paleoclimate and CO 2 : Temperature and CO 2 Over the Last 1000
370

-

Temperature in degrees centigrade (compared with 1960-1990 baseline)

-

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (C0 2 in parts per million)

3S0

330

E

3 10

Q.
Q.

N

o

u 790

270

230
1000

roo

aoo

700

600

!lCO

-ion

3():J

200

100

0

Yea rs Bef o re Pres ent

Figure 1.2.

(Rees,

This graph provides no rthern hemisphere temperature approximations over the past 1000 years b
climate pro xies (dark blue) from tree ring data and thermometer based recording (lig ht blue ) (Ma
1994) . CO 2 concentrations (red) are those recorded in the Law Dome, East Antarctica ice core an
Mauna Loa monitoring station in Hawaii.

•

As of April 15, 2004, 122 nations have ratified or acceded to the Kyot

and 84 nations have signed (UNFCCC, 2004). Currently the United States is t

contributor to global greenhouses gasses generating 25% of the worlds' carbo
and has not yet signed the accord. See Figure 1.3 below.

6
Source: ORNI , SP , lEA, DOE,
LB! , !GU , Censu s Bureau

5
4
Tons
3
2

o

United
States

Germany

United
Japan
Kingd om

C hina

India

Carbon Emissions per Person in Selected Countrie s, 2002
(World Watch , 2003)

•

Loss of habitat and species continues to grow (Biodiversity Project, 2002

recent rollbacks of envirorunental laws and regulations at the federal le
exacerbate the situation.
•

U.S. Congressman Dennis Cardoza '(CA) has introduced a bill, H.R. 2

will severely limit the ability of the Endangered Species Act to protect en
species and their habitat. Instead of requiring habitat be designated at the time

is listed, critical habitat would be designated at the time a species' recovery
developed. Since deadlines for recovery plans do not exist, habitat designation

delayed. In addition, under this bill, the definition of critical habitat will be ch

"absolutely necessary and indispensable" to the conservation of the species. Th

make every designation by Fish and Wildlife open to litigation (USPIRG, 2003).
•

In a report released by Audubon Washington on May 6, 2003, of the 31

of birds found in Washington State 93 species and four subspecies are co
vulnerable or are identified as priority species for conservation action (Cullinan,
•

Mercury poisoning continues to be a problem causing birth defects, probl

the immune system, genetic and enzyme system alterations, and nerve damage in

where it is released as methylmercury in industrial emissions (USGS, 2000).
•

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are now ubiquitous worldwide carc

They bioaccumulate, thus becoming more concentrated as they move up the fo
(Bolin, 2002).

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) replaced PCBs

applications such as computers and textiles, and are now known to be equally h
to PCBs (WADOE, 2004).

Currently whale carcasses that wash on shor

contaminated with PCBs that they can be considered hazardous waste sites (Ro
2000) .
•

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (US COP) recently released a rep

the state of the world's oceans, which stated that over-fishing, pollution, and a ris
ocean temperature are severely affecting life in the ocean (US COP, 2004).

These are just a few examples of information about the state of the enviro
the world.

Clearly there is still a need for a citizenry that is informed a

environment and engaged in solving or preventing environmental problems. In
there remains a need for educational processes that focus on learning to think

concerning personal actions and the actions of others relative to envir
stewardship in order to work collaboratively to find solutions.

Assumptions

The underlying assumption of this thesis is that EE is capable of cre

environmentally literate society that can make positive environmental cho

behaviors and find solutions to environmental problems in its communities in

discuss the issues involved and they need critical thinking skills provided by
able to evaluate and understand perspectives of others.

Impetus for this Study and Background

Audubon Washington

Audubon Washington, the state office of the National Audubon So

generated the impetus for this study. The mission of the National Audubon So
(NAS) is "to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds,

wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth's biolo

diversity" (NAS, 2004). NAS wants to help create an environmentally literate so
that will be able to respond to the needs of the future.

One of the goals o

Audubon state office is to increase the culture of conservation in Washington a
establish Washington as a national leader.In environmental education.

Aud

Washington's EE goals include: 1.) To increase access to quality EE for childre

adults statewide; 2.) Increase funding for existing and planned EE program

Increase the institutionalization of EE in public schools and community prog

and 4.) Advance its mission and strategic plan to build a network of Audubon ce
throughout the state (Packard, personal communications, 2004).
Audubon Washington is interested in helping citizens

In

Washi

understand, appreciate, and therefore, seek out, support and demand more EE for
children and families.

Thus, Audubon Washington seeks to develop a po

awareness and understanding of EE. Because of this, Audubon Washington w

to survey the public to see what the current perceptions are towards EE and t

which messages regarding EE resonate with the public . Audubon believes tha

crucial to work with the public to develop a direction for the future. This for

marketing.

Social Marketing
Social marketing is a fairly new concept and practice that is derived

commercial marketing and behavioral psychology. In 1971, Philip Kotler and G

Zaltman coined the term "social marketing" in an article published in the Journ

Marketing. "Social marketing" was used initially to advance social behaviors re

to public health issues.

Initially family planning was the main venue for s

marketing which led to work on the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s and

1990s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has adopted social mark
into many of its programs.

Social marketing is currently used nationall y

internationally in business, public health, public policy, and environm
management (Kotler et al., 2002).

Social marketing is typically used by non-profits and government age

that are involved the tasks of changing behaviors of targeted groups (GreenC

2000). According to Alan Andreason (1995), social marketing is "the applicatio
commercial marketing technologies to the analysis, planning, execution

evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behavior of t

audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of society." It i

inverse of trying to coerce or force beliefs or behaviors on to the public. It

method of working with people, looking for common interests and beliefs,

natural environment and nurture healthy communities.

Differences Between Social and Commercial Marketing

Social marketing differs from commercial marketing because in comm

marketing, there are generally very clear goals such as a set percentage of m

penetration or introduction of product name. Commercial marketers generally

immense budgets to accomplish small results. In contrast, social marketers us

have extremely difficult challenges of motivating behavioral changes in tar

populations; these efforts often take on ambitious goals under severely rest
budgets (Andreason, 2000).
Differences Between Social and Commercial Marketers

Table 1

..

Social
Marketers
. ....
~

,

~., .

~

: - ~ -.

-

yv.a~,! to. do g?,<?d
Fun qe~ by taxes, ~~~ations
~u.bl~c1y, a~cou~tabl~

. .. ..

, ' .

.Commerciel
Marketers
.: - ".: .
.:
. :- '.
'" ., .
~

:';,:"- "."

.-~

-.':; '

Y'{~~! t~ ~~~~.m?D~Y , ".


" . ;~~.~c~e9 by i~~~~trn~r:'ts

F ~.i ~~!ely ~~C?u.~,t~.bl~ . ,


Performance
hard
to measure
.- . ', ,.
. -.

f~rf<?r[T1~~ce_ .~eas~r.e..~in profits, marketsha

~~.hav ~~ral. goals I~ng te~
Often target controversial
.behaviors
.
­
Often. choose
high risk targets
..' -.... ...
.... .... .

~~~avior~1 goa.',s ~h~~t_errn
.. ' .

Typically provide non-controversial

products/services


~

~

.

.

..: ~

."

~

.

~

Risk averse managers .
,Participative decision mak!n~
Relationships based on trust

'r"

.-

, .

" "' :

'. . - .

C~?,o~e a~c~ssible tarqets

" ~i.~k taking manag~r~ . _ .
H,i~rarchical ,de.c isio.n-n'laking
Relationships often competitive

(Andreason, 2000)

Commercial marketers traditionally teach the 4 Ps: product, price, plac
promotion. The product refers to what is sold; the price is what the customer

the place is where the product may be purchased; and the promotion is the adver

that draws in the customers. In social marketing, the product is the idea, bel

time, money or behavior change that the target audience will have to bear in or

achieve the product; the place is where or the media where the audience receive

message; the promotion is the message that draws attention to the product, an

participation, which is an additional P, refers to the input that the targeted aud

provides in order to implement the product. Sometimes in social marketing t

becomes Cs, changing from an organization perspective to an audience perspe

The four Cs are "consumer" wants and needs, "cost" to satisfy these wants and n
"convenience" to obtain them, and "communication" (Shewchuk, 1994).

Social marketers typically use a 5-step process for creating behavior ch

such as the one used by GreenCOM. GreenCOM is the Environmental Educatio
, -­

Communications Project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Develop
(USAID) that promotes "strategic participatory communications" worldwide to

sustainable environmental practices. The first step in the GreenCOM model

assess the target audience to try to understand why people carry out certain beha

In the assessment, it is important to find out what the differences are between p
who carry out the desired behaviors and those who do not.

The second step is the design and planning step and the purpose is to fi

incentive that will satisfy the target audience in order to get them to adopt the de
behavior.

This step should answer the question for the audience, "What is in

me?" The messages that social marketers craft need to answer this question

looking at the benefits and barriers, a message is designed that people will be
likely to relate to. In the third step, these messages are usually tested on a

information helps determine how to implement the message.

The fourth step is the implementation step, which includes various for

message delivery, and the fifth step consists of monitoring and evaluation. Ch
in the messages may be needed as the needs of the audience change over
Therefore the monitoring and evaluating may result in changes that then need

pretested and revised before the next round of implementation. See Figure 2.1 b

(GREENCOM,2000)

Figure 2.1

Les Robinson has introduced a new model of social marketing that inv

seven steps to social change (1998). He states that each step should be express

an affirmation or positive step even though each is actually a barrier. He sug
viewing the seven steps as a set of seven doors . See Figure 2.2 .

1

'2

Figure 2.2

(Robinson,

In this model knowledge and awareness present the first obstacle to beh

change in that people must know that there is a problem, that there are alternativ

solutions to the problem, and that there are personal costs to inaction. The se
step involves the use of imagination so that people can see a different and

future for themselves . This use of imagination ideally creates desire. (This s

often used in commercial marketing when products are marketed with a sexy i
to create desire in the form of lust, fear, envy or greed.)

The third step inv

developing skills. Skills must be introduced: for example, a video might pr
images of people performing the desired behavior or a booklet might offer

instructions. Step 4 is the facilitation of the personal behavior by providing ser

and infrastructure to enable people to perform the desired behavior: for exa
curbside recycling programs provide residents with special recycling cans or

Step 5 involves the transmittance of optimism or confidence. Robinson is un

about how this would be achieved, although he suggests that community leade
may be important here. Step 6 is the stimulation that compels people to act.

could be incentives, positive or negative, or a community event such as a teleth

public meeting or a festival. The seventh and last step is feedback and reinforce

out through the reinforcement of messages (Robinson, 2004).

The advantages to the Robinson model appear to be the planned comm
event to launch a new campaign and the feedback that is provided to the

audience. The weaknesses appear to be a lack of specific methods for transm

optimism or confidence, and a lack of evaluation and modification within the mo

The Robinson model of social marketing, with its incentives and facilitat

designed to change behaviors over a short period of time. According to M

Rothschild, both commercial and social marketing are about influencing indiv

who act out of self-interest and change their behavior only when there is a perc

benefit. Marketers who lack formal training must not underestimate the self-in

of the target, and the need to invest time in learning from the target aud
(Rothschild, 1999).

Social marketing, simply stated, involves using commercial mark
principles to induce behavioral changes that benefit individuals and society.

behavioral changes were initially related to public health issues but have expand
include environmental issues as well.

The 5-step GreenCOM model invol

feedback loop to ensure close contact with the targeted population in ord

maintain awareness of any changes in its wants and needs. The 7-step Rob

model appears to focus most of its work in the planning and implementation p

This model does not include an initial assessment of the target audience

emphasizes using educators to help people overcome barriers. In addition, whi

Robinson model suggests providing feedback to the target audience, it men

loop is one of the strengths of the GreenCOM model.

Ideally, a more effe

program would include elements from both the GreenCOM model and the Rob

model. Community-based social marketing developed by Doug McKenzie-Mo
the late 1990s does exactly that.

Community-Based Social Marketing

Community-based social marketing is social marketing designed specif

to enhance the efforts of the movement towards sustainability. Community-

social marketing is a pragmatic approach that involves identifying barriers

benefits to a specific sustainable behavior, designing a strategy that uses beh

change tools, piloting the strategy with members in a community, and then evalu

the program once it has been implemented (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1

Community-based social marketing is important because McKenzie-Mohr and S

add extensive research on behavior change and psychology to marketing princ

Probably the most important feature of community-based social marketing i
community focus: face-to-face interactions with people.
Identifying the barriers and benefits is a crucial step in the community-

social marketing process . There are three steps to identifying barriers and be

regarding a behavior change. The first step involves a thorough literature re

regarding the activity targeted for change. The second step involves observa

studies of people already carrying out the desired behavior. McKenzie-Mohr a

that direct observation is more beneficial than self-reporting by individuals beca

second step also uses focus groups to question people who carry out the d

behaviors. The third step uses the information gleaned from the first two quali
steps to create a survey that can be quantitatively analyzed.

There are four behavior change tools recommended by McKenzie-Mohr

first behavior change tool is getting a commitment from an individual that he/sh

try a new behavior. Written commitments have been shown to be more effective

verbal commitments. Second, developing community norms that encourage peo

behave more sustainabl y is a second helpful tool. Peers engaging in the desired

behaviors have tremendous influence in getting others to change their beha

Third, direct personal contact by individuals making direct appeals to othe

change behaviors is a key tool in the community-based social marketing pr

This can be in the form of training community block leaders to model behavio

their neighbors . This modeling of behaviors also creates the social norms that m
easier for others to follow. Prompts are the fourth tool in the community-based
marketing strategy that helps to remind people to follow through with

commitment to a new sustainable behavior. Prompts should be noticeable, ex
and encouraging (McKenzie-Mohr, 1999).

Pilot testing a small portion of the community can be a major cost s

factor of the community-based social marketing strategy. Conducting pilot s

allows for changes to be made in the implementation before the effort is perform

a large scale. The pilot test also demonstrates how effective the program is lik

support from funders.

Once the study has been implemented throughout the community

community-based social marketing approach encourages timely evaluations o

program. This evaluation looks at direct measurement of behavior change and
not rely on self-reports or changes in awareness about behavior.

B

implementing a program it is important to establish a baseline measurement

given behavior in order to be able to gauge the efficacy of the program aft
implementation.

It is important to provide feedback about the progress

regarding the new behavior to the community so that the community ca

encouraged. This feedback will also help create a social norm supporting the
behavior.

Social Marketing of Environmental Education

Using social marketing strategies, the first step for Audubon Washingto

to clearly define the goals of this project. Audubon 's primary goal is to crea

environmentally literate society by strengthening and developing formal and

formal environmental education in Washington. Audubon Washington was inter

in using a social marketing strategy to learn about public awareness, knowledg

attitudes about EE. Audubon realized that messages must be designed to me

needs of target audiences in order to be effective, so they wanted to test mes
about what EE professionals understand are the benefits of EE. They asked

the literature to understand what research of this nature had been done.

Review of the Polls Regarding General Public

In 1992, the Times Mirror Magazines, in a collaborative effort with R

Starch, initiated the National Report Card to assess environmental knowled

America. In 1995, the National Environmental Education and Training Found

(NEETF) took over the project and this organization has continued to work

Roper Starch to survey the public each year in order to gauge changes in what p

know over time. This annual survey averages approximately 2000 responden

years of age and over each year. The interviews are conducted by telephon
households are randomly selected.
This environmental survey by NEETF IRoper in 1997 and 2000 asked:
you think environmental education should be taught in schools?" In 2000, 95%

respondents across the U.S. approved of environmental education, up one perce

point from 1997. In addition to this phenomenally high response rate, 86
Americans agreed

that government should

support environmental educ

programs. Fifty-seven percent of respondents agreed that EE helps prepare ch

to better understand environmental issues as adults and 50% agreed that it te

children to respect people and places around them (NEETFlRoper, 2001). Becau
the high level of positive support for EE in the 1997 and 2000 NEETF/Roper

the next logical step would be to find out in more detail what the public know

thinks about EE. To date there have not been any in-depth studies on public atti

communication, 2003 ; Ruskey, personal communication, 2003 ; and MacGr
personal communication, 2003).

In these surveys about attitudes toward the environment, gender differ
have been noted with women favoring environmental protection over men.

example in the 1998 NEETFlRoper survey , 51% of women felt that regulati

protect the environment should be stronger, while only 41% of the men held
opinion (NEETF/Roper, 1999). In the 1999 survey, knowledge questions were

to see if people were better informed about how energy is produced, where trash
up and what the major sources of water and air pollution are.

While 70%

themselves as having either a lot or a fair amount of environmental education, 66

Americans scored a "D" or lower on the knowledge quiz of fairly eleme

environmental concepts. These surveys also revealed that environmental know

is impacted by level of education. Respondents with some college or a college d

scored significantly higher than those with a high school diploma. Age also w

factor that correlated with higher test scores. Americans age 35-54 had the hi

environmental knowledge scores while those 65 and above scored the lowest. R

also displayed interesting results as Americans from the West boasted the hi

scores in environmental knowledge while Americans from the South score

lowest. The questions with the largest differences in scores among the four regio

the nation were those that asked about biodiversity, disposal of nuclear waste
ability to name an example of a renewable resource. Lastly suburban residents

residents (NEETFlRoper, 2000).

In the past decade , the Biodiversity Project, an organization devot

promoting the preservation and conservation of the diversity of plant and a
species, commissioned Belden and Russonello Research and Communic

(BRRC) , a private survey firm, to conduct several surveys on biodiversity issues

BRRC found in a nationwide survey in 1996 of 2,000 adults, that only 19% o
American public was familiar with the term "biological diversity."

Despite

response , 45% defined biological diversity or biodiversity as loss of sp

(Biodiversity Project , 2002). In 2002, 30% of the respondents were familiar wi

term, and 33 % knew what it meant. Often people are unfamiliar with terms b
able to make educated guesses as to their meanings.

In the 2002 survey 58

Americans believe that it is their responsibility to future generations to leave nat

good shape. Sixty-two percent felt that it was very important that we have s

protections to ensure that our natural treasures in the U.S. are not destr
Demographic groups including women , African Americans, Hispanics, and

year-olds ranked the intrinsic value of nature significantly higher than other g
(The Biodiversity Project , 2002).

There were no questions on these su

specifically about EE.

In The 22nd Annual Gallup Poll of the Public 's Attitudes Toward the P

Schools published by Phi Delta Kappan in 1990, respondents were asked to rank

they would like their public high schools to teach beyond the basics . Environm

issues and problems were ranked fifth in a list of 12 items. Drug abuse educatio

education (Elam, 1990).

EE was followed in importance by teen pregnancy, d

education, character education, parenting/parent training, dangers of nuclear w
dangers of nuclear war and communism/socialism. There was no explanation

how each education topic was selected for this list. Ten years later in the 32nd A
Gallop Poll, environmental issues rated third in importance out of three topics

drug and alcohol abuse and racial and ethnic understanding and tolerance. Ques
about the environment were not included in the 33rd, 34th , 35th Annual Gallup
administered in 2001, 2002 and 2003
Review of Teacher Surveys and Focus Groups

Even though the general public has been only superficially surveyed a
their attitudes toward EE, teachers have been interviewed and surveyed more

than the general public in regards to their knowledge and attitudes about EE. W

they do not necessarily represent the general public's view of EE, te

perspectives may provide some insight into questions that should be asked o

general public. As a group, teachers seem to be very positive about EE, espec

those who have integrated it into their teaching methods (Lieberman and Ho
1998; Kearney, 1999; McCrae and deBettencourt, 2000; Angell, 2002; and

2003). The strong support for EE by teachers would probably make an exce

message to market to the public. It is possible that the public is not aware o
positive attitude teachers have for teaching EE.

In 1998, the State Education and Environmental Roundtable (SE

attempted to illustrate the positive effects of using the environment as an integr

from 12 states:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

California Department of Education
Colorado Department of Education
Florida Office of Environmental Education
Iowa Department of Education
Kentucky Environmental Education Council
Maryland State Department of Education
Minnesota Department of Education
Minnesota Green Print Council
New Jersey Department of Education
Ohio Department of Education
Pennsylvania Department of Education
Texas Education Agency
Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction

The Environment as an Integrating Context (EIC) framework explicate
SEER implies interdisciplinary, collaborative, student-centered, hands-on,
engaged learning.

In this study, SEER interviewed and surveyed more than

teachers and administrators, 400 students, and a few parents and alumni fro

schools including 15 elementary, 13 middle , and 12 high schools. All 40 sc

were actively engaged in using methods congruent with the EIC framework. I

report, students and their teachers reported improvements in all academic

behavioral areas (Lieberman and Hoody, 1998). The study appears to have

weaknesses that are not addressed in the report. First, it does not include test r

specific to EE curriculum. Based on the report, teachers seem to use the metho

EE without the content (or at least content is not described); however, the me

alone appear to be helping both students and teachers a great deal. Second, the r

from this study might have been more meaningful if a comparison group of no
schools had been included.

there are no significant differences between EE and non-EE teachers in terms of

perceptions of EE, attitudes towards the environment and the demographic vari

of age, education and gender. Teaching variables such as length of service and

size also did not show any significant differences nor did the school variables su

location and income level of students. The primary difference found was tha

teachers were more likely to teach math and science than English, social studi
history.

More training on effective EE teaching strategies might facilitat

integration ofEE into liberal arts classrooms (Kearney, 1999).

In a survey conducted by the Survey Research Center at the Universi
Maryland for the NAAEE and the Environmental Literacy Council, researchers
teachers both why they taught EE and why they did not. They found that the

reason teachers teach about the environment is to encourage students to be acti
protecting the environment. Over 50% of the teachers listed this as their pr
reason.

The second most reported reason at 22.4% was that teachers wa

demonstrate that what students are learning in class is relevant to their everyday

The remaining teachers who were not teaching EE (48.8%) reported that they di
teach about the environment because it was not relevant to their curriculum.

second most commonly cited reason for not teaching about the environment (27

was that teachers said they had too much other material to cover (McCrea
deBettencourt, 2000).

A more recent study done by the Environmental Education and Tra

Partnership (EETAP) in 2002 involved focus groups of non-science te

order to develop messages about EE and EE training using language and know

about EE that is already familiar to the teachers. Five focus groups were held w

total of 51 participants. The pilot focus group was conducted in Wisconsin Ra

Wisconsin. Two study focus groups were held in Appleton, WI and two were h

Alexandria, Virginia. As an icebreaker, teachers were asked to comment on

comfortable they were to trying new materials and methodologies in their classro

Most responded that they were willing to try new things if there was a good re

for doing so, but they wanted to have adequate training and connections to curric
standards in order to be effective.

Participants were then asked to "react to the phrase 'environmental educ

with the first words or comments to come out of their mouths." Six themes em
from the participants' reactions .

First and foremost, respondents listed cu

environmental issues . Second, EE was considered an extension of science.

remaining themes included EE was associated with natural resources professio

with environmental actions, and negatively associated with words such as vag
boring, and lastly negatively associated with "environmentalism."

Researchers for EETAP also found in this study that the best way to di
EE is not to call it "environmental education" because the phrase causes

teachers to "tune out" too quickly. By continuing to refer to EE when mess

teachers, it might mean that teachers will be unlikely to listen to messages
include EE in them . Teachers will be more likely to listen when the educational

of EE has been demonstrated with specific examples of success (Holsman, 2002

illuminate precisely what this perception was based on.

The drawback to

groups in general is the limitation to the number and range of people qu

Depending on the experience of the moderator, peer pressure can unduly infl

respondents if nothing is done to prevent it, or clarify everyone's perception
focus group.

Despite some negative feedback about the term "environm

education," researchers found that connections to standards were clearly the
important factor in deciding to incorporate EE into classroom teaching.

Results from a survey conducted in Washington State showed different r

than those posted by the EETAP focus groups. In this survey, which was deve

by the Northwest Environmental Education Council and the Washington State O

of Environmental Education, researchers found that 70% of the educator respon

said that EE in their instruction was an important factor in improving student lea

and development (Angell, 2002). Eighty-seven percent requested more inform
on how EE could help improve student learning.

Summary of Literature Review

Based on a review of the literature about public perceptions of EE, it bec

clear that this topic has received scant attention by EE researchers and is in ne
further investigation.

The studies by Roper/Starch provide the most rel

information, but their questions are too few in number to answer all the question
Audubon Washington and others want to know.

From the dearth of inform

available on the general public's interest in EE, it is apparent that further investig

teachers , all reports reveal either teachers ' enthusiasm for the effects that EE ha

in generating student interest in the classroom or teachers' interest in learning
about EE.

Research Design and Methods

Survey Development

The survey design team for this project included Jean MacGregor, Co-D

the National Learning Communities Project at The Washington Center for Im
Quality of Undergraduate Education at The Evergreen State College , Heath
Field Director at Audubon Washington, Nina Carter, Policy Director at Audu

and myself. In this chapter the term "we" and "our" refer to the survey design t

Chapter 2 indicated , there is very little information about what the general publ

and believes about environmental education (EE). Our project aimed to learn

general public in Washington State would respond to the messages that EE prof

use to market their programs. Audubon and other professional environmental e

use a variety of messages that can be organized under four core areas . These
environmental, academic, economic and community messages:

Environment
• EE creates and environmentally literate citizenry.
• EE demonstrates a link between environmental health and human health.
• EE shows how preventing pollution is cheaper than clean up and mitigatio
• EE encourages preservation of our natural heritage .
• EE helps conserve and restore our natural environment.
Academic
• EE increases academic achievement.
• EE decreases behavioral problems in the classroom.
• EE promotes critical thinking.
• EE makes the learning relevant to students, teachers and parents .
Economic
• EE promotes a sustainable economy.
• EE promotes stewardship of natural resources.
• EE saves money because it costs less to prevent environmental problems
clean them up.

fields.
Community
• EE helps learners resolve conflicts.
• EE connects children with their communities.
• EE engages communities in schools and student learning.
• EE promotes opportunities for community involvement.

Developing and testing which of these messages resonate with the genera

is part of Audubon Washington's strategic plan to establish an environmentally li
citizenry in Washington. This plan incorporates five steps:

• Create partner organizations by coordinating and engaging diverse stakeh
groups;

• Identify key locations and constituencies for EE advancement such as sch
parents and businesses;
• Develop and test public messages;

• Deliver the messages through spokespersons via media stories, editorials,
to the editors, and stakeholder forums and meetings; and

• Expand EE advocacy through Audubon centers and chapters, state and lo

agencies, the "State ofEE in Washington" Report, Governor's Council on

Environmental Education Association of Washington, and state and feder
policy and funding mechanisms.

Our purpose in using a social marketing strategy to perform an in-depth s

the general public was to provide a more nuanced understanding of public knowl

opinions relating to EE. We also wanted to discover to what degree different gro

gender, age, occupation, level of education, parent or grandparent of children u

19, political views, area of residence, and level of community involvement) h

aquariums and other paid-admission wildlife parks) statewide. In addition we

99 visitors to a post-office and 64 EE professionals to provide comparisons to th
to the environmental learning center study group.

Questions for this survey were derived from many publications on E

numerous conversations with leaders in the field of EE, and from the survey desi

The EE leaders who provided feedback for early drafts of the survey includ

Ruskey, President of the Board of the North American Association for Enviro

Education and Co-Director of the National Environmental Education Adva
Project; Kevin Coyle, Director of the National Environmental Education and

Foundation; Joe Heimlich, Program Leader of Environmental Sciences at Oh

University; Kathryn Owen , Audience Research Coordinator of Woodland P
Rachelle

Donnette,

Education

and

Outreach

Specialist

of Thurston

Environmental Health; and Jean MacGregor, Co-Director of the National

Communities Project at The Washington Center for Improving Quality of Under
Education at The Evergreen State College and my thesis advisor.

For cla

discussion of the development of the questions will follow the order in wh
appeared in the survey. The complete survey, as presented to respondents, is
Appendix C.

Q. 1. Were you aware that there is a field of study known as environmental
education?
a.
Yes
b.
No

"environmental education."

Circle the item that is closest to your opinion.

2. How well could you explain what environmental education is t
Moderately well
Very W
friend? Not at all
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Question 2 was designed to see how well people think they can ex
concept of environmental education to someone else.

When people state that

able to explain a concept, they generally have a fairly good understanding of it.

wanted to find out what respondents learned as a ch ild or a teenager in relation to

3. As a child or teenager, were you ever educated by anyone
in school or out of school about:
a) The natural environment?
b) Environmental problems such as air
and water pollution?
c) Preventing environmental problems?
d) Ways to clean up environmental
problems?

1. Yes

2. No

3.

Can't Rem

1. Yes
1. Yes

2. No
2. No

3.
3.

Can't Rem
Can't Rem

1. Yes

2. No

3.

Can' Rem

The purpose of Question 3 was to find out if older adults have had less

to EE than younger adults, and if there are age differences as well between the
information received.

We were curious as to whether awareness of envir

problems has grown in recent years. If so then we would expect younger adult
had more exposure to EE related to environmental problems.

4-A. Think about your childhood and
teen years. Consider how frequently
you engaged in environmental
learning through each of the following
sources . Circle a number below for
each item listed.
Not
.plicable

Never

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Rarely OccasionalIy

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Environmental

Learning

Sources:


Often

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3


2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

a.

b.
c.

d.

I~
a

11

I·
~.

I.
Ill .
II.

o.
p.

q

s,

t.
ll .

v.

nature centers
zoos
aquanums
museums
service clubs (Rotary, etc.)
hobbies/hobby clubs
religious institutions
family members
local/regional, environmental
organizations. (Audubon, etc
TV programs
friends
radio
newspapers
magazmes
academic journals
websites
community service orgs
science centers
school
work place
parks/refuges
other

In order to quantify a respondent's exposure frequency to EE, Question 4
possible sources of environmental learning.

Respondents were asked to

frequently they engaged in environmental learning for each of the following sou
as a child (4A) and as an adult (4B).

environmental learning through each
ofthe following sources. Circle a
number below for each item listed.

a.
h
c.

d

e.

r
g.
h.

'-

k.

L
111.

11.

o.
p.
q.
r.

s.

r.
1I.

v.

nature centers
zoos
aquanums
museums
service clubs (Rotary, etc.)
hobbies/hobby clubs .
religious institutions
family members
local/regional, environmental
organizations. (Audubon, etc.)
TV programs
friends
radio
newspapers
magazmes
academic journals
websites
community service orgs
science centers
school
work place
parks/refuges
other

Learning

Sources:

Not
Applicable

Never

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Rarely Occasionally

I
I
I

1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1

O

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

The purpose for this lengthy question wa s two-fold. First, we wanted to
what were the top sources of exposure to environmental education as a child and

the top sources of current exposure as adults. This may provide useful inform

organizations as they consider where to focus their EE outreach. Second, by tot

responses to exposure frequencies, we hope to establish a scale for the am

exposure each respondent had as a young person and as an adult. This scale co

community involvement, and levels of concern about the environment.

Definition:

Environmental education is life-long learning that aims to increase
people's knowledge and awareness about the environment, to provid
people with the necessary skills and expertise to make informed
environmental decisions, and to live responsibly in the world.

At the top of page two of the survey, a definition of EE was provided t

the respondent that the survey's scope included but was not limited to publi

education. This definition , created by the design team, was a modified version o

Stapp definition as seen on page 3 (Stapp, 1969). It incorporates the latest nati

internationally accepted definition of EE. We attempted to write as "user-fri

definition as we could. It was placed on the second page so that respondents c
out the questions on the first page without being influenced by the definition .
point in the survey, we wanted to begin assessing respondents ' opinions about

suspected that many respondents might be unfamiliar with the term EE, but g

questions on page one and this definition , they would be able to offer opinions ab

5. Indicate how important the role of environmental education is in
helping to meet the following needs of society today and in the futur
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

a. Helps preserve living things

.

Not
Important
2

3

Not
Sure
4

5

6

EE plays in the conservation of biodiversity. The term "biodiversity" was

because according to a poll done by Belden, Russonello and Stewart in 2002,

respondents in a nationwide survey were not familiar with this term (The Bio
Project, 2002).

5. Indicate how important the role of environmental education is in
helping to meet the following needs of society today and in the futur
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Not
Important

Not
Sure

Im

b. Helps maintain a healthy environment
for people to live in................................. 1

2

3

4

5

6

d. Helps promote long-term sustained use of
natural resources. ............................. .......

1

2

3

4

5

6

e. Helps prevent expensive environmental
problems in the future ..............................

1

2

3

4

5

6

2

3

4

5

6

f. Helps prepare young people and people in the
work-force to address complex environmental
problems ............................................. 1

Questions 5 b, d, e and f were based on the desire to test the EE m

promoted by the Office of Environmental Education under the Environmental P

Agency (EPA) that were published by the National Environmental Education A
Council in 1996.

These messages were value statements created by the E

Director of the North American Association of Environmental Education (NAA

McCrea, in 1993 and "neatly straddle the preservation-utilitarian dichotomy" (D

1997 p. 29). These five claims state that EE helps ensure the health and welfa

environmental field, promoting environmental

protection along

with

e

development, and encouraging stewardship of natural resources (EPA, 1999). T

"stewardship" was dropped because of its religious connotations, which we thoug
cause some mixed results.

The fifth message, "EE advances quality educatio

placed in Question 8, which discussed the role of EE in helping the needs of chil
young people today.

5. Indicate how important the role of environmental education is in
helping to meet the following needs of society today and in the futur
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.
c. Helps preserve the beauty of nature and
scenery

Not
lnwortant

1

2

Not
Sure
3

4

I

5

6

The final message tested in Question 5 was "EE helps preserve the b

nature and scenery." The idea for this question came from a poll undertaken

Biodiversity Project in 2002. It related to Audubon's longstanding interest in e
the public about nature and natural history.

This question looked at the impor

the intrinsic nature for its beauty and not for utilitarian purposes. We wanted to
people view the role ofEE in helping to protect nature.

claims about environmental education (EE).
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.
Strongly
Disagree

b) EE teaches students to view humans as
destructive to the earth

Disagree

Not
Sure

Agree

St
A

1

2

3

4

5

6

d) EE has no place in public school education..

1

2

3

4

5

6

e) EE needs to stay away from controversial
issues

1

2

3

4

5

6

g) EE makes learners unduly worried about
environmental problems

1

2

3

4

5

6

j) EE preaches environmental activism.........

1

2

3

4

5

6

1) EE is not urgently needed now

1

2

3

4

5

6

The 13 messages tested in Question 6 asked to what extent the responden

or disagreed with claims about EE. The claims were a mixture of both pos

negative messages about EE. The purpose of the negative claims was to create a

in the survey between claims favorable and unfavorable to EE. We also wante
claims negative to EE that have been put forward by EE critics; we wanted to
how wide the public support is for these negative claims.

One of the early critiques of EE was that too much "gloom and doom" m

been presented by some teachers to beginning elementary school students and p
the formulation of the question 6(b) and (g) above.

Nancy Bray Cardozo

editorial published in Audubon magazine (1994) in response to her six

daughter's comments about being upset about sleeping in her "dead tree bed" aft
"killed peas" for dinner. Cardozo believes that her daughter received negative

about humans from the environmental education she received at school. Cardoz

cycling of nutrients, etc. during early elementary school years. She preferred

extinction, vanishing rain forests, and ruined waterways explained with an e

perspective. Cardozo felt that children were being taught that humans were int

nature and that it is more important that EE teaches that we must work to save o

rather than to save the earth since the earth will still be around long after w
extinct.

In a different critique by another individual outside of the EE pr

Jonathan Adler wrote that children were being scared into environmental

(1993) . Because of these critiques about EE, we wanted to know if the "gl
doom" view of EE has widespread agreement or not among the general public.

Claim 6 (d) was added to measure the strength of support for or against E

public schools . Since EE occurs both in public schools and in other venues, we w
know what our respondents might be thinking just about EE in public schools.

We were curious if respondents might have any concerns about d
controversial issues while they learned about the environment. The purpose
determined in Tbilisi in 1977 is to learn how to think critically in order
environmental problems.

We wanted to see if respondents agree or not

fundamental purpose of EE.

Claim 6(j) initially read that EE preaches environmental "extremism." Du
second pilot testing of this question, a quarter of the respondents asked what we
extremism. We realized after some deliberation that some of the critiques of

that EE teaches activism, not extremism, so we changed the wording to reflect t

use of the word "preaches" in the claim was to provide a negative slant to the que

respondents believe the current need for EE is.

6. Please tell us the extent to which you agree or disagree with thes
claims about environmental education (EE).
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Strongly
Disagree

a) EE is the best investment because
it costs less to prevent environmental
problems than to clean them

Disagree

1

2

Not
Sure

3

Agree

4

5

The State of Kentucky's EE Master Plan emphasizes the economic benef

regarding pollution prevention (KEEC , 1998). Leaders in Kentucky believe that

save their state millions of dollars in clean up of waterways, roads, and illegal du
they are committing significant resources to make this happen.

For this

however, we were curious to see in Question 6(a) if a certain level of edu
necessary in order to understand the possible cost savings ofEE.

6. Please tell us the extent to which you agree or disagree with thes
claims about environmental education (EE).
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.
f) EE should be a central goal in
public school education

Stron gly
Disagree
I

Disagree

2

3

Not
Sure

4

Agree

5

S
A

6

Question 6(f) attempted to find out if people value EE enough to place it

in the core curriculum of public education. We felt this was a difficult question

EE is a new concept for many people. Many types of education attempt social be

abuse education, sex education, etc. Question 6(f) addresses very complex iss
could obviously develop into a separate survey topic.

6. Please tell us the extent to which you agree or disagree with these
claims about environmental education (EE).
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Strongly
Disagre e

c) EE shows learners that they should playa
positive role in the care of the environment. . ... . 1

Disagree

2

3

Not
Sure

Agree

4

S

6

5

Question 6(c) attempted to see if people believe that EE has a role in
people see that their individual actions make a difference when caring
environment (Hart, 1997).

6. Please tell us the extent to which you agree or disagree with these
claims about environmental education (EE).
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Strongly
Disagree

h) EE can help people make the connection between
a healthy environment and human health
1

Disagree

Not
Sure

2

4

3

Agree

5

St
A
6

Question 6(h) was slightly different than Question 5(b), which asked to

importance of "EE helping to maintain a healthy environment for people to live

question investigated whether respondents agree that EE is able to link enviro
health to human health issues.

claims about environmental education (EE).
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Strongl y
Disagree

i) EE is essential for preparing learners
for jobs later in life

I

Disagree

2

3

Not
Sure

Agree

St

4

5

6

The purpose of Question 6(i) related to EPA language about the workf

attempted to ascertain whether respondents recognize the importance of EE in p
for the future work force.

6. Please tell us the extent to which you agree or disagree with thes
claims about environmental education (EE).
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Strongly
Disagree

k) EE challenges learners to understand different
perspectives on complex issues

I

Disagree

2

3

Not
Sure

Agree

4

5

The teaching of critical thinking skills is considered one of the strength

and is an area that has been neglected in current K-12 and many college and u

teaching methodologies (Gardiner, 1994; Kurfiss , 1988). To think critically a

must look at a variety of viewpoints , consider the arguments, discuss the alternat
create solutions (Hungerford et aI., 1980; Stapp and Wals, 1992). Since "critical
skills" could be construed as education jargon, we phrased this question to
readily understandable to those outside of the field of education.

claims about environmental education (EE).
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Strongly
Disagree

m) National, state and local governments
should support and fund EE programs

1

Disagree

2

Not
Sure

Agree

4

3

5

6

Since limited funding is considered one of the barriers to more wid

teaching of EE, Question 6(m) wanted to know if respondents support gov
funding for EE.

In the RoperlNEETF National Report Card on Enviro

Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors Report of 2001, 86% of respondents agr

government agen cies should support environmental programs for adults. In th

study 82% agreed that private companies should train their employees t
environmental problems. The question posed in this study was more specific

wanted to know if respondents support government funding of EE programs. Q
6(m) did not specify if it were for adults or children.

7. How concerned are you about the Very Unconcerned
state of our environment today ... Unconcerned

Neutral

Concerned

Co

a. in the world? .. ...... . .. ... . . .. . .. . .. . ... . . .. 1

2

3

4

5

6

b. in the United States? . .. .. ... . .. .. ... ... ... . 1

2

3

4

5

6

c. in Washington State? .... .... .. . ... ... . .... 1

2

3

4

5

6

d. in your community? .... . . .. .. .. .. .. ... . ... 1

2

3

4

5

6

Kevin Coyle of the National Environmental Education and Training Fo

recommended Question 7. In other surve ys, results have shown that people tend
the rest of the world as more polluted than their local community (Coyle,

results . Having a measure of level of concern also provides an interesting factor
there are correlations with this and other variables in the survey .

8. Indicate how important the role of environmental education is in he
to meet the following needs of children/young people today?
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Not
Important

a. Helps students perform better in school.

I

Not
Sure
2

3

4

I
5

6

The next set of questions asks respondents' opinions about how impor

see EE is in helping to meet the needs of young people today. Question 8(a) is

EPA claim to be tested, which states that EE advances academic performance. I

"advancing academic performance" this message was reworded to say, "E

students perform better in school." This message has been tested in numerous

surveys and is strongly supported by those teachers who implement EE in the c

(NEETF, 2000; Kearney, 1999; SEER, 1998; NAAEE, 2000; Hart, 2003; Ange

Ballantyne et al., 2000; and Bartosh, 2002). In many teacher surveys , teachers a

EE makes the learning relevant and dramatically increases students' interest, invo

and performance. We hoped this question would unveil how familiar the public
this information.

8. Indicate how important the role of environmental education is in
helping to meet the following needs of children/young people today
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Not
Important

Not
Sure

c. Helps young people feel connected to their
community through service projects

\

2

3

4

5

6

d. Helps connect young people with nature

I

2

3

4

5

6

The National Audubon Society has chapters and a growing network of

Centers throughout the United States, which bring adults and youth together as v
to learn about birds and the natural world, build and monitor birdhouses, plant

shrubs for wildlife and habitat enhancement, and clear invasive plants along w

other community service projects. They believe these projects help young peo

connections to their community and to nature , and they want to know if the pu

makes this connection in Question 8(c). Environmental educator David Sobel al

a compelling argument for service work for children beginning in adolescence
believes that service work will show students the relevancy of what they study
(1996).

8. Indicate how important the role of environmental education is in
helping to meet the following needs of children/young people today?
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Not
Important

e. Helps young people learn to take care of
themselves in the outdoors

I

Not
Sure

2

3

4

Im

5

6

In our initial pilot testing of the survey a citizen who grew up in rural Wa

pointed out that we had missed a key reason for EE for people in her hometown

an interesting and valid addition to the survey, and used her exact wording.

8. Indicate how important the role of environmental education is in
helping to meet the following needs of children/young people today?
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Not
Important

b. Helps prepare young people to make
informed decisions as consumers
f. Helps prepare young people to make
informed decisions when they become
voters

1

,

Not
Sure

2

2

3

3

Very
Impo

4

5

6

4

5

6

The two claims, 8(b) and (f), "EE helps prepare young people mak

informed decisions as consumers" and "EE helps prepare young people to make i
decisions when they become voters" are based on the premise that EE teaches

responsibility (Stapp, 1969; Hungerford et aI., 1980; and Roth , 1992). Bec

emphasizes the value of "critical thinking skills", it teaches children how to think
the consequences of their behaviors.

9. Are you aware of the Washington State law requiring EE as a part of all basi
subject matter K-12 (WAC 180-50-115) in the public schools? a. Yes
b. N

Question 9 has appeared in two teacher surveys and it has been shown tha

teachers in the state of Washington are aware of this mandate (Angell et aI
Kearney, 1999).

We thought this would make an interesting comparison

teacher and public awareness of this mandate.

Finally, we would like to ask you a few short background questions about yours
Please circle the appropriate responses.
10. 1 ama. Female
b. Male
11. How old are you?
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

65 and older
55 to 64
45 to 54
35 to 44
25 to 34
18 to 24

12. Please describe your occupation:

13. Please indicate the highest level of education
you have completed .
a) High School
b) Some College Courses
c) 4-Year College Degree
d) Graduate School

14. Are you parent or grandparent of a child under
the age of 19?
I) parent
2) grandparent
3) neither
14a. Please circle the age group(s) ofthose children:
a) 0-4 years
c) 9-12 years
b) 5-8 years
d) 13-18 years
15. How would you describe your political views?
a)

Conservative
b) Moderate
c) Liberal
d) Independent
16. Would you describe the area you live in as:
a)
b)
c)
d)

Urban
Suburban
Small Town
Rural

17. How would you rate your level of community
involvement? (i.e. voting, volunteering, church
involvement, neighborhood association, etc.)
Not
Active

Very
Active
2

3

4

5

6

7

information.

These were our independent variables and included gend

occupation, level of education completed, parent or grandparent, age of chi

grandchildren, description of area of residence, and self-assessments of politic
and level of community involvement.

Income was not included as an inde

variable because each environmental learning center (ELC) in this study cha

entrance fee, which would preclude some middle and most low-income responde

it was decided that a broad range of income would not be represented in this samp

question regarding age of children or grandchildren was to provide feedback
environmental learning centers and was not a point of interest for this study.
18. Do you have any other thoughts or
recommendations regarding environmental
education in your community, W A or beyond?

a. Yes

b. N

Please explain:

In Question 18 respondents were provided with an opportunity to includ
end, any other thoughts they might have about EE.

Research Methods

I.)

The data were collected as part of a statewide written survey of vi

Environmental Learning Centers (ELCs) in the state of Washington.

The surve

written questionnaire whose respondents were asked to circle the answer t

reflected their opinion. It consisted of 32 attitude questions, six knowledge quest
questions regarding the frequency of exposure to environmental education

complete.
2.)

Two pilot tests were conducted of this survey. The first pilot test was

Jean MacGregor's EE class at The Evergreen State College. This class of 18 p
excellent feedback.

The second pilot test was administered at the Olymp

Cooperative in Olympia. Twenty respondents participated in the second pilot te

second site was chosen based on the willingness of the store manager to allow th
to be administered on its premises.
3.)

Environmental Learning Centers were chosen as sites for the survey f

reasons. First, ELCs were a perfect fit for Audubon Washington from the strateg

marketing approach. This was Audubon's first study of ELC visitor attitudes s

National Audubon Society made a major national commitment to building A
Centers in Washington and throughout the country. The ELC survey sites

Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle Aquarium, Point Defiance Zoo, Northwest Trek, T

Townsend Marine Science Center, Wolf Haven International, and Cat Tales Zo

Park, all environmental learning centers in Washington open to the general public
Second, ELCs were targeted because of the likelihood that visitors
centers would be generally supportive of the concepts within the study. Using a

population is the best way to test a survey before launching into the much more am
random study.

In this case, if the "ELC visitor community" were highly suppo

EE, then expanding the study to the population as a whole would provide im

comparison data. Third, the ELC professional community was most likely to s

survey on EE on their premises because EE comprises a large part of these center

to ELCs for this survey. First, the amount of time to gather data was quite limited

were only two months allowed to administer the survey. The research projec
began in November 2003, needed to be completed by June 2004.

Second, limited resources were available for this survey. Audubon Wa

supported project development, paid the expenses for copying, travel to resear

small gifts for the respondents, and co-coordinated testing at each of the

Insufficient funds were available to support a large random study or for professi
conduct and analyze the survey.
4.)

As noted above, this study was commissioned by the Washington State O

the National Audubon Society, which provided staff support and project coord

survey printing costs, SPSS software for statistical analysis of the data, travel e

and gifts for survey respondents. The national office generously provided the

battery-powered flashlights. Respondents were provided with a clipboard, penci

and a place to sit. Upon completion of the survey, respondents were offered a c
gifts for their time.

The gifts ranged from Audubon Birding Trail Maps of the

Loop and the Coulee Corridor Scenic Byway, small key-chain flashlights with b

100% organic cotton t-shirts, to stickers to provide a distraction for chil

respondents. Woodland Park Zoo and Point Defiance Zoo provided some gifts a
the form of stickers and pencil packs.
5.)

The survey was conducted by census, meaning every adult who entered

facilities during the time the survey was conducted was asked if they would be in

in taking five minutes to fill out a survey in exchange for a free gift. These surve

line, respondent goal of 1000, and because ELCs reported the highest number o

on the weekends, all surveying of ELCs was conducted on the weekends. A s
1165 individuals over the age of 18 completed the survey in all; 1002 were
ELCs.
6.)

Volunteers assisted in survey administration and their numbers at each

determined based on the number of visitors predicted for the weekend by e

contact person. Six volunteers were on hand for Woodland Park Zoo, four fo

Aquarium, four for Point Defiance Zoo, and two for each of the other sites. S
included Audubon Washington Field Director Heath Packard , volunteers from

Washington and myself. Five volunteers from the Spokane Audubon chapter c

the survey over two weekends at Cat Tales, which is approximately 20 miles

Spokane. The Centralia Post Office was the only site surveyed during the week
of the probability of attaining more respondents.
7.

Two locations were chosen as comparisons for this survey. First, a post

Centralia, Washington was selected. Centralia is small town within a conserva

community in Lewis County, situated halfway between Seattle and Portland. C

population was 14,742 in the 2000 census (U.S. Census, 2000). Its economic
largely agriculture and forestry . The unemployment rate for Lewis County is

March 2004 compared to 6.5% state level for the same time period (NWAF, 20

Table 2. This site was thought to be more conservative and we thought res

opinions might provide an interesting comparison to the predominantly political
population that resides in the more urban and suburban communities around

the next election. In Lewis County where Centralia is located, residents ha

Republican in all general elections at least since 1972 (Secretary of State Record

Residents of Jefferson, King, Pierce, and Thurston Counties, where all other ELC

Cat Tales in Spokane are located, have voted Democratic in the past fou
elections.

It was determined that more visitors to the post-office would oc

weekday, so this was the only site visited during the week.

Table 3.1.
Unemployment and Poverty Rates for Counties of Enviro
Learning Centers: March 2004

County

ELCs

Unemployment Rate

Woodland Park Zoo
Seattle Aquarium

King

Centralia Post
Office

Lewis

Poverty R

5.5 %

8.4%

8.0 0/0

14.0 %

Jefferson

Port Townsend
Marine Science
Center

4.9%

11.3%

Pierce

Point Defiance
Zoo & NWTrek

6.7%

10.5 %

Spokane

Cat Tales

6.1 %

12.3 %

Thurston

Wolf Haven

6.5 0/0

4.9 %

(NWAF, 200
The

second

comparison group

selected

consisted

of attendees

Environmental Education Association of Washington (EEA W) conference, who

meeting was held during the period of time in which the surveys were conduc

EEAW conference was an assemblage of professionals who work in the field ofE

Twelve hypotheses were tested in this study. These were chosen based

intellectual curiosity, Audubon Washington's interest in market testing certain q

and the knowledge that there is a dearth of literature regarding public perception

There are many more hypotheses relevant to the data collected than can be report
this thesis.

It is our hope that others will use this data to analyze and re

hypotheses that they believe will provide interesting and useful information to the

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant difference in awareness of EE based on wh
people live.

This question will let us know if EE is reaching small and large com

equally . If there were a big difference in awareness, it would be useful to
correlations between areas of residence and other questions.

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive correlation between the levels of exposure to
and degrees of concern about the state of the world, the U.S., WA State, and loc
communities.

The thinking is that greater exposure to EE as a youth and as an adult wil

higher degrees of concern today about environmental quality. Intuitivel y it wou
that greater exposure would be strongly correlated with degree of environmental
If not, the level of concern may instead be associated with different factors.

Hypothesis 3: Higher levels of education can be correlated with the statement t
costs less to prevent environmental problems than to clean them up."

We were curious to see if higher levels of education correlate with suppo
idea that there are costs savings in preventing environmental problems.

Hypothesis 4: There is a significant difference between occupation and whethe
not people support the statement "EE should be a central goal in public school
education."

If there are significant differences in the responses by occupation, w

curious to discover what types of occupations correlated with having EE as a cen

in public school education and which did not. For example, the data might s
people whose occupation involves natural resource extraction might feel

threatens their livelihood and would not be amenable to EE becoming a centra

public education. On the other hand it may be that those involved in resource e
are equally concerned about learning how to live sustainably and support EE as
goal in public school education.

Hypothesis 5: There is a significant difference in how people view themselves
politically and their response to the statement "National, state and local governm
should support and fund EE programs."
We presumed that political views might account for differences in suppo

public funding of EE, with respondents describing themselves as conservatives b

supportive than those describing themselves as liberals. An analysis of this hy
will help settle this claim.

Hypothesis 6: There is a significant difference in response to "EE is not urgentl
needed now" by people who live in different areas.

Our supposition is that environmental concerns often seem more pressing

of denser population. We were interested to see if people who live in rural a
small towns feel the same level of urgency as urban and suburban respondents.

Hypothesis 7: There is a significant difference in level of community involvem
and support for the statement , "EE helps young people feel connected to their
community through service projects. "

Our assumption here is that adults who are actively engaged in their com
tend to feel more connected to their communities. If this is true, then it is likely

will think that EE helps young people feel connected to their communities
community service projects as well.

Hypothesis 8: There is a significant difference in age and levels of concern abo
world, the U.S., and state and local communities.

We were aware that older people might show less concern for enviro

quality because in previous surveys age gaps persist in issues related to the env

(Roper/NEETF , 1992 through 2001). In the NEETF/Roper Poll of 2000, 51%
youngest age group (age 18-34) believes that laws protecting the environment

gone far enough compared to 38% of those 65 and over. In this same study, 75

compared to 68% of those 65 and older.

In this survey, we wanted to see if w

see similar levels of concern about the environment between younger a
respondents.

Hypothesis 9: There are significant differences between gender and support for
statement: EE challenges learners to understand different perspectives on comp
Issues.

Just as in the previous hypothesis the Roper/NEETF Poll has found diffe

gender and responses to a variety of environmental issues. Eight percent more

than men prefer environmental protection to economic development when f
choose between the two (1992-2001).

We thought it would be interesting to se

are gender differences regarding the value of critical thinking.

Hypothesis 10: There is a significant difference between occupations and supp
the role ofEE in "Helping to maintain a healthy environment for people to live.

We thought this would be interesting to look at differences between occup
and perspectives on the role ofEE in helping to maintain a healthy environment.
example, are health care professionals more likely to see this link?

Hypothesis 11: There is a significant difference between level of exposure to n
centers and level of community involvement.

throu ghout the U.S. and Washin gton and would like to know if there is a co
between exposure to nature centers and community involvement.

Hypothesis 12: There is no significant difference between people of different p
persuasions and support for the idea that EE connects children with nature.

We think that people of all political persuasions will agree with the idea that EE c
children with nature, so we were to curious to test that assumption.

Survey Limitations

• This survey was conducted under serious time constraints. Th

would have benefited by a third pilot test after changes were ma
wording of several questions as a result of the second pilot test.

• Surveys were conducted only on the weekends, which left out ad
could only visit ELCs on weekdays.

• Budget constraints did not allow for a random survey desig

administered by professional social marketers nor professional an
survey data.
• By conducting the surveys at ELCs , diversity was limited.

Ea

charged admission, which probably restricted some middle and m
income adults from the surve y pool.

There was no time to

translation of the surve y into Spanish or other languages, whic

have provided some perspectives from culturally diverse resp

Census, 2000).
• This survey was also somewhat self-selecting because when a

respondent wanted to know what the survey was about, he/s

elected not to take it. Reasons cited included "subject does n

interesting" and "opposed to the concept of EE." We did not keep

how many times this happened. It most likely occurred less than
for all locations combined.

Statistical Tools

The data collected in this survey is either ranked or nominal data. C

along with Cramer' s V tests were used to evaluate the nominal data, and Spearm

test was used to evaluate the ranked data. These tests are commonly used to eva
type of data. Not only did these tests tell if the results are significant but
provided an indication as to the strength of the results.

Analysis

The analysis of the data is organized in four parts. First is information abo

demographic data. Second is a descriptive analysis of the responses given by responden

at the Environmental Learning Centers (ELCs). Third is a comparison of the results fro

the three respondent groups: the ELCs, the Centralia Post Office (CPO), and t
Environmental Education Association of Washington (EEAW) conference attendees.

in Chapter 3, the analysis for parts two and three of this chapter will follow the order

the questions in the survey. The fourth part of the analysis includes a statistical analy
of each of the hypotheses posed in Chapter 3.

The data found in this survey are either ranked or nominal, and results from ea

question in the ranked categories were not nonnally distributed. Nominal data answ

questions with yes/no, female/male type of responses. Ranked data are responses that a

measured on scales such as from one to seven as in this survey with '"1" being strong

disagree to '"7" being strongly agree. The data were not normally distributed: they we
skewed in each case in support of EE. Because of this, nonparametric tests had to

employed in order to produce a valid analysis. The best choice for a nonparametric t

for ranked data is Spearman' s rho with two-tailed significance, and for the nominal da

chi-square. In some cases, data was coilapsed into fewer categories in order to use t

chi-square test. Cramer's V is a post-test for chi-square that provides an indication of t
strength of the differences in responses.

Demographic Analysis

An analysis of the demographic variables will provide some description as to w

took part in this survey. Question 14, which asks about the age groups of responde
children/grandchildren, is not included.

Figure 4.1.1. Gender of Respondents of the Three Test Groups
80

-

Test groups
ELCs

o

-

o
60

­
s:::
Q)
o

~ 40

a.

-

r-­

Centralia Post
Office
EEAW Conference

r---o

-

-

.---­

20

"';1
j

o

I

I

Femal e

Male

Gender

As Figure 4.1.1 indicates, more females than males agreed to fill out the surve

each of the three groups surveyed. It is not known why more females agreed to take
survey than males. It is possible that more females visited each ofthe sites surveyed.

40 -

Test groups
ELCs

o Centralia Post Office
o EEAW Conference

,....

-

30 -

..,
C

- .....

Q)

o

Qi
a.

-

20 -

.....

-

.....
.....

.....

.....

1-0

10

,....

-

r-

I'

,.;'<

o

nn
I

I

I

I

18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 44

45 to 54

i\~
I

I

55 to 64 65 or older

How old are you?

As Figure 4.1.2 reveals, at the ELCs, respondents from the age of 45 to 64 were in
the majority. The Centralia Post Office was fairly evenly distributed over the six age
groups. Respondents from the EEAW tended to be between the ages of 35 and 64 with
the 55 to 64 age group in the majority.

71


70

-

Test groups
ELCs

60

o
o

-

Centralia Post Office
EEAW Conference

50 -

-

E: 40

Q)

~
e,

-

.

Q)

30 -

20 .­

10

-

..

.,..
I""

o

I

I

nrh n
I

I

I-

I

JlI

n,
I

I

rn
I

I

n

Please describe your occupation.

As shown in Figure 4.1.3, respondents from the ELC group were primarily wh

collar and blue-collar workers , while respondents from the Centralia Post Office w

primarily white-collar, blue-collar and retired workers . The EEAW Conference attend
were, as expected, predominately educators along with other white-collar workers.

60

­

Test groups
ELCs

o Centralia Post Office
o EEAW Conference
50

-

-

-

,--

­

40 -

-

c::

CU

(J

Q;

30 -

Q.
r-

-

20 -

,...-

r-

......,
10

I·;
1··'-

-

.---

<

r-

I ~

'"

1,-;·

o

I

I

High School

I

Some College 4-Year College
Courses
Degree

I

Graduate
School

Please indicate highest level of education
that you have completed.

The distribution of respondents across the education gradient varied considerab
for the three groups.

As Figure 4.1.4 displays, while respondents with some colleg

courses were in the majori ty for the ELC group and the CPO group, only six percent

the respondents from the EEAW belonged to this group. Respondents from the EEAW

conference had the highest level of education overall with 52% having a graduate degre

and an additional 42% having a college degree. There were no respondents from th

conference having less than some college classes. There were a few more responden
with graduate degrees visiting the ELCs than those visiting the Centralia Post Office.

7

70 ­

r--

Test groups
ELCs

60 ­

o
o

-

Centralia Post Office
EEAW Conference

50 ­

-

...

c: 40 ­
(I)

o

....-­

(I)

Q.

-

30 ­

-

.....­

"

20 ­

....-­
:..-.;

10 ­

....-­

r-­

.
..

.,.

I'

-;

<'

I,

o

I

I

I

Parent

Grandparent

Neithe r

Are you a parent or grandparent of a child
under the age of 19?

As Figure 4.1.5 indicates, there was a much larger number of parents having
children under the age of 19 attending the ELCs than visiting the Centralia Post Office or
the EEAW conference.

Respondents from the Centralia Post Office had the largest

number of grandparents.

In contrast, the EEAW Conference group had the greatest

number of respondents with no children.

74


Figure 4.1.6. Political Views of Respondents of the Three Test Groups

80 ­

Test groups
ELCs

o Centralia Post Office
o EEAW Conference

r-­

60 -

..

t:

Q)


o

~ 40

0..

r-­

,......

r-­

-

,

20 -

-

-,

I

n

Conservative

~ .,

-

,

..

~

-

I'·

·l~
;,:

o

-

:

-

I···..

-

-;"

I,::
Iv~ ..

I

I

I

Moderate

Liberal

Independent

How would you describe your political views?

As Figure 4.1.6 displays, respondents from the ELCs were mostly moderates

liberals, while respondents from CPO were moderates and conservatives. Respond
from the EEA W Conference were predominantly liberals.

Figure 4.1.7. Area of Residence of Respondents of the Three Test Groups

60 ­

Test groups
ELCs

o Centralia Post Office
o EEAW Conference

,...­

50 -

40 -

-

"....-

.----

l:
Q)

o

Q;

c,

30 -

r=

,..,...-

,...-

20 -

"....-

l·

.----

1->;·(

1- '

o

"....-

L'

.

.'

5j

J.,

it.~i

.... ,

I,

1'~1

l -~

-

10 -

I:"

r""'"

~,'

I

I

I

Urban

Suburban

Small Town

~

I

Rural

How would you describe the area you live in?

As Figure 4.1.7 indicates, most people attending the ELCs reported that they w

from urban and suburban areas while those who visited the CPO reported being s

town and rural dwellers. Respondents from the EEAW Conference were more often f
urban areas and small towns.

Figure 4.1.8. Level of Community Involvement of Respondents of the Three Test
Groups

30­

Test groups

ELCs


o Centralia Post Office
o EEAW Conference
25­

20­

...
r::::

CJ)

o

~ 15­

a.

10­
I~

5­
; ..

I

I

Isomewh~t

Not Active
A Little'Active
Slightly Active
Not Sure

I

Active
Active

How would you rate your level of commun ity
involvement?

As indicated in Figure 4.1.8, distributions of reported levels of commun

involvement were very similar between the ELC and the CPO groups. The distribut
of the EEAW Conference attendees was skewed towards the active side.

The ELC respondents had 26% college graduates with an additional 20% havin

graduate degree; 60% were female, and 54% were white-collar workers. Fifty-e

percent of the visitors to the ELCs were parents, with 11 % as grandparents. E
respondents had higher percentages of moderates and liberals in their composition,

they reported living in predominately urban and suburban areas. Visitors to the EL

were close to the same ages as the attendees to the EEAW Conference. The m

common age group of the visitor was from 55-64 with the 45-54 year olds follow
close behind.

The Centralia Post Office respondents had 21% college graduates and 9% wi

graduate degree. Respondents were 59% female with 30% white-collar workers, 1
blue-collar workers and 15% retired.

Thirty-two percent viewed themselves

conservatives with additional 31% as moderates. Only 13% of the visitors conside

themselves liberal. People visiting the CPO were predominately small town dwel

(52%) with 30% more from surrounding rural areas. They reported being roughly
involved in their communities as visitors to the ELCs.

Attendees to the EEAW conference were primarily educators; 72% were fem

72% liberal, with 42% having a college degree and an additional 52% having a gradu

degree. Seventy percent were neither parents nor grandparents in this group. This gr

also reported much higher levels of community involvement than the other two groups

To easily compare the education of the three groups, college and gradu

percentages can be added together. Compared in this way, 94% of EEAW particip

have college or graduate degrees, compared to 46% for the ELC visitors, and 30% for
Centralia Post Office visitors.

Percentages given in these tables are rounded to the nearest whole percentage
they may not always total 100%.

Figure 4.2.1. Were you aware that th ere is a field of study
known as environmental education?

74%

26%

No

Yes

N=947

Percent Responding

As shown in Figure 4.2.1, one quarter of the visitors to the ELCs indicated that they w
familiar with EE.

Figure 4.2.2. Histogram of "How well could you explain
what EE is to a friend'?"

_III'-M
ean 3.65=
=
Std. Dev .

3

4

5

Mode rately We ll

6

7

Very Well

1.571

IN =994

As Figure 4.2.2 shows, the average respondent thought they could explain

moderately well. Approximately 55 % felt that they could explain it to a friend at l
moderately well.

Figure 4.2.3. As a child or a teenager, were you ever
educated by anyone in school or out of school about:

D
Can't Remember

D
No
The natural
environment?
Environmental
problems such as
air and water
pollution?

82

N- IOU2

I

15

3

1

1

82

N=998

Preventing
environmental
problems?
Ways to clean up
environmental
problems?

12 I 6

I

D

Yes

[

I

20
23

~

17

I

75
N=997

70

I
N=998

Perce nt Responding

As shown in Figure 4.2.3, more people reported learnin g as a child or teen ab

the natural environment and environmental problems than about preventing or clean
up problems.

Even though these data reveal decreasing percentages as the ques

focuses in on environmental problems, still, 70 % or more reported having been expo
to all types of EE.

work place
academic journals
community servo orgs

­
­
­

radio

I
I

­

I

environmenta l organizations
religious institutions

I

­

~

­

I

­
newspapers ­
nature centers ­

I

hobbies

I
I

­
friends ­

~

science centers

~

magazines ­
aquariums ­

I

­
­

famil y members
par ks and refuges

muse ums -

TV ­

­

school

­

~

zoos

I
I
l
1,000

I
500

o

I
1,500

I
2,000

Sum of ELC Respondents' Childhood and

Teen Years Exposure Frequencies to

Environmental Learn ing Sources

Figure 4.2.4-8

­
­
religious institutions ­
hobbies ­
comm unity service orgs ­
academic jo urna ls ­

I

service clubs

I

other

I
I
I
I

schoo l ­
workplace

I

­

I

­

I

environmental organiza tions

radio science centers

­

frie nds

­

I
I
I
I
I

famil y ­
websites
newspapers

­

­

~

1

museums,­
nature cente rs

­

magazines

­
­

parks or refuges

~
~

aquariums -


I

TV ­
zoos

I
I

­
o

I

I

500

1,000

I
1,500

I
2,000

I
2,500

Sum of ELC Respondents' Current Adult

Exposure Frequencies to Environmental

Learning Sources


during childhood and teen years and current sources as an adult were remarka
different.

Schools, zoos, television, family members, museums, parks and refu

family and aquariums were the top sources for environmental learning during childh

and teen years. Nature centers, a major focus for the National Audubon Society, wer
eleventh position.

Current sources of environmental learning for adults changed dramatically w

zoos taking the number one slot from schools, which fell to 16th place. Television mo

up one into second place. Nature centers moved into sixth place. Magazines mo

from eighth place during child and teen years to fifth place for adults. Family mem

moved from sixth position in childhood and teen years to l Oth place for adults. Webs
have become an important means for finding information; they were in ninth place.

In Figures 4.2.5 through 4.2.9, data from the ELC respondents have b

collapsed to facilitate the reading and comprehension of the numerous questions from

survey. This means that in each table, data responses with a 1, 2, or 3 were combine

indicate a negative response and 5, 6 or 7 were combined to indicate a positive respon

In Question 5, visitors to ELCs showed consistently high support for the rol

EE in meeting the needs of society today and in the future. Each statement in Questio
had 55% or more respondents indicating that EE was very important.

societv todav and in the future?

a.) Helps preserve living things.

D


D

D

Important

Not Sure

Not Important

~14

94

-I
N=999

b.) Helps maintain a healthy
environment for people to
live in.

96

1112

N- 99

c.) Helps preserve the beauty of ~13
nature and sc enery .
d.) Helps promote the longterm sustained use of natural
resource s.
e.) Helps prevent expensive
environmental problems in
the future .
f.) Helps prepare young people
and people in the work-force
to address complex
environmental problems.

~I

~
~16

95

.I
N=998

=

95

*

=

J

'F

N=996

92
N= 99 5

91

I

'I
N=999

Percent Responding.

As Figure 4.2.6 indicates, environmental education consistentl y received a h
amount of support for all of the claims presented in Question 6. "EE shows learners

they should play a positive role in the care of the environment" received the grea

amount of support with a 91% agreement rating. Two negatively worded claims, "

teaches students that humans are destructive to the earth," and "EE preac

environmental activism," both were supported by 50% and 40% of ELC responde
respectively.
majority.

These are the only two negative claims that were not opposed by

Responses to five of the claims in Question 6 elicited a relatively h

percentage of uncertainty. "EE teaches students that humans are destructive to the ear
"EE makes learners unduly worried about environmental problems," "EE is essential

preparing learners for jobs later in life," and "EE challenges the learners to underst

uncertainty (37% indicating not sure), "EE preaches environmental activism."

Figure 4.2.6. To what exteot do you agree or disagree with these claims about EE

D

D

Not Sure

Disagree
a.) EE is th e best investment
because it costs less to prevent
en vironment al problems th an
to clean th em up.

I

25

1 14

84
1'= 994

7

91
N'

1

N: 999

1 17

70

14
N=99 "

e.)EE needs to
stay away from
cont roversial issu es .

-'

1 16 I 19

59

I

-I

65
N 993

22

I

I

~9

d.)EE ha s no pla ce
in public school
edu cation.

I 8 10

81

f.) EE sho uld be a
central goal in pu blic
schoo l education.

b.) EE teache s stu den
to view humans as
dest ructive to th e earth

I

50
11

I

N' 9'16

24

I

c.) EE shows learners that th ey
sho u Id play a positi ve rol e j n
the care of th e env iro nment.

I

Agree

20

I

g.) E E makes le arne r s unduly wo rri
about environmental problems .

N: 987

h.) EE can hel p people make the
connection betw een a healthy
enviro n me nt and human he alth.

I

9

]

89

N: 988

1 14

29

1

-j

56

N=99 1

I

23

37

1

40

I
N: 983

k.) EE challenge s
learners to und erst and
diffe rent perspecti ves
o n co mplex issues.

24

411

80
m.) N ational . state and local
go vernments sho uld su pport
and fund E E pro grams.

i.) EE is essenti al for
preparin g learners for
jo bs later in life.
j .) EE preaches
environmental
activism .

73

J
N=984

I

12

161

14

8]

l.)EE is not ur ge ntl y
ne eded now.

99 2

80
I

=W I

I

Figure 4.2.7.

How concerned are you about the state of our

environment todav ...


0
Not Concerned
a.) in the world?


0

0
Not Sure

41

1

8

Concerned


88

I
N~ 'i9 3

b.) in the United States?

41 7

1

89
N=99 3

c.) in Washington State ?

151

13

81

1

J
N~98 3

d.) in your community?

161 13

81

'\
N~ 99 3

Percent Responding.

As Figure 4.2.7 displays, large percentages of ELC respondents indicated

have a very high level of concern for the world, the United States, Washington State

local community. Eighty-nine percent of respondents expressed concern about the s

of the environment for the United States. In addition, their responses matched
expected trend predicted by Kevin Coyle of the National Environmental Education

Training Foundation (Coyle, personal communication, 2004). A higher percentag
respondents expressed uncertainty regarding their level of concern for their state
local communities.

Figure 4.2.8. Indicate how important th e rol e of environme nta l ed uca tion
in helping to meet the following needs of children/young people today?

I

a.)H elps stu dents
perform better
I
in schoo l.
b.) Help s prepare young people to
make inform ed decisions as
consumers.

18

c.) Helps young people feel
conn ected to their community
throu gh service projects.
d.) H elp s co nnect young people
with nature.
e.) Helps young people learn to
take care of them selves in the
outdoors.
f.) Hel ps prepare you ng peopl e to

make infor med dec isions when
thev becom e voters .
Percent Res pond ing.

D


D

D

Not Important

Not Sure

38

Important

44
N- '!'i4

141 12

I

1
l

83
N=996

~I

12

85

N=99S

~I 6
15 1 14

92
N~

82
N<HT

15 1 15


80
N=998

'!'is

I

1

As Figure 4.2.8 indicates, respondents were very supportive of the claims

Question 8 regarding how important EE is in meeting the needs of children/young peo

today. However, in rating how important EE is in helping students perform better

school, 38% of respondents indicated that they were uncertain about this claim. T

means that at least 38% of respondents are not aware of the positive results teachers ha
had using EE in the classroom.

Figure 4.2.9. Are you aware of the Washington State law
requiring EE as a part of all basic subject matter K-12?
No

83

17

Yes
N=9 4 I

Percent Responding
In a survey done by the Northwest Environmental Education Council

association with the Washington State Office of Environmental Education in 2001-20

77% of the teachers who responded to the survey were aware of the Washington S

mandate for environmental education (Angell 2002). However, only 17% of responde
from ELCs indicated they were aware of the mandate.

Summary of Environmental Learning Center Visitor Responses to Questions

Visitors to ELCs showed very strong support for EE with 27 out of 29 cla

tested. Eighty percent agreed that EE is urgently needed now. Ninety-one percent agr

that EE shows learners that they should playa positive role in the environment. Eig

percent thought that national, state and local government should support and fund E

and 92% thought EE connects children with nature . A much lower percentage (44

supported the claim, "EE helps students perform better in school," with 38% express
uncertainty for this claim.

and the Environmental Education Association of Washington Conference

No strong or even moderate differences were found between the three respond
groups for the claims tested in Questions 3-8 based on p< .05. The p-value measures
amount of statistical evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis. A value of

was chosen because it is generall y considered a standard value . At a level of .05, there

a 5% chance that the null hypothesis will be rejected when the null is true. M

differences found in the comparisons between the groups were weak or weak to n

existent based on Cramer's V, a post-test of Pearson's chi square, or the results fr

Spearman's rho for the correlation questions. This means that while differences w

significant, they were small. (Please note that the scales on the y-axes differ on e

graph.) Please see Table 4.3.1 for demographic information from the three study group

Table 4.3.1 Demog raphic Information

Gender

Age

EEAW
Confer en

Environmental
Lear ning
Centers

Centralia
Post Office

Female

60% (594)

59% (57)

72% (4

Male

40% (394)

41% (40)

28% (1

18-24 years

13% (132)

7% (7)

13% (8

25-34 years

35% (348)

22% (22)

34% (2

35-44 years

29% (288)

16% (15)

22% (1

45-54 years

14% (135)

2 1% (21)

22% (1

55-64 years

7% (66)

21% (21)

8% (5

65 or older

3% (29)

13% (13)

2% (1

Environmental
Learning
Centers

Centralia
Post Office

EEAW
Conferen

Occupation
stay-at-home

8% (72)

11% (9)

0%

student

7% (69)

8% (7)

7% (4

teacher

7% (62)

4% (3)

61% (3

health care worker

10% (93)

5% (4)

0%

other white collar

34% (34 1)

21% (18)

23% (1

1% (8)

4% (3)

0%

15% (144)

19% (16)

0%

military

4% (34)

1% (1)

0%

retired

4% (33)

16% (13)

3% (2

other

8% (78)

12% (10)

7% (4

high school

16% (160)

19% (19)

0%

some college

37% (368)

51% (50)

7% (

4-year college
degree

26% (260)

21% (21)

42% (2

graduate school

20% (200)

9% (9)

52% (3

parent

58% (576)

32% (31)

19% (1

grand-parent

11% (110)

36% (35)

11% (7

31% (310)

32% (31)

70% (4

natural resource
extractor
blue collar

Education

Children

neither

Political Views

Area of Residence

Question 1:

Environmental
Learning
Centers

Centralia
Post Office

conservative

22% (202)

32% (28)

5% (3

moderate

31% (290)

31% (27)

7% (4

liberal

27% (247)

13%(11 )

72% (

independent

20% (189)

24% (21)

16% (1

urban

30% (288)

10% (10)

36% (2

suburban

38% (366)

7% (7)

21%(1

small town

19% (183)

52% (52)

27% (1

rural

14% (135)

30% (29)

16% (1

Are you aware of a field of study known as environmental educatio

There was a significant difference between the groups .
relation ship is weak .

100

Based on Crame r's V,

Test groups

.-----

[] ELCs

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference

Figure 4.3.1.
80

There was a
significant
difference
between the
three groups.

1:
Ql

-

-

60

U

Q;

ll.

X2(2)= 16.743 :

p=.OOO
Cramer' s V
=.123

EEAW
Conferenc

40

.,
,--

.-----

20

,i

N= 110 I
o

,---,
1

I

Yes

NO

Aware of EE?

Association of Washington Conference were more aware of EE than respondents fro
the other two groups.
Question 2

As shown

In

Figure 4.3.2, there were significant differences between t

responses in the three groups as to how well they could explain what EE is to a frien

Environmental education professionals at the EEAW conference scored significan
higher on this question than the other two groups.
Figure 4.3.2.
60 -

Test groups
ELCs

There were

significant

differences

between the

three groups.


x2(l 2)=208.668:

p=.OOO

Cramer' s V =

.301


N=1l54


50

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference

-

40 -

...
e
Q)
(J

Q;
a.

30 -

20 -

10 -

....

o

n

In
I

Not at all

I

n
I

bit
FairlYwell
r
I A little Moderately
I well
Not well
Well

How well can you explain EE?

I

Ve ry wel

As revealed in Figure 4.3 .3.A, B, C, and D, differences between the three gro

for the four parts of Question 3 were either extremely weak as in A and B, or non-exist
as in C or D. This means that there was little difference between the groups regarding
received as a child or a teen.

Question 3(A): As a child or teenager were you ever educated by anyone in school
out of school about:
Figure 4.3.3.A.
100i-

Test groups
ELCs

.-

There were
significa nt
but wea k to
nonexistent
differences
between the
grou ps.

80 -

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference

row-

.,~

_

60

-

J

I::

Q)


X2(4)= 13.180:
p=.OI O
Cramer's V=
.075 .

CJ

~

Q)

a..
40 -

..

N=11 65
20 -

.....-

...-

o

I
Yes

I

No

n

nn
1

Can't Remember

Did you learn about natural environment?

Question 3(B): As a child or teenager were you ever educated by anyone in school
out of school about:

Figure 4.3.3.B.

100

-

Test groups
ELCs

There were

significant
but weak to

nonexistent

differences

between the

groups.

80
-

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference

r­
~

.-­

r­

c::

60

-

Q)

(J


;:2(4)=10 .722:
p=.030

Cramer's

V=.068


I­

Q)

a..

-

40


N=1 160
20

~~

-

o

rJ _

n

I

I

I

Yes

No

Can't Rememb er

Did you learn about environmental
problems?

o EEAW Conference
Question 3(C): As a child
or teenager were you ever
edu cated by anyone in
school or out of school
about:

60

­
eQ)
o

;

There were no
significant
differences
between the
three groups.

r--

-

a.

40 ,--

-..

20 -

-'.

x2(4)=6.2 07:
p=.184
Cramer's
V=.152

o

Figure 4.3.3.D.

70 -

Dnn

Yes

No

Can't Remember

I

.---­ ...­

Test groups

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Confe rence

60 r­

50 -

-e
s::

40

-

30

-

Q)

-

Q)

a.
r-­

r-­

20

N=1160

I

ELCs

Question 3(D): As a child
or teenager were you ever
educated by anyone in
school or out of school
about:

X2(6)= 11.531:
p=.073
Cramer's V=
.071

I

Did you learn about preventing
environmental problems?

N=1159

There were no
significant
differences
between the
three groups.

-

-

.

,

101­

o

I

I

Yes

No

nnn
I

Can't Remember

Did you learn ways to clean up pollution?

94


Because of time constraints and the complexity of the question, comparisons
the responses between the three groups were not made for Question 4.

All 10

responses from ELC visitors were used to create the charts seen in Section 4.2.

In Question 5, for the statistical analysis, the data had to be collapsed. This me

that the three responses that voiced disa greement with each claim were grouped as o

response because individually the numbers were too small to be evaluated using c

square. The overall responses for the claims for Question 5 were very high indicat

strong and widespread support for the EE messages by respondents from all three grou
The graphs demonstrate small, insignificant differences between the three groups.

each graph the EEA W respondents show slightly higher support for each cla

Significant differences were seen in Question 5(f), "How important is the role of EE

helping prepare young people and people in the workforce to addre ss environmen

problems." However, the only noticeable difference seen in Figure 4.3.5(f), was sim

that the EEAW showed an even higher level of support than was shown in their respon
to the first five claims in Question 5.

o

EEAW Conference

60 -

Question 5: Indicate how
important the role of EE is
in helping to meet the
following needs of society
today and in the future:

­

c

Q)
(J

~ 40 ­

a..

There were no
significant
differences
between the
three groups .

20 -

x,2(8)= 14.251:
p=.075
Crame r's V=
.078
How important is the role of EE in helping to
maintain a healthy environment for people to
live?

N= 1162

Figure 4.3.5b.
80 ­

There were no
significant
differences
between the
three grou ps.
x,2(8)= 13.156 :
p=.10 7
Cramer' s V =
.075
N= 1162

Test groups

ELCs


o Centralia Post

Office

o EEAW Conference
60 ­

cQ)


(J


~ 40­

a..

20 ­

0

n

n

~0"

.

0",
ro

~

o~

""

On,. .,

P'O

~0.s-

~o~

~tz.,
~
-,

"
"~

roo

':>'<;>

""

n

~0"

~roo

15'0

15'",.~

'Q~
tz.,~

<;>" .

0;,

",.

"".0

o~

""

~

~-?:
<;>""

'&':)- .

""

0;,

~-?:
<;>

How important is the role of EE in helping to
preserve living things?

9

Figure 4.3.5c.

60­

o

EEAW Conference

....r::::
There were no
significant
differences

between the

three groups.


Q)

o

:D

a..

40­

20­

X)(8)=5.695:
p=.681

Cramer's V=

.050

N=1161

How important is the role of EE in helping to
preserve the beauty of nature and scenery?

80­

Figure 4.3.5d.

There were no
significant
differences
between the
three groups.

Test groups
ELCs

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference
60­

....r::::
Q)

o

:D 40­
Q.

X)(8)=11.320:
p=.184
Cramer's V=
.070
N=ll SR

20­

In

How important the role of EE is in helping
to promote long-term sustained use of
natural resources?

Office

o

60­

EEAW Conference

­


There were no
significa nt
differen ces
between the
three groups.

l::

Q)

o

~ 40­

e,

X)(8)= 10.472 :

20­

p=.233
Cramer's V=
.067

n

On..

N=ll)R

How important is the role of EE in helping
to prevent expensive environmental
problems?

80­

Figure 4.3.5f.

Test groups
ELCs

There were
significa nt but
very weak to
nonexistent
differences
between the
three groups.
X2(8)= 18.746:
p=.016
Cramer' s V=
.090

60­

o Centralia Post

Office

o EEAW Conference

­

l::

Q)

o

~ 40­

o,

20­

I

N=11 62

I

10

~ .

~~o
'>'<)!

I

%U'q,

"I'

nn.. In

n.....

_n

I

15'0
'Q<s>
~1

~«

~~

10~&

'>'<)!

"I'

'Q<s>
~1

'>'<)!

<;>1'"

<;>1'« •

~o

~~o

15'0

v"'<s>

~

~'Q.

~o

~

"I'

"I'

~:J...

0;

o~
<;>,,1'

How important is the role of EE in helping prepare
young people and people in the workforce to
address environmental problems?

~o

'>'<)!

"I'

In this section, the graphs exhibit the respondents' results for all points on

survey scale. However, for statistical analysis purposes, some of the questions had

have the data collapsed to make the tests valid for the chi square test; this was do

wherever the numbers of disagreement were really low. The value of Cramer's V t

indicates the strength of the difference. Values below .200 are considered weak. Val

less than .1 are very weak and are considered by some in the statistical business to

nonexistent. The small differences in the groups appear to be that the EEAW group

somewhat more supportive of EE just as they were in Question 5. The ELC group a

the CPO group showed more uncertainty than the EEAW group rather than a lack
support. This appeared to be the case for every claim tested.

o
Question 6: Please tell
us the extent to which
you agree or disagree
with these claims about
EE.
There were
significant but
weak differences
between the
three groups.

­

EEAW Conference

40 ­

r::::
Q)

CJ
~ 30 ­

a.

20 ­

10­

x,2(8)=18.423 :
p= .018
Cramer's V=
.089
EE is the best investment because it costs
less to prevent environmental problems than
to clean them up.

N=1158

Figure 4.3.6b.
50 -

There were
significant but
weak differences
between the
three groups

x,2(1 2)=98.388:
p=.OOO
Cramer's V=
.206

Test groups
ELCs

40

-

-r:::: 30

-

o
o

Centralia Post Office
EEAW Conference

Q)

~

Q)

a.
20

-

N=1156

There seemed to be much
uncertainty overall about
this claim.

10I­

o

E

[In
'r

In

EE teaches learners to view humans as
destructive to the earth.

100

o

EEAW Conference

40­

There were
significant but
weak differences
between the
three groups.

....s:::
Q)

:uCJ 30­
n,
20­

X2(8)=20.353:

p=.009
Cramer's V=
.094

10­

N=1159

EE shows learners that they should playa
positive role in the environment.

Figure 4.3.6d.

100

Test groups
ELCs

There were
significant but
weak
differences
between the
three groups.
X2(8)=47.477:
p=.OOO
Cramer's V=
.143

BO

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference

.... 60

s:::
Q)

~
Q)
a,
40

N=11.')9
20

EEAW respondents
were very clear in their
disagreement with this
claim with over 90%
dissenting.

EE has no place in public school.

1

c: 30 -

There were
significant but
weak differences
between the
three groups.

..
a.
Q)

u

Q)

20 -

x2(l 2)=26.540 :

10-

p=.009

Cramer's V=

min Dn 0n

.107

o
~o

N=l LSR

4.i~rc9

?oj.

o

o,;.i-

~

"c9c9

I

%

<5'0

C/
rc9

1t-

1<;>1'

-<l
:9r CS!

<5'0

"\5l

"-'c9

"-'c9

<5'~

c9

1t-1

0,,­

<;>I'<il

o,;.i-

~

"c9c9

:9rCS!

:9j.

'VrCS!
c

c9

EE needs to stay away from controversial
issues.

40 ­

Figure 4.3.6f.

Test groups
ELCs

There were
significant but
weak differences
between the
three groups.

30 ­

-

t:

Q)

U

~ 20

x2(l 2)=45.8 19 :

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference

­

D..

p=.OOO

Cramer's V=
.141

10­

N=1154

A great deal more
uncertainty was
seen by the ELC and CPO
respondents than by the
EEA W respondents.

o

[]Il an
EE should be a central goal in public school
education.

102

30 -

Office

o
There were
sign ificant but
weak differences
between the
three groups.
x2( 12)=22.227:
p=.035
Cramer's V=
.098

-5i

EEAW Confe rence

20 -

~

Ql
Q.

-

10

N= 1146
o

There seemed to be
some confusion amon g
all three groups regarding
this claim.

I

I

n

EE makes learners unduly worried about
. environmental problems.

Figure 4.3.6h.
70 ­

Test grou ps
ELCs

There were
significan t but
weak
differe nces
between the
three groups.

60 ­

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Confe rence

50 ­

-5...i

40­

u

Ql
Q.

30­

X2(8)=45 .161:
p=.OOO
Cramer's V=
.140

20 -

10­

N= 1149

EE can help people make the connection
between a healthy environment and human
health.

1

30-

Figure 4.3.6i.
There were
significant but
weak differences
between the
three groups.

...
e
Q)

o

; 20 -

a.

-

x2(12)=38.085:

10

p=.OOO
Cra mer's V=
.129
o

N=11 53
Uncertainty was again
evident among ELC
and CPO groups.

nnn
I.

~n n
I

In

EE is essential for preparing learners for
jobs later in life.

50-

Testgroups

Figure 4.3.6j.
There were no
significan t
differences
between the
thr ee groups.
X2(12)=70 .892:
p=.OOO
Cra mer's V=
.176

ELCs

o Centralia Post
Office
40 - o EEAWCor.ference

... 30 -

e

Ql

o...

Ql

a.

20I­

N= 1143
This question caused
a lot of uncertainty. It
may have bee n a better
question if it had been
stated either that "EE
teaches environmental
activism," but we had
attempted to frame it
as a negative claim.

10I­

o

~l

In

EE preaches environmental activism.

104

Office

Figure 4.3.6k.

40 -

There were
significant but
weak differe nces
between the
three groups .
X)(8)=54. 105:
p=.OOO
Cramer 's V=
.154

o

EEAW Conference

-

20 -

10

-

N=1144

_nn

o

Again there was uncertainty
and less strength in the
level of support for this
question. EEAW
respondents were pretty
clear about their thoughts
on this claim .

I

iln

r-I

I

I

In

EE challenges learners to understand
different perspectives on complex issues.

80

F igu re 4.3.61.

-

Tes t groups
ELCs

There were
significant but
weak
differences
between the
three groups.

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Co nference
60 -

....C

Ql


o

Q)

a.

40 -

X2 (8)=49.6 15:

p=.OOO
Cramer 's V=
.147

20 -

N= 1154

EEAW respondents
strongl y disagree with
this claim.

o

I

n Innnn . .nn nnn
J

T

I

I

EE is not urgently needed now.

1

o Central ia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference

Figure 4.3.6m.
60 ­

There are
significant but
wea k differences
between the
three groups.

...

r::

Q)

o

Ci> 40 ­

a.

.

X2(8)=49.038:

p=.OOO
Cram er's V=
.146

20 ­

N=1151
o

This claim had nearly
unanimous agreement
outside of the small
degree of uncertainty
exp ressed by the ELC
and CPO groups.

nn
I

I'!'I

I

nn
I

I

I

In

National, state and local governments should
support and fund EE programs.

Question 7

The levels of concern expressed in Question 7 a, b, c, and d, between the thr

groups for the state of the environment for the world, the United States, Washington sta

and the local community are significantly different but those differences are weak . Th

differences appear again to be that the EEA W respondents showed more concern overa
while the ELC group and the CPO group showed more uncertainty.

10

Figure 4.3.7a.
60 ­

Question 7: How
concerned are you
about the state of our
environment today?

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference

...c:
Q)

o

~

a.
There were
significant but
weak
diffe rences

between the

three groups.


40 ­

20 ­

o

nn

.n

....

X2(8)=28.082:

p=.OOO

Cramer's V=

.156

How concerned are you about the state of
the environment today in the world?

N= 1154

80 ­

Figure 4.3.7b.

Test groups
ELCs

There were
significant but
weak
differences
between the
three groups.

o Centralia Post Office
o EEAW Conference
60 ­

...
c:
Q)

o

~ 40 ­

a.

X2(8)=27.681 ;

p=.OOI
Cramer's V=
.109
N= 1155

20­

nf

How concerned are you about the state of
the environment today in the US?

50 ­

Figure 4.3. 7c.
There were
significa nt but
very wea k
differences
between the
three groups.

...

o Centralia Post Office
o EEAW Conference

40­

c:
Q)

o

~ 30 ­
Q..

20 ­

X2(8)=21.6l4 :
p=.008
Cramer's V=
.095

10­

o

nn

nn

nn

N=1145

How concerned are you about the state of
the environment today in WA state?

60 ­

Test groups
ELCs

Figure 4.3. 7d.

There were
signifi cant but
very wea k
differences
between the
three groups.
X2(8)= 19.528 :
p=.012
Cram er' s V=
.092

o
o

50 ­

...

Centralia Post Office
EEAW Conference

40 ­

c:
Q)

o

~ 30­
Q..

20 ­

10­

o on

...n

r1n

In

N=115 6

How concerned are you about the state of
the environment today in your community?

With the exception of one question, respondents generally agree d or stron

agreed with the claims in Question 8. While the pattern of stronger support for EE cla

was still evident across all groups, there were two que stions that elicited mi
responses.

Thirty to forty percent of respondents expressed uncertainty regard

Question 8(a), "How important is EE in helping students perform better in school?"

Figure 4.3.8-A. Question 8(e), "How important is EE in helping young people take c

of themselves outdoors," drew high levels of support, but support was widely distribu
as indicated in Figure 4.3.8-E.

Figure 4.3.8-A
Question 8: Indicate
How important the role
of EE is in helping to
meet the following needs
of children/young people
today?

50 -

Test groups
ELCs

G] Central ia Post
Office

40 -

o

EEAW Conference

1: 30 Q)

There were

significant but

weak differences

between the

three groups.


...o
Q)

D..

20 -

10

X2( 12)= 103.375:

p=.OOO

Cramer's V=

.2 11


-

o

n nn
I

I

I

N=ll :)7

How important is EE in helping students
perform better in school?

Figure 4.3.8-B

o

EEAW Conference

50­

There were
significant but
weak differences
between the
three groups.

-5...i

40­

U

Ql

a..

30­

20­

x,2(8)= 56.412:
p=.OOO
Cramer's V=
. 156

10­

N= 1159

How important is EE in preparing young
people to be informed consumers?

70 ­

Test groups

Figure 4.3.8-C

ELCs

60

There were
significant but

weak differences

between the
three groups .
x,2(8)=52.848:

p= .OOO
Cramer' s V=

.15 1

N=1158

­

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference

50 ­

-

5i 40 ­
...
U

Ql

a..

30 ­

r-

20 ­

10 ­

0

-,...,
I

-

I

.n
I

I

In

How important is EE in preparing young
people to feel connected to their community
through service projects?

110

o Centralia Post

Office

o EEAW Co nference
There were
significant but
weak differences
between the
three groups.

60­

...

l:

Ql


U


Qj
a.

;(2(8)=29 .702:
p=.000
Cramer ' s V=

40 ­

20­

.113

N=II 58
0

nnn

_n

-I
101' .

I

I

%

0'0

U'~

/'?)
z'o

"-'6'

~v.

It-1

"/?,.

~

"I'

In

I

10v&
v/,6'

~

"I'

/­

~

O'?)

o~
<;>

6'

It-1

"/?,.

Z>a~

~~

"I'

<;>

<;>1'V.

z'o

&

v~

Z>a~

.

/'?)
z'o
7<;>

"I'

<;>, ,1'

<;>,,1'

How important is EE in connecting young
people with nature?

Figure 4.3.8-E
40

There were no
significant
differe nces
betwee n the
three groups.
;(2(8)=8 .057:
p=.428
Cramer's V=
.059
N= I I60

-

Test groups
ELCs

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference
30I I":

...
c:
Q)

o
Qj

20I ­

n,

10I­

o

.. n
I

.-Tn
I

nn
I

How important is EE in helping young people
take care of themselves outdoors?

1

o

Figure 4.3.8-F

EEAW Conference

40 ­

T here were
significant but
weak differences
between the
three groups.

­
cQ)
u

:u

30

­

Q.

20 ­

X(8)=23.184
p=. 003
Cramer' s V=
.100

101­

. . nn

o

T

n..r.


........
I

In

I

I

I

N= 1159

How important is EE in helping prepare
young people to make informed decisions as
voters?

100­

Test groups
ELCs

Figure 4.3.9.
T here were
significant
differences
between the
three groups.

o Centralia Post
Office
o EEAW Conference
80 -

.---­

.-----.
.----­

-

60

C

-

Q)

X2(2)= 135.4 93:
p= .OOO
Cramer's V=
.35 1

...u
Q)

Q.

40 -

-

N= 1009

.--­

20 r-""'"

o

r

I

Yes

No

Are you aware of the WA State law requiring
EE as part of all basic subject matter K-12?

11

As shown in Figure 4.3.9, there were strong differences between the three group

for the question, "Are you aware of the Washington State law requiring EE as part of a

basic subject matter K-12?" While 80% of the EEAW respondents were aware of th

mandate for EE in the State of Washington, only 24% of respondents from the Central

Post Office and 17% of respondents from the Environmental Learning Centers we
aware of this mandate.

Summary of Comparisons of Environmental Learning Center Group with the

Centralia Post Office and the Environmental Education Association of Washingto
Conference Groups


Results from the survey were consistent throughout. There was a very high lev

of support for environmental education by each of the three test groups for each of th

claims tested. Responses from the EEAW Conference group indicated the highest leve

of support for the EE claims throughout the survey. However, responses from the EL

and CPO groups were very similar and also consistently high. There were no modera

or high levels of disagreement for any of the claims tested in Questions 3-8, but the

were relatively higher levels of uncertainty for some of the claims among the ELC an
CPO groups.

\

11

Hypothe ses are based on Environmental Learning Center group respondents.
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant difference in awareness of EE based on where
people live.
(Question I: Were you aware that there is a field of study known as environmental education? and
Question 16: Describe the area that you live-urban, suburban, small town, rural.)

As indicated in Figure 4.4.1, based on the chi-square test there are no significa

differences in people' s awareness of EE based on where they live. No matter where EL
respondents lived, 25% of them said they were not aware of EE as a field of study.
Figure 4.4.1.
80

How would you
describe the area
you live in?

There were
no significant
differences.

Urban

o Suburban
o Small Town
Rural

60

;(2(3)=.744:
p=.863
N=919

­

r:::::

Q)

o

Q;

a,

40

20

No

Yes

Aware of EE?

11

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive correlation between the levels of exposure to EE a
degrees of concern about the state of the world, the United States, Washington State
and local communities.

(Question 4: Environmental Learning Sources A+B and Question 7: How concerned are you about th
state of our environment today: A. in the world, B. in the United States , C. in Wa shington State and
your community.)

To calculate the levels of exposure used in this hypothesis, the results from

frequency table in Questions 4A and 4B were added together. The highest possible s

for each "environmental learning source" was three points. There were 22 environm

learning sources queried for "as a child" and 22 for "currently as an adult." Totaling

scores from 4A and 4B gave each respondent a score that ranged from 0 (no expo

whatsoever) to 132 (high level of exposure to every single source). These total sc

were divided into quartiles and each quartile was given a number. The top 25% wit

highest scores were assigned to quartile " 1", the second to quartile "2", the thir
quartile "3" and the bottom quartile received a score of "4."

These scores were then correlated with reported levels of concern for the w

the U.S., Washington State and the local community. Spearman's rho test was used
the significance was based on p< .05 (2-tailed).

While nearly everybody reported moderate to high degrees of environm

concern, the graphs, (see Figures 4.4.2-A, B, C and D), do indicate that the top quarti

exposure frequency generally shows the highest degree of concern for all four a
surveyed while the lowest quartile shows the least. Although these differences
small, they are statistically significant.

50

-

40

-

o 2nd quartil e
o 3rd quart ile
4th quartile

rho(world) =
.176:

p=.OOO

­

cQ):
o
Qi 30 a.

N=993
20 ­

10 ­

o nnJl
I.

_It

nn.J1
I

I

m

How concerned are you about the state of
the environment today in the world?

Figure 4.4.2-B.

­

60

Quartiles total
frequen cy
Top quartile

rho(US)=.190:

o 2nd quartile
o 3rd quart ile
­

50

p=.OOO

4th quart ile

N=993

­


40 ­

Qi
a.

30

c:
Q)

(.)


­

20 ­

10

­

o

nn ]
I.

_~nr.1
I

_r.'I

n
I

m

How concerned are you about the state of
the environment today in the United States?

40­

Figure 4.4.2-C.

o 3rd quarti le
4th quartile

rho (WA)=.196:
p=.OOO

'E

30 ­

CI>

~

CI>

Q.

N=983

20 ­

10­

How concerned are you about the state of
the environment today in WA state?

50 ­

Figure 4.4.2-D.

Quartiles total
frequency
To p qua rtile

rho(community)

=.203 :

p=.OOO

N=993

40­

o 2nd qua rtile
o 3rd qua rtile
4th qu artile

1: 30­
CI>

...
(J

CI>

Q.

20­

10­

How concerned are you about the state of
the environment today in your community?

11 7

Hypothesis 3: Higher levels of education can be correlated with the statement that " It
costs less to prevent environmental problems than to clean them up."
(Q uestio n 6(a) : EE is the best investm ent because it costs less to preven t env ironme ntal problems than to clean them
up and Questio n 13 : Please indica te the highest level of education you have completed: h igh schoo l, some co llege
co urses. 4-year co llege degree, and graduate school.)

As revealed in Figure 4.4.3, there was a significant but very weak correlatio

between level of education and agreement with the statement, "It costs less to preve

environmental problems than to clean them up." It should be noted that respondents wi

just a high school education seemed to be much less sure than those with high

education as to whether they agreed with this statement or not. ELC respondents wi
some college cour ses or higher agreed more strongly with this statement.
Figure 4.4.3.
40­

Please indicate
highest level of

There is a
significant
but weak
correlation.
rho= .078:
p=.015.

education that you
have completed .

30­

.....
r::::::

Degree

Q)

o

Q;

N=983

High School

o Some College
Courses
o 4-Year College

a..

Graduate School

20­

10­

o

n -

nnnm

EE is the best investment because it costs
less to prevent environmental problems than
to clean them up.

11

not people support the statement "EE should be a central goal in public school
education."
(Question 6(f) EE should be a central goal in public school education, and
Question 12: Please describe your occupation.)

As displayed in Figure 4.4.4, there were no significant differences betwe

respondents' occupation s and support for "EE should be a central goal in public sch
education." While natural resource extractors showed some notable differences,
number of resource extractors in the survey was too low to be significant. The data

this graph were collapsed twice in order to make it easier to read and see any differen

since there were so many bars, one for each occupation. This means that all disagree

responses were lumped together and all agreeing responses were lumped togeth

Simply stated, 66% of ELC respondents of all occupations supported the statement, "
should be a central goal in public school education."
Figure 4.4.4.

100­

Please describe your

occupation?

Stay-at-home parent


o

There were no
significant
differences
between the
occupations.

80­

Health care worker

o Other white collar
o Natural resource extractor
...
C


60­

Q)


X2(18)=
28.549:
p=.054

Student

o Teacher

~

o
o

Military

o

Retired

•

Other

Blue collar

Q)

Q.

40­

N=925
20­

Disagreement

Not Sure

Agreement

EE should be a central goal in public school
education.

1

Hypothesis 5: There is a signifi cant difference in how people view themselves
politically and their response to the statement "National, state and local governments
should support and fund EE programs."

(Q uestion 15: How wo uld you describe yo ur po litica l views? conse rvative. moderate, liberal, or independent, an
Quest ion 6(m): National, state and local go vernments should support and fund EE programs. )

As indicated in Figure 4.4.5, there doe s appear to be a significant but w

difference between how people view themselves politically and their response
government funding of EE programs.

In this graph disagreeing respo ndents w

answered "I, 2, or 3" had their data grouped together because the number of respond

were too low to employ the chi square test otherwise. Respondents with a "libe

perspective tended to show more support for government funding of EE prog rams w

"conservatives" sho wed more uncertainty and slightly more disagreement with this cla

As a group, 80% of ELC respondents supported national, state and local funding of
programs.

­

50

How would you
describe your
political view s?

Figure 4.4.5.

­

40

o
o

Conserv ative
Moderate
Liberal
Independent

There were
significant

differences
between the
three groups.
x2(l 2)=55.839:
p=.OOO

Cramer's V=

.142


_

30

l:


-

CI)

o...

CI)

Q.

20


iW

10

N=920
0

-

' ~ bIl
Disagree

I·
Not Sure

Somewh at
Agree

Agr ee

Strongly
Agre e

National, state, and local governments
should support and fund EE programs.

Hypothesis 6: There is a significant difference in response to "EE is not urgently
needed now," by people who live in different areas.
(6(1) EE is not urgently needed now, and l o.Would you describe the area you jive in as: urban, suburban, small
town and rural.)

As revealed in Figure 4.4.6, there does appear to be a significant but we

difference between where people live and how they respond to "EE is not urgen
needed now."

People in rural areas had considerably more uncertainty about t

statement than the people living in the other three areas.

Eighty

percent

of

respondents from the ELC group disagreed with this statement.
Figure 4.4.6.
40

There were
significant
differences
between
respond ents from
different areas.
X) (l 8)=46.726:
p=.OOO
Cramer's
V= .127
N=964

­

How would you
descr ibe the area
you live in?
Urban

30

o Suburban
o Small Town

-

Rural

c
Q)
o

Gi
a.

20

-

10 -

I..,

o

on n..,
r;J

EE is not urgently needed now.

1

and support for the statement, "EE helps young people feel connected to their
community through service projects."
(Qu estion 8© : Hel ps yo ung peopl e feel conne cted to their co mm unity th rou gh serv ice projects, and
Que stion 17: How would you rate yo ur level of co mm un ity involvement")

As indicated in Figure 4.4.7, there is a positive but weak correlation betwe

respondents who supported the statement "EE helps young people feel connected in th

community through community service projects," and their reported level of commun

involvement. ELC respondents who were very active in their communities displayed t
highest level of agreement with this statement.
Figure 4.4.7.
60

There was a
significant
but weak
correlation.

How would you rate your
level of community
involvement ?

­

1: Not Active

02


­

50

03

4: Moderately Active

rho=.129:
p=.OOO
N=980

05

­

30

­

06

40

o 7: Very Active

.­

c:
Q)

0

Q)

a.

20­

10­

Not Important

Not Sure

Important

More
Important

Very
Importan

EE helps young people feel conne cted
through community service projects.

1

Hypothesis 8: There is a significant difference in age and levels of concern about the
world, the U.S., and state and local communities.
(Questi on 7: How concerned are you today about the state of the en vir onm ent in the world, in the U.S., in
Washington State and in your community') and Que stion II: How old are you') )

As demonstrated in Figure 4.4.8, age of ELC respondents is positively correla

to levels of concern about the world, the U.S., state and local communities. This me

that the older age groups show slightly more concern for the state of our environmen

our world, the U.S, Washington State and their local communities than the youn

groups. However, the strength of the correlation is weak between age and level
concern for all four geographical scales, which means that the differences between
age groups are small.
rho(world) =
rho(US)=
rho (state)=
rho(community)=

Figure 4.4.8.

.146;
.121;
.195;
.173;

p=.OOO
p=.OOO
p=.OOO
p=.OOO

·N=991
N=990
N=981
N=991

7-

How concerned
are you about the
state of the env.
today in the
world?

6-

0

How concerned
are you about the
state of the env .
today in the US?

0

How concerned
are you about the
state of the env.
today inWA
state?

rJ

How concerned
are you about the
state of the env .
today in your
community?

5-

-

3-

2

-

o
18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64 65 or older

How old are you?

1

Hypothesi s 9: There are significant differences between gender and support for
the statement: EE challenges learners to understand different perspectives on
complex issues.
(Q uesti on 6 (k): EE challenges learners to understand different persp ect ives on complex issues and
O ""~ li/) n

10 ' I a m " Fem a le

h M "I,, \

As seen in Figure 4.4.9, significant but weak differences were found between
male and female responses to this question. Female ELC respondents showed a little
more support for this claim while male ELC respondents indicated a little more
uncertainty.
30 -

Gender

Figure 4.4.9.
There were
significant but
weak
differences
between males
and females.

,....,

Female

o

25 -

--:

.....

Male

.....

,.....

-

.....

,.....

20 -

r::::

Q)

u

X2 (6)=23.10 1:
p= .OOI
Cramer's V=
.154

~

Q)

15 -

0..

-

10 -

:

N=971
5-

".

o

~n
I.

On
I

;
,
,

,"

n

EE challenges learners to understand
different perspectives on complex issues.

124


Hypothesis 10: There is a significant difference between occupations and support for
the role of EE in "Helping to maintain a healthy environment for people to live."
(Q uesti on 5( b) . H elp s maintai n a hea lthy env iro nme nt for peopl e to l ive in , and
5(b): Questi on 12. Pl ease descr i be your occu pat io n.)

As revealed in Figure 4.4.10, there are no significant differences betwe
occupation s and responses to "EE helps to maintain a healthy environment for people
live."

While natural resource extractors were not as supportive as the rest of t

occupations tested, their sample size was too low to be significant. Teachers showed t
highest level of support for EE overall followed by students and stay-at home parents.
this analysis, the disagreeing responses had to be lumped together since the levels
disagreeing responses were too low to use the chi square analysis. Ninety-six percent
all ELC respondents of all occupations support this claim.
Figure 4.4.10.

100­

Please describe your
occupation?
Stay-at-home parent

There are no
significant
differences
between
occupations.
X2(4)=
7.031:
p=.134

80 ­

c:

60 ­

o Student
o Teacher
Health care worker


o Other white collar

o Natural resource extractor

o Blue collar
o Military
o Retired
II

a>

(J

Other

L­

a>

a.
40 ­

N=870

20 -

o

~~ .-. ~ rill ~ ~
I

Not Important

Not Sure

Somewhat
Important

Important

Very Important

EE helps maintain a healthy environment for people to live.

12

Hypothe sis 11: There is a significant difference between level of exposure to nature
centers and reported level of community involvement.
(Q uestion 4 A+B : Leve l of exposur e to nature cen ters, and

Questio n 17: How would you rate yo ur level of co mmunity involvement?)


As displayed in Figure 4.4.11, there was a positiv e but weak correlation betwee

level of exposure to nature centers as a child and as an adult combined and reported th

level of community involvement. Scores for exposure frequency ranged from "'0" to "'

with 6 being the most exposure. Greater exposure to nature centers was related to
higher reported level of community involvement.
Figure 4.4.11.
30 ­

Levels of
community

There was a
significant
but weak
correlation.

involvement.

25

- o

o

rho=.144:
p=.OOO

Low level of
involvement
Moderate level of
involvement
High level of
involvement

20 -

N=986

'"
c

t:

Q)

(J


"­
Q)

a.

15 -

r-

10 -

5-

Ie

;

~

o

I

o

I

I

I

I

I

n

1

2

3

4

5

6

I

Total nature center count.

12

Hypothesis 12: There is no significant difference between people of different political
persuasions and support for the idea that EE connects children with nature.
(Quest ion 8(d): EE help s co nnec t young people with nature. and

Q uest ion 15: How wo uld yo u descr ibe yo ur po litical views? con se rvative . moder ate, liberal , and independ ent)


As Figure 4.4.12 indicates, there are significant but weak differences in the
responses by people of different political views with support for the statement, "EE
connects children with nature."

Conservatives again showed more uncertainty while

liberals and independents showed higher levels of support for this claim. Overall, 92% of
respondents to ELCs supported this claim.
Figure 4.4.12.
60 ­

There were

significant but

weak
differences.


How would you
describe your
political views?
Conservative

50 ­

o Moderate
o Liberal

'"

Independent

X2(l2)=43.482:

p=.OOO
Cramer' s V=

.125


40

-

­

-

c:
Q)

N= 923

o

;

a.

30 ­

20­

10­

Not Important

Not Sure

Somewhat
Important

Important

Very
Important

EE helps connect young people with nature.
127

• ELC respondents were remarkably supportive of all of the EE claims presented in t
study.
• Respondents from the different areas were equally aware of EE.

• Respondents with more exposure to EE as a child and as an adult also had high

levels of concern about the state of the environment in the world, the U.S., WA Sta
and in their local communities.
• Respondents having higher levels of education tended to agree more strongly with

idea that "EE is the best investment because it costs less to prevent environmen

problems than to clean them up." Respondents with just a high school educati
were significantly more uncertain about this claim.

• At high levels, people of all occupations equally supported "EE should be a cent
goal in public school education" and "EE helps maintain a healthy environment
people to live."

• There were differences in how respondents viewed themselves politically and th

degrees of support for government funding of EE. Liberals showed slightly high
levels of support for EE than conservatives, moderates and independents.

• Respondents from rural areas were less certain about whether "EE is urgently need
now" than were respondents from urban and suburban areas and small towns.

• Respondents who were active in their communities were more likely to support t

claim "EE helps young people feel connected through community service projects."

• Age was also correlated with levels of concern. Older respondents showed sligh
more concern about the state of the environment than did younger respondents.

1

different perspectives on complex issues."

• Exposure to nature centers as a child was positively correlated with a higher repor
level of community involvement.

• There were slight differences in respondents of differing political views and supp

for the statement, "EE helps connect children with nature." While most conservati

supported this claim, they did not rate it as important as did independent, moder
and liberal respondents.

Chapter Summary

Results from this study were consistent for all three groups surveyed. There w

a strong support for environmental education both in formal and non-formal educatio

settings and little agreement with criticisms. This was true for people regardless

gender, age, occupation, level of education, political view, with children, grandchild

or childless, area of residence or level of community involvement. While some sm

differences were found among different demographic variables, support for EE w
consistently positive.

1

Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations

Discussion


The results from this survey concerning the public' s knowledge and attitu

toward environmental education were both surprising and enlightening. The res

revealed consistent and highly supportive attitudes toward environmental education (E
throughout each demographic variable tested.

The survey design team attempted

come up with the most relevant claims, both positive and negative, regarding EE and

demographic variables that the team thought might make a difference in the suppor

non-support of EE. In Question 6 of the survey, there was support for every posi

claim and an equally strong lack of support for all of the negative claims except for t
that caused some disagreement and uncertainty.
Surveying visitors to environmental learning centers has its limitations since

group of respondents represent only one slice of the American public: those spendin

weekend day visiting an environmental learning center. Because these centers cha

admission fees, it can be assumed that the audience has discretionary money and time

recreation, and already has interests in an entertainment and educational experience w

living things as opposed to spending the time in another leisure pursuit. A compari

was made with a small number of visitors to the Centralia Post Office, a post office i

small town in a rural Washington county that historically has voted more conservativ

than more suburban and urban counties in the state. The surveys were invitation
potential respondents could decline taking the survey and many did. At most of

environmental learning centers one in four people who were asked to take the sur

agreed to take it. At Wolf Haven nearly 100% of the visitors agreed to take the sur

highest at the Centralia Post Office because many people were running errands

indicated they did not have the time to take the survey. Roughly one of 10 people at

post office agreed to take the survey, so it took three visits to gather 100 surve

Volunteers at Cat Tales in Spokane reported having good success in finding responde
to take the survey there but attendance was low.
We did succeed in gathering 286 surveys at Woodland Park Zoo, 204 from
Seattle Aquarium, 75 from Northwest Trek, 293 from Point Defiance Zoo and Aquari

38 from Port Townsend, 73 from Wolf Haven, 33 from Cat Tales, 99 from the Centr

Post Office, and 64 from the EEA W annual conference. Kathryn Owen from Woodl

Park Zoo commented that our 286 surveys, gathered in a single afternoon, was a v

high rate of return, especially for a four-page survey, considered by experien

surveyors to be a very long instrument. We were warned repeatedly that responde
would not take the time to complete a four-page survey.

It was rather humbling

observe nearly all respondents carefully completing the surveys. In the entire study,

more than three- dozen surveys had to be placed in the recycle bin because they w
insufficiently completed.

Because people paid fees to attend each of the environmental learning cent

and perhaps because of other reasons, there was a lack of diversity in range of inco

and culture among the respondents. It would have been beneficial to have a Span

version of the survey to use at the Centralia Post Office, for at least a tenth of the visi

there were Hispanic. There were only a few Spanish-speaking visitors to the ELCs w
turned down the survey because of the language barrier.

It was interesting to discover that 26% of the ELC respondents were not fami

with the field of study known as environmental education. It is possible that they co

have been thrown off by the phrase "field of study" since many might think of EE only

a practice, not a "field of study." Initially we considered using the phrase, "field of stu

and practice" in the survey, but "and practice" was inadvertently dropped along the w

That one quarter of the respondents were unaware ofEE was higher than expected. Fif
five percent of respondents, however, said they could explain what EE is to a fri
moderately well or better.

The four parts of Question 3 attempted to elicit the depth of knowledge of EE t

respondents acquired as children or teenagers. Results from the ELC group showed t

an equal number of respondents (82%) learned about both the natural environment a

about environmental problems. However, a smaller percentage (75%) learned ab
preventing environmental problems and 70% learned about ways to clean

environmental problems. These results were roughly what we expected because learn
about ways of preventing and cleaning up environmental problems necessitates

teaching of critical thinking skills in the context of complex political and econom
issues, which generally have not been a part of most people's educational experiences.

The respondents reported sources for environmental learning as a child/teen a

as an adult revealed some anticipated results and some surprises. The data indicated,

one would expect, that children get more information from school and family and adu

get less information from school and family and more information from magazines a

newspapers. Predictably, schools declined as a source of environmental learning fr

1

position to eleventh for adults. Zoos maintained the second position as the most frequ

sources of environmental learning. Of course, one fourth of the ELC respondents w
zoo visitors, so this is likely to have skewed the results somewhat.
As a source of environmental learning, television moved from third position

children and teens to second place for adults. Because television was and continues to

such an important source of EE exposure for respondents, environmental educat
should consider the opportunity that television provides for EE messaging and
programming. Television has the capability of reaching the largest audience of all
environmental learning sources listed in the survey.
Parks and refuges were also right at the top of the list as places to learn about

environment moving from the fifth position as a childhood source to fourth as adu

Nature centers moved from eleventh position for children to sixth position for adu

Nature centers sprouted in the 1950s and 1960s, so fewer nature centers may have b

available to older respondents during their childhood years. This may explain why nat

centers were ranked lower as a childhood source of environmental learning, but mov
up in rank as an adult source.

Websites were clearly at the bottom of the list for childhood and teen ye

because for most respondents, the Internet was not yet available. The World Wide W

took off in 1995 (Leiner et aI., 2003), so it was available to only a few respondents

children, but it quickly moved up the list as a current adult source to ninth in popula
for learning about the environment. See Table 4.2.4 A & B.

educators to consider the variety of venues they might choose for reaching the general
public . Television has become the dominating source of environmental learning in most
respondents' lives. Environmental organizations might consider how they might best
utilize television to market their messages about EE or undertake actual EE programming
on television. As least 20 people discussed their favorite childhood animal shows orally
with me after taking the survey. Marlin Perkins with Mutual of Omaha 's Wild Kingdom,
which began in 1963 and ran for 27 years, made a huge impact on the lives of many of
the respondents. Without any prompting , half a dozen people were moved to describe
their most memorable episode, one in which Jim Fowler wrestled an enormous anaconda
in the water while Marlin narrated the event. Environmental educators should give
television stronger consideration as a tool to promote their messages either through public
service spots or through formal programming.
Zoos remained in second place as a source for EE for both children and adults.
This means that zoos along with television and schools for children are a tremendous
opportunity for environmental educators to get EE messages to the general public. All of
the sites visited in this study have made strong efforts in this area.
Question 5 asked respondents how important is the role of EE in meeting the
needs of society today and in the future. Each claim in Question 5 generated a 55% or
more rating of "very important." A total of 94% of ELC respondents thought that EE's
role in helping to preserve living things is important. That is a tremendous vote of
support for the efficacy ofEE in preserving biodiversity. At an even higher level (96%),
respondents agreed that EE's role in helping maintain a healthy environment for people

134

nature and scenery and helps preserve the long-term sustained use of natural resources.
Ninety-two percent agreed that EE helps to prevent expensive environmental problems
and 91% agreed that EE helps prepare young people and people in the work force to
address complex environmental problems. Three percent or fewer respondents thought
EE's role was not important for each claim in Question 5. These overwhelmingly high
percentages of support for EE's ability to meet the needs of society mean that this group
of ELC visitors believes that EE can make a positive difference.
Question 6 of my survey contained seven positive and six negative claims about
EE.

While respondents agreed with all seven positive claims, four positive claims

garnered an approval rating of 80% or more:
• 6(a) at 84%, "EE is the best investment because it costs less to prevent environmental
problems than clean them up,"
• 6(c) at 91%, "EE shows learners that they should play a positive role

III

environmental care,"
• 6(h) at 89%, "EE can help people make the connection between a healthy
environment and human health," and
• 6(m) at 80%, "National , state and local governments should support and fund EE
programs ."
However, three positive claims about EE generated higher levels of uncertainty
and lower levels of agreement:
• 6(f) at 65% agreed with "EE should be a central goal in public school education,
(19% uncertain);

135

(29% uncertain) and

• 6(k) at 73% agreed with "EE challenges learners to understand different perspectiv
on complex issues" (24% uncertain).

Twenty-four percent of the respondents said they were uncertain as to whether EE wou
challenge learners to understand different perspectives on complex issues. Since 25%

the ELC respondents indicated they were not aware of the field of environmen

education, the same 25% might not have been familiar with EE's teaching of critic

thinking skills in order to solve complex problems. There was a significant negati

correlation between Question 6(k) and awareness for EE, but it was very weak. T

messages "EE challenges learners to understand different perspectives on compl

issues" along with messages concerning EE's correlation with improved academ

performance, improvements in classroom management, and increases in student a

teacher engagement are important facts about EE that need to be better marketed to t

general public. If there were a better understanding by the general public of EE teachi
methodologies and results, support for claim 6(f) and 6(k) might increase.

Of the six claims in Question 6 that were negative about EE, three received stro
opposition:

• 6(d), 81% of respondents disagreed with the statement, "EE has no place in publ
school education,"

• 6(e), 70 % of respondents disagreed with the statement, "EE needs to stay away fro
controversial issues," and

1

now."

Thus , it can be concluded that high percentages of ELC visitors believe in the value

EE in public school education, that there is a need for EE, and that it should not avo
controversial issues.

The remaining three claims about EE generated the highest levels of uncertainty

• 6(b), 24% were uncertain about "EE teaches students to view humans as destruct
to the earth,"
•

6(g), 22% were uncertain about "EE makes learners unduly worried abo
environmental problems," and

•

60),37% were uncertain about "EE preaches environmental activism."


As described in Chapters One and Three , these claims are ones that have been put fo
by a handful of critics of environmental education.


While humans clearly are destructive to the earth in some ways, this is genera

not the way that EE is presented by environmental educators. EE's intention is not

make people feel bad. It intends to give them an understanding of how humans can l

sustainably in their ecosystem while learning how to solve environmental problem

Since 50% of ELC respondents agreed with claim 6(b), 25% disagreed with it, and 24

said they were not sure, this should be an area for clarification by those marketing E

EE does admit to human destructiveness in some contexts, but the overall intent is
teach about minimizing destructiveness now and in the future.

Question 60), "EE preaches environmental activism," received 40% agreeme

23% disagreement and 37% not sure. Part of the uncertainty for question 6(j) may ha

1

"activism."

This clearly confused a sizeable percentage of respondents.

"preaches" was used intentionally to give the question a negative

connotation ~

The wo
Some

programs do teach avenues of civic participation as a part of finding solutions

environmental problems, but the intention is not to "preach." Again, here is anoth
important area for clarification through EE messaging, the need for portraying EE
teaching active, positive and constructive forms of civic participation.

Finally Question 6(g), "EE makes learners unduly worried about environmen

problems," garnered 20% agreement, 59% disagreement and 22% not sure. It points t

need for EE to be marketed in such a way as to teach the general public that EE does n
induce undue fear among its students. Rather, EE can teach confidence and optimism

teaching the critical thinking skills that are necessary for solving complex problems, a

can provide students with opportunities to participate in projects in which they can lea
what a positive difference they can make in environmental protection.
More respondents expressed a higher level of concern for the state of

environment in the world and the U.S. than they did for the state of the environment

Washington State or their local community, although levels of concern were very hi

across the board. Eighty-eight percent were concerned about the state of the environme

in the world, 89% about the U.S., 81 % for Washington State, and 81 % for the lo
community.

Interestingly 13% showed uncertainty about level of concern

Washington State and another 13% for the local community. This was higher than t

8% level of uncertainty about the world and 7% level of uncertainty about the U.S. T

differences in levels of concern may have something to do with more national-level ma

1

media attention to alarming environmental problems that are farther from home, and
comparatively less regional media attention to regional or local environmental problems.

Question 8 asked how important the role of EE is in meeting the needs o

children/young people today. It tested six claims, five of which received very strong

support (over 80%) and one of which received a great deal of uncertainty. Claim 8(a) a

44% approval, "EE helps students perform better in school," generated 38% uncertainty

and 18% disapproval. Since there are some emerging data that EE is correlated with

better student performance (Lieberman and Hoody, 1998; Kearney, 1999; McCrae and

deBettencourt, 2000; Angell, 2002; and Hart, 2003; Bartosh, 2003), this is an area where

the social marketing of EE would help position EE as a very positive influence on studen

academic success. Considering once again that 25% of ELC respondents were unaware

of the term "environmental education", even more will probably not have heard about the
successes that teachers have had incorporating EE in the classroom.

Increases in academic performance and student motivation, and reduction in

classroom management problems are three key issues for parents. My own persona

experience confirms this. As a parent of two nearly grown sons, a past PTA president

and from my experience as an elementary and middle school teacher, I have observed

that much of the criticism directed by parents toward the public schools is that children

are not engaged in their learning. This becomes more of a problem towards the end o

middle school and is a huge problem for many high school students. In my elementary

school teaching experience, my efforts to incorporate environmental and experientia

learning into my classroom realized the precise results that EE goals aspire to and tha
research results are beginning to confirm.

My students could not get enough from

139

community, stayed focused on learning, and were eager to find new restoration projec

If more parents and community members knew about the successes that teachers usi

EE methodology in their classrooms were having, they might be much more enthusias
supporting the integration of EE into the core curriculum.
The support for claims in Question 8 was strong.

• 8(b), 83% of ELC respondents thought that "EE helps prepare young peop
to make informed decisions as consumers,"

• 8(t), 80% of respondents thought that "EE is important in preparing you
people to make informed decisions when they become voters."

• 8(c), 85% of respondents thought that "EE is important in helping you
people feel connected to their communities through service projects,"

• 8(d), 92% of respondents thought that "EE is important in helping you
people connect with nature."

• 8(e), 82% of respondents thought that "EE is important in helping you
people learn to take care of themselves outdoors."

Connecting children to nature and to their communities are important values th

were shared by the ELC visitors and are messages that should be aired by environmen

educators. Also when children learn to care for themselves outdoors, they become mo

attuned to nature and its subtleties. Increasing their level of awareness of nature a

learning how to be comfortable in the outdoors are important first steps in fostering futu
stewards of the environment.

1

for EE. Even though other surveys reveal that teachers are aware of this mandate,
general public is not.

This is an important opportunity for the Office of

Superintendent of Public Instruction and EE organizations to inform all Washingtonia

that there is a mandate for the integration of EE in the K-12 curriculum. OSPI and oth

EE organizations have an opportunity to underscore this mandate with website links

EE resources, training classes for teachers, information for parents, and links to venu

where K-12 educators and environmental educators can meet with parents and the publ

Comparisons ofthe Environmental Learning Center Respondent Group with the


Centralia Post Office Respondent Group and the Environmental Association of

Washington Conference Respondent Group


When compared, some results from the Centralia Post Office (CPO) responde

and the Environmental Education Association of Washington (EEA W) Conferen

attendees with the Environmental Learning Center (ELC) visitors were unexpect

While we speculated that the Centralia Post Office group might score considerably low

in their support of EE than the ELC group did, we never imagined that they would sco

the same on almost every question; their support was consistently high. The profession

EE group did respond as we predicted they would. They showed significantly strong

support for EE than the ELC or the CPO group. As a group EEAW had more years

education, were more often female, and were more likely to consider themselves liber

They also tended to have fewer children and grandchildren. However, attendance a

1

parents from attending.

Not only were 98% of the EEAW group aware of environmental education, th

professional environmental educators indicated that they could explain EE to a frie

The group mean score was 6.18 from a range of 1-7 with ' 7' being "could explain v
well" and a standard deviation of 1.17 verses the ELC mean of 3.65 ± 1.57 and

Centralia Post Office 3.86 ± 1.66. It was interesting to see that the CPO group believ

they could explain what EE is a little better than the ELC group believed it could. Th

were virtually no differences in the responses between the three groups over the fo
parts to Question 3, which asked, "As a child or a teenager were you ever educated

anyone in school or out of school about the natural environment, environmen

problems, preventing environmental problems, and ways to clean up environmen
problems?"
There were no significant differences between the three groups

III

regards

Question 5. Respondents agreed equally that the role of EE is very important in help
to maintain a healthy environment for people to live, preserve living things, preserve

beauty of nature and scenery, promote the long-term sustained use of natural resourc

and prevent expensive environmental problems. The EEAW group showed significan

higher support for the final claim than the ELC and CPO groups did. This claim stat

"EE helps prepare young people and people in the workforce to address environmen
problems ."

Throughout the claims listed in Question 6, EEAW attendees show

significantly more support for EE. They also showed much less uncertainty regard

1

claims in Question 6 because this group often showed slightly stronger support of EE

than the ELC group did. However, it must be noted that the differences were too small t
be significant.

Heath Packard noted that a number of respondents at the EEAW conferenc

voiced support to him for Question 6(b), "EE teaches students to view humans a
destructive to the earth."

This could explain why responses to this claim were widel

distributed over the seven possible responses. Our intention was to include this claim a

a pejorative critique of EE, but because it was out of context many EEAW respondent

misconstrued this claim as a positive. This points to a possible weakness in the wordin

of the question since EEAW respondents for most questions were consistently i
agreement in their responses.
The pattern found in the previous questions continued throughout Question

regarding the differences in levels of concern for the state of the environment. Very hig

percentages of EEAW respondents (80% or greater) indicated that they are concerne
about the state of the environment.

EEAW respondents displayed higher levels o

concern while ELC and CPO groups showed virtually identical levels of concern, wit

some degree of uncertainty. This high level of concern from all three respondent group

about the state of the environment is an important message that the general public alon

with state and local legislators might be very interested in knowing about. This muc

support should bear some serious consideration when state and local officials formulat

their election campaign, their policies and budgets, possibly giving environmenta
concerns a higher priority.

14

has to offer, in this case to young people, the only exception being the claim that
"Helps students perform better in school."

Differences between the three grou

continued; however, they were slightly more exaggerated than on previous questio
The ELC and CPO group showed moderate levels of uncertainty as to how important

is in helping students perform better in school; on the other hand, the EEAW group w
very clear in their strong support for this claim.

This is not surprising, since the

professional community has been aware of this argument for several years.
Question 8(e), "How important is EE in helping young people take care

themselves outdoors," was probably new to some even to the EEAW group. This is o
of the few claims where the EEAW group did not demonstrate the same pattern

response found in most of their other responses to questions . This claim also receive

slightly higher level of uncertainty by the EEAW group in what had been a consist

pattern. There were no significant differences between the responses of the three grou

for this question as they all demonstrated widespread support for the claim. The rest
the claims showed slightly larger significant differences between the responses of
EEAW with the ELC and the CPO groups:

• 8(b), "How important is EE in preparing young people to be inform
consumers,"
• 8(c),"How important is EE in preparing young people to feel connected
their community through service projects, "
• 8(d), "How important is EE in connecting young people with nature," and

1

decisions as voters?"

Both formal and non-formal environmental educators should take the time to carefully

discuss and promote information regarding all the claims in Question 8, especiall
reinforcing the role EE can play in enhancing academic achievement.

Twelve Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1

No differences were found between where respondents lived and their awarenes

of the term environmental education. Respondents from urban, suburban, rural areas an

small towns had equivalent levels of exposure to EE. No matter where ELC visitor
lived, 74% of them were aware of EE and 26% were not.

Clearly environmenta

educators should do more to reach the last 26% of the public who are not aware of EE.
Hypothesis 2

There was a significant positive correlation between childhood and adult EE

exposure frequencies and levels of concern for the state of the world, the U.S

Washington State and local communities. This correlation points to the general need t

continue to provide multiple opportunities for environmental learning in many kinds o
venues.
Hypothesis 3

There was a significant positive correlation between levels of education an

support for the statement, "EE is the best investment because it costs less to preven

environmental problems than to clean them up." Respondents with just a high schoo

14

agreement for this claim. Thus, more education apparently is correlated with a clea

understanding of the economics of pollution prevention or pollution clean-up. This cla

reinforces the need for more EE in K-12 schools so that high school students c

graduate with a better understanding of environmental issues. This claim also needs to

marketed broadly so that those who did not attend college still have access to t
information regarding EE being the best investment because prevention costs less.
Hypothesis 4

People of all occupations supported the statement that "EE should be a cent
goal in public school education."

There were no significant differences betwe

occupations and their degree of support for the statement. Occupations were group

into 10 categories: stay-at-home parent, student, teacher, health worker, other wh

collar worker, natural resource extractor, blue collar worker, military, retired and oth

It is possible that natural resource extractors may have had noticeable differences, b

there were too few of them in either the ELC group or the CPO group to be significa
These results continue to underscore the widespread support that is already evident.
Hypothesis 5

There was a significant difference in the responses by conservatives, moderat

liberals and independents in their degrees of support for this claim, "National, state, a

local governments should support and fund EE programs." The differences, howev

were not large and reflected a greater percentage of uncertainty by conservatives a

moderates rather than disagreement with this claim. While 80% of ELC responde

agreed with the need for national, state and local funding of EE, only 6% disagree

1

government funding by the four political groups were small and reflected broad politica

support for the government funding of EE by ELC respondents. Again, these result

reveal that people across political persuasions in this study generally think that all level
of government should support EE.

Hypothesis 6

Eighty percent of ECL respondents disagreed with the statement, "EE is no

urgently needed now." However, people residing in rural areas expressed significantl

more uncertainty, 23%, than did people residing in urban (10%), suburban (10%), an
small towns (10%).

This degree of uncertainty was the difference seen betwee

respondents from urban , suburban, and rural areas, and small towns. Because people liv

farther apart from one another in rural areas, environmental problems such as air an

water pollution might be viewed as less pressing than for those that are living in muc

more congested conditions. These results matched our predictions. However, peopl

from rural areas are not exempt from environmental problems such as agricultural run-o

in streams and rivers , pesticide contamination, soil loss, and threats to salmon and othe

wildlife. EE can playas important a role in maintaining the health of the environment i

rural areas as it can in urban and suburban ones. EE messaging can and should reinforc
this.

Hypothesis 7

A positive correlation was found between respondents' level of communit

involvement and support for the statement "EE helps young people feel connected i
their community through community service projects."

Respondents reportin

14

statement. Fifty-one percent of the active to very active members supported this claim

while only 34% of the inactive to somewhat active did so. Youth are in need of feeling

connected to their communities across the U.S. (Levine and Cureton, 1998). Having

youth participate in community projects that improve the environment not only helps

create a sense of belonging, but also allows youth to do something valued by the

community. Maybe a helpful follow up question would have been, "How connected do

you feel in your community?" EE messaging could focus on community service not only

as a way to connect youth to their communities, but perhaps as a way to connect adults as
well.
Hypothesis 8

There were some significant differences found between the different age groups

and levels of concern about the state of the environment in the world, the U.S.,

Washington State and local communities. Respondents ' levels of concern were higher
among older respondents.

Respondents 18-34 had an average level of concern for

Washington State at 76%. Respondents between the ages of 35-54 had an average level

of concern about the world of 89%. Respondents 55-65 on up averaged 87% concern

about the world. Perhaps as respondents gain knowledge over time and acquire a larger
perspective, they become more concerned at all levels about the environment.

The

highest level of concern for the world, the U.S., Washington State and the community

was found with the 45-54 year old group. Maybe this is because this age group includes

the baby boomers whose formative high school and college years occurred around Earth

Day. Overall, respondents demonstrated more concern for the world and the U.S. over

148

regional problems.

Hypothesis 9

Significant differences were found between male and female respondents to thi

question with females showing more support for "EE challenges learners to understan

different perspectives on complex issues." While there have been gender difference

found in the NEETF/Roper Starch Polls with regard to degrees of environmental concer

and knowledge level, there is not a good understanding as to why these differences exis

This hypothesis was merely looking to see if we could replicate some of the gende
differences, but it does not illuminate the reason for the difference.

There is som

speculation about this in eco-feminist literature saying that women have a social role i

society as caregivers, and they also have a social role as the ones in society who d

cleaning of clothes, kitchens and households, and both of these social roles might foste
more environmental concern (MacGregor, personal communication, 2004).

Hypothesis 10

There were no differences between the types of occupations reported b

respondents and their support for the role of EE in "Helping to maintain a healthy

environment for people to live." There was very strong support for this claim across th

board with responses running 96% in support, 2% not sure, and 1% opposed

Respondents of all occupations thought that EE helps maintain a healthy environment t
live. Social marketing can reinforce this message.

14

A positive correlation between exposure to nature centers and level of commun

involvement means that those reporting higher exposure to nature centers generally repo

being more active in their communities. The National Audubon Society will be pleas

to see that a positive correlation was found here, especially since they are developing

network of "Audubon centers" across the country to educate the public about their loc

environments. Audubon also aims to help people become active in their communities

preserve and protect nature for future generations. This correlation also suggests t

importance of involving nature center visitors and participants in service and servic

learning projects, that is, in active engagement in environmental restoration a
community improvement.
Hypothesis 12

There were some small but significant differences between people with differi

political views and support for the statement, "EE connects children with nature." Wh

there was overwhelming support for this claim among ELC visitor respondents at 92

conservatives expressed a little more uncertainty about this claim than did moderate
liberals, or independents. While statistically significant, the difference was marginal.

When political views were cross tabulated with all the claims presented in th

survey, the remarkable difference found within political views was simply th

conservatives tended to be less certain and liberals tended to be more strongly supporti

of claims about the value and benefits of environmental education. This creates a wid

gap between conservatives and liberals than would be found between conservatives w
moderates and independents or between liberals with moderates and independents.

1

tabulated with political views, conservatives in this sample had significantly lower levels
of education than moderates, independents or liberals.

Conclusions
The major conclusion of this study is that support for environmental
education on the part of the survey group was consistently very high. These data
revealed that although visitors to the Environmental Learning Centers and the
Centralia Post Office were different in terms of demographic features, their
opinions regarding the claims tested on environmental education were virtually the
same.
It is possible that there are some statistically moderate or even strong differences

or correlations within the data that have yet to be discovered. This is a large data set and
it has not been fully evaluated. The data will be made available on CD through Audubon
Washington for interested parties to analyze.
The advantage to having the EEAW group as a second comparison group was that
environmental educators have spent their working years considering most of the
questions in the survey. Their answers reflect a great deal of thoughtful consideration
and experience working in the field of environmental education.
Professionals in the field of community-based social marketing advocate personal
interaction with the public to ascertain their values and viewpoints. One of the benefits
of this study was the opportunity to talk informally with people after they completed the
survey. While we did not track individual oral responses to the survey, we noted that
approximately fifty people expressed gratitude for this project.

Two or three from

151

that we were doing a study on environmental education, the one thing that they felt could
make a difference in saving the environment. One woman, after completing the survey in
the morning, stopped by in the afternoon with a truckload of old fence boards; she was
looking for a recommendation from us as to what she could do with them besides taking
them to the landfill. At the Centralia Post Office at least 10 people refused the flashlights
because the flashlights were made in China; they explained that they wanted to support
U.S. workers. This refusal of gifts for this reason did not occur at any of the other sites.
However, gifts were refused by several dozen respondents at other sites who said they did
not need a gift in exchange for their opinion and time.
One blue-collar worker at the Centralia Post Office threatened me with physical
violence because he wanted help with the spelling of the word "pollution." Perhaps this
points to a need for the integration of EE into language arts curriculum (among other
things).
The most interesting remarks for me came from the handful of natural resource
extractors at the Centralia Post Office who were not satisfied in just receiving a free gift.
Three individuals who worked in the logging industry expressed that loggers felt
personally attacked by environmentalists. They were upset because they felt they were
viewed as "bad" people by some environmental organizations, and they were afraid that
EE would identify loggers as being "bad" people as well.

My response was that

environmental educators hope to teach people how to engage in discussions that are
mutually respectful of the opinions and occupations of others in order to solve problems
shared by the community. I added that we needed to move beyond the polarization that is

152

want the same things: a healthy sustainable environment in which to live and work, the
ability to solve problems with our neighbors and within our communities, and relevant
engaging educational experiences for our children and ourselves. It would be difficult to
find anyone who would not want these things, but we need to learn how to see and
empathize with others in order to solve any of these challenging environmental problems.
Looking at issues and ideas that are agreed upon in order to create a shared vision will
help in moving past roadblocks.

The loggers in these conversations appeared to be

satisfied with my remarks.
All of these conversations were highly illuminating and stimulated my thinking
about the richness of what focus groups or personal interviews might have to offer. In
addition, I realized how much people need a safe place to voice their views without
facing condemnation from those with opposing viewpoints. I believe that when people
move past accusations and name calling, they can discuss valid issues from the many
perspectives that make up our communities.

Environmental education can and will

provide the skills that are sorely needed in this area.
Recommendations

• The results from this study demonstrate that a random nationwide study of
attitudes towards EE is merited. Information from a random study would show
EE organizations as well as the public in general what a majority of Americans
are thinking in regards to EE.

153

shopping malls, low-income neighborhoods and public housing areas including
areas where English is not the primary language spoken.
• If possible , future studies and surveys should be carried out with telephone or
direct contact with the public . At the survey sites, our direct interactions with
the public revealed that they are very interested in this subject and have rich
ideas. A survey strategy that could capture this qualitative information would
be very useful.
• Opinions of natural resource extractors need to be collected. There could be a
gap in understanding given that Washington's economy depends strongly on
natural resource extraction.
• More public education is needed regarding the merits of EE

III

the K-12

classroom and in colleges and universities. Many ELC and CPO respondents
were unaware of the benefits of EE in the classroom, i.e. improvements in
academic performance, reduction of classroom management problems, and
increased motivation of students and teachers.
• The Washington State public needs to be informed regarding the mandate
(WAC 180-15-115) for the full integration of EE in the K-12 classroom.
OSPI, the governor, legislators, and environmental organizations can all help
to get this word out.
• Messaging of EE especially at ELCs or to ELC members, donors, and funders
could include information that lets the public know of the strong support by
ELC visitors of the EE claims tested in this survey.

154

organizations that 80% of the visitors to Environmental Learning Centers, the
Centralia Post Office and the Environmental Educators Association of
Washington support national, state, and local government funding ofEE.
• Organizations interested in promoting and delivering EE messages need to take
a serious look at using television as a medium for getting their messages out to
the largest number of people.
• Environmental educators also should work collaboratively with zoos,
aquariums, museums , nature centers, parks and refuges to develop and present
consistent EE messages.
Visitors to Environmental Learning Centers, the Centralia Post Office and the
Environmental Educators Association of Washington all expressed strong support for
environmental education in Washington State.

While the NEETFfRoper Poll (2000)

found 95% and higher support for EE within a survey of environmental knowledge and
attitudes, this study did not find such high support, but very high indeed, consistently in
the 80 and 90% deciles. Not only did respondents in this study agree with claims about
what environmental education does, but they also agreed with the need for government
funding of EE programs. It is time for environmental educators to get this information to
the general public.
This project generated a great deal of excitement among all the individuals
involved in the creation and implementation of the survey. The best part was the analysis
and evaluation of the results that turned out to be more supportive of EE than we
originally imagined. The results from this survey have given me a real sense of hope that

155

leave nature in a better state for our children, grandchildren and many generations to
come, many more people will need to get involved, and they will need the knowledge,
skills and motivation to do it. Through EE , people will learn that in this struggle, each
and every person and perspective matters.

156

Adler, J. H. 1993. A child's garden of misinformation: Ecopolitics in the classroom.
Consumer's Research. 11-16.

Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., E. Hoiberg, and P. Nowak. 1982. Measuring environmental
concern: The new environmental paradigm scale. Journal ofEnvironmental
Education. 13(3): 39-43.
Andreasen, A. R. 2001. Ethics in social marketing. Georgetown University Press:
Washington D.C.

Andreasen, A. R. 1995. Marketing social change : Changing behavior to promote heal
social development, and the environment. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francis

Andrews, E. A. Camozzi, and P. Puntenney. 1991. Action models in adult environmen
education. Presented at the 1991 NAAEE Annual Conference, S1. Paul, MN.

Angell, T., L. Fergeson, and M. Tudor. 2001. Better test scores through environmenta
education? Clearing 110:20-22.

Angell, T., L. Fergeson, and M. Tudor. 2001. Environmental education in Washington
Survey results. Clearing 112: 6-7.

Archie, M. (Ed). 1996. Environmental Education in the United States: Past present an
future. National Environmental Summit. Burlingame, California. NAAEE.

Archie, M. 2003. Advancing education through environmental literacy. Association fo
Supervision and Curriculwn Development. Alexandria, VA.
Arcury, T. A. 1990. Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human
Organization. 49(4): 300-304.
Arcury, T. A. and T. P. Johnson. 1987. Public environmental knowledge: A statewide
survey. Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 18(4): 31-37.
Arcury, T. A., T. P. Johnson, and S. J. Scollay. 1986. Ecological worldview and
environmental knowledge: The "New Environmental Paradigm". Journal of
Environmental Education. 17(4): 35-40.

Audubon Washington Birds' Eye View. 2004 . Legislative Newsletter. Issue 5. April
2004.

intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal ofExperimental Social
Psychology. 22: 453-474.

Baker, M. 2000 . Update on the environmental education act of1990. Government Aff
Program. On-line, accessed on May 5, 2004 :
http://www.agiweb .org/gap/legis1 06/neea 106.
Ballantyne, R., J. Fien, and J. Packer. 2000. Program effectiveness in facilitating
intergenerational influence in environmental education: lessons from the field.
The Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 32(4): 8-15.

Bartosh, O. 2003. Environmental education: Improving student achievement. Master
Thesis , The Evergreen State College, 2003.
Barkenbus, J. 1998. Soft tools for environmental management. Forumfor applied
research and public policy. 13(4): 62-69.
Belden, Russonello and Stewart. 2002. Americans and biodiversity: New perspectives
2002 . Biodiversity Project. Washington D.C.

Belden and Russonello Research and Communications. 1996. Current trends in public
opinion on the environment: Environmental compendium update. WA D.C.
Belden and Russonello Research and Communications.

Bendapudi, N., S. N. Singh, and V. Bendapudi, 1996. Enhancing helping behavior: An
integrative framework for promoting planning. Journal ofMarketing. 60: 33-4
Bickman, L. and D. Rog. 1998. Handbook ofapplied social research methods.
SAGE Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Billings, J. A., J. S. Pearson, C. L. Lemke, and T. Angell. 1994. A systemic plan for th
integration of environmental education in Washington State schools. Olympia
WA. OSPJ.
Billings, J. A., J. S. Pearson, C. L. Lemke, and T. Angell. 1987. Environmental
education guidelines for Washington schools. Olympia, WA. OSPJ.

Bolin, J. 2002 . Researchers close in on natural solutions to PCB contamination. Purd
News. November 4,2002. On-line, accessed on June18 , 2004:
http ://news.uns.purdue.edu/htmI4ever/0211 04.Bolin.bioremediatn.html

Braus, J. and J. Disinger. 1996. Educational roots ofenvironmental education in the
United States and their relationship to its current status in Environmental
Education in the United States-Past, Present and Future. National Environme
Education Summit. Burlingame, CA.

Bramwell, A. 1989. Ecology in the 20th century: A history. Yale University Press: New
Haven, CT.
Browner, C. M. 1995. Why Environmental Education? EPA Journal 21(2) : 6-9.
Carson, R. L. 1962. Silent Spring. New York : Fawcett World Library.

Catton Jr. , W. R. and R. E. Dunlap. 1978. Environmental sociology: A new paradigm.
The American Sociologist. 13: 41-49.

CMDL. Mauna Loa Observatory. 2004. Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laborato
U.S . Department of Commerce NOAA/OARlCMDL. On-line, accessed on Apr
26, 2004 : http ://www.mlo.noaa.gov/Projects/GASES/c02graph.htm.
Chawla, L. 1999. Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of
Environmental Education. 1(15): 15-27.
Cardozo, N. B. 1994. Reading, writing and ruin. Audubon. January-February. p. 112.
Cragan, J. C. and D. C. Shields. 1992. The use of symbolic convergence theory in
corporate strategic planning: A case study. Journal ofApplied Communication
Research . May . 199-218.
Crouch, S. and M. Housden. 1996. Marketing researchfor managers. Butterworth­
Heinemann. Boston, MA.
Cullinan, T. 2004 . Status of Washington 's Birds. Audubon Washington.

Day, B. A. and M. C. Monroe (eds.) 2000. Environmental education and communicatio
for a sustainable world: Handbookfor practitioners. GreenCOM.

De Young, R. 1996. Some psychological aspects of reduced consumption behavior: Th
role of intrinsic satisfaction and competence motivation. Environment and
Behavior. 28(3) : 358-409.
Disinger, J. F. and C. E. Roth. 2003. Environmental Literacy. Columbus, OH:
ERlC/CSMEE.
Disinger, J. F. 1997. An epilogue. EE's definitional problem: 1997 update. Essential
Readings in Environmental Education. Stipes Publishing L.L.C. Champaign,
Illinois.
Disinger, J. F. 1983. Environmental education's definitional problem. ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education
Information Bulletin. No.2.

Dunlap, R. E. and K. D. Van Liere. 1978. The "new environmental paradigm": A
proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of
Environmental Education. 9(4) : 10-19.

Duty, S.M. , M. J. Silva, D. B. Barr, J. W. Brock, L. Ryan, Z. Chen, R. F. Herrick, D. C
Christiani, and R. Hauser. 2003. Phthalate exposure and human semen
parameters. Epidemiology. 14(3): 269-277.
Einstein's Cafe SROI report. 2000. Roberts Enterprise Development Fund. Online,
accessed March 25, 2004: http ://\\TWW.redf.org/pubsroi.htm#top.

Elam, S. M. 1990. The 22 nd annual Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the pub
schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 72(1): 41-55.

Elder, J. L. 2003. Afield guide to environmental literacy: Making strategic investmen
in environmental education. Environmental Education Coalition. Rock Spring
GA.

Engaging the Public on Biodiversity: A road map for education and communications
strategies. Developed and written by the Biodiversity Project. August 1999.
Madison, WI.

Ethics for a Small Planet: A communications handbook on the ethical and theological
reasons for protecting biodiversity. Developed and written by the Biodiversity
Project. November 2002. Madison, WI.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Environmental education improves our
everyday lives . (EPA-171-F-98-0 15).
Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Environmental education advances quality
education. (EPA-I71-F-98-016).
Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Key findings ofAmerica's environmental
knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. (EPA-171-F-98-019.)

Environmental Education and Training Partnership. 1996. Approaches to environment
education by indigenous cultures in North America. EETAP Resource Library
Number 3.
Environmental Education and Training Partnership. 1998. Advancing education and
environmental literacy. EETAP Resource Library. Number 30.

Environmental Education and Training Partnership. 1998. Environmental education an
nature centers. EETAP Resource Library. Number 35.

Environmental Education and Training Partnership.2002. Mapmaking in environmenta

Environmental Education and Training Partnership. 1999. The 1998 National Report
Card on Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors: Methodology
underlying annual NEETF/Roper surveys ofadult Americans. EETAP Resourc
Library. Number 47.
Environmental Education and Training Partnership. 1998. Peace corps' contributions
environmental education in developing countries. EETAP Resource Library.
Number 113.

Environmental Education and Training Partnership. 2002. Ecology and environmental
education: Key principles. EETAP Resource Library. Number 107.

Fe10k, R. C., C. Stream. 2001. Environmental protection versus economic develo pmen
A false trade off? Public Administration Review. 61(3): 313-321.

Fergeson, L., T. Angell, and M. Tudor. 2001. Better test scores through environmenta
education? Washington assessment project plans to prove it. Clearing 110: 20­
22.
Fink, A. 2003. How to manage, analyze and interpret survey data. 2nd Ed. Sage
Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Fink, A. 1995. The survey handbook. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks , CA.
Folz, D. H., 1996. Survey research for public administration. Sage Publications.
Thousand Oaks, CA.

Fortner, R., J. Lee, J. Corney, S. Romanello, J. Bonnell, B. Luthy, C. Figuerido, and N
Ntsiko. 2000 . Public understanding of climate change: Certainty and willingnes
to act. Environmental Education Research. 6(2): 127-141.

Gallagher, K. and C. B. Weinberg. 1991. Coping with success: New challenges for no
profit marketing. Sloan Management Review. 33(1): 27-42.

Gardiner, L. F. 1994. Redesigning high er education: Producing dramatic gains in
student learning. ASHE-ERlC Higher Education Report no. 2. Washington, D
ERlC Clearinghouse on Higher Education and the Association for the Study of
Higher Education 1988.
Gardner, G. T., and P. C. Stern. 1996. Environmental problems and human behavior.
Allyn and Bacon. Boston.
Geller, J. M. and P. Lasley . 1985. The new environmental paradigm scale: A
reexamination. Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 17(1): 9-12.

Gigliotti, L. M. 1992. Envirorunental attitudes: 20 years of change? Journal of
Environmental Education. 24(1): 15-26.

Gigliotti, L. M. 1990. Envirorunental education: What went wrong? What can be done
Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 22(1): 9-12.
Hair, J. 1985. "The role of environmental education organizations in achieving a
sustainable future, " in Progress Toward a Sustainable Future, edited by J. F.
Disinger and J. Opie . Troy , OH: NAEE.

Ham, S. H. and E. E. Krumpe. 1996. Identifying audiences and messages for nonform
envirorunental education: A theoretical framework for interpreters. Journal of
Interpretation Research. 1(1): 11-23.
Hart , P. 2003. Teachers ' thinking in environmental education: Consciousness and
responsibility. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. New York, NY.

Hart, R. 1997. Children 's participation: The theory and practice ofinvolving young
citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthsca
Publications.
Hawkens, Paul . 1993. The Ecology ofCommerce. HarperCollins. New York, NY.
Hicks, D. 1996. Envisioning the future: The challenge for envirorunental educators.
Environmental Education Research. 2(1): 101-109.

Hines, J. M., H. R. Hungerford, and A. N . Tomera. 1986/87. Analysis and synthesis o
research on responsible envirorunental behavior: Meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Education. 18(2): 1-8.
Holsman, R. H. 2002. Non-science teacher perceptions of envirorunental education:
results from envirorunental education and training partnership (EETAP) focus
groups. Envirorunental Education and Training Partnership.
Holsman, R. H. 2001. The politics of envirorunental education. Journal of
Environmental Education. 32(2): 4-7.
Hopkins, C. A. and R. McKeown. 1999. Education for Sustainable Development.
Forumfor Applied Research and Public Policy. 14(4): 25-29 .

Howe, R. W. and C.R. Warren. 1989. Teaching critical thinking through envirorunenta
education. ERIC/SMEAC Environmental Education Digest No.2.

Hudson, S. J. 2001. Challenges for envirorunental education: Issues and ideas for the 2
century. BioScience. 51(4): 283-288.

Hungerford, H. and T. Volk. 1990. Changing leamer behavior through environmental
education. Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 21(3): 8-21.

Hungerford, H. and T. Volk. 1998. Curriculum development in environmental educati
for the primary school: Challenges and responsibilities. Essential Readings in
Environmental Education. Champagne, IL: Stipes.

Hungerford, H., R. B. Peyton, and R. J. Wilke. 1980. Goals for curriculum developme
in environmental education. Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 11(3); 42-47.
Hwang, Y., S. Kim , and J. Jeng. 2000. Examining the causal relationships among
selected antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of
Environmental Education. 31(4): 19-25.

Jackstadt, S. and M. Sanera. 1995. Environmental education: Turning kids into politica
activists. The Freeman. October: 645-49.

Jacobson, S. K. and S. B. Marynowski. 1996. Public attitudes and knowledge about
ecosystem management on department of defense land in Florida. Conservatio
Biology. 11(3): 770-781.
Jickling, B. 2001. Environmental thought, the language of sustainability and digital
watches. Environmental Education Research. 7(2): need page numbers

Jickling, B. 2000. A future for sustainability? Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 123: 467­
476.
Jickling, B. 1996-1999. Environmental education in a sustainable perspective, a
collection ofessays in the context ofthe final conference ofthe program Extra
Impulse EE 1996-1999. Amsterdam: NCDO.
Jickling, B. 2000. Environmental education and environmental advocacy: revisited.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Association for
Environmental Education. South Padre Island, Texas, October 17-24,2000.

Kaiser, F. G., S. Wolfing, and U. Fuhrer. 1999. Environmental attitude and ecological
behavior. Environmental Psychology. 19: 1-19.
Keamey, A. 1999. Teacher perspectives on environmental education and school
improvement. Final Report.
KEEC. 1998. Land, legacy and learning: Making education pay for Kentucky 's
environment. Kentucky Environmental Education Council.

1

culture. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.

Klein, E. S. and E. Merritt. 1994. Environmental education as a model for constructivis
teaching. Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 25(3): 14-21.

Kurfiss, J. G. 1988. Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities.
ASHE_ERIC Higher Education Report No.2. Washington D.C .
LaLonde, R. and E. L. Jackson. 2002. The new environmental paradigm scale: Has it
outlived its usefulness? The Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 33(4): 28-36.
Landers, P., M. Naylon, and A. Drewes. 2002. Environmental literacy scope and
sequence: Providing a systems approach to environmental education in
Minnesota. Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. St. Paul, MN.
Lean, G. 2004. Global Warming Spirals Upward. The Independent. March

zs".

Leiner, B., V. Cerf, D. Clark, R. Kahn, L. Kleinrock, D. Lynch, J. Postel, L. Roberts, S
Wolff. 2003. A brief history of the Internet. On-line, accessed on June 24, 200
http ://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml#Transition
Levine, A. and Cureton, J. 1998. Where hope and fear collide: A portrait oftoday 's
college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lieberman, G., L. Hoody. 1998. Closing the achievement gap: Environment as an
integrating context for learning. State Education and Environmental Roundtable
Online, accessed on March 26,2004: www.seer.org/extras/execsum.pdf.

Life. Nature. The Public. Making the connection: A biodiversity communications
handbook. 1999. The Biodiversity Project. Madison, WI.
Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2002. The influence of an educational program on children's
perception of biodiversity. The Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 33(2): 22­
31.

Linn, N., J. Vinning, and P. A. Feeley. 1994. Toward a sustainable society: Waste
minimization through environmentally conscious consuming. Journal ofApplie
Psychology. 24(17): 1550-1572.

Lynch, D. R. and C. E. Hutchinson. 1992 . Environmental education. Proceedings ofth
National Academy of Sciences. 89: 864-867. Colloquium Paper.
Machlis, G. E. 1989 . The devil's work in God's country: Politics and interpretation in
the 1990s . Journal ofInterpretation. B(5): 4.

Mann, M . E., R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes. 1994. Northern hemisphere temperatur

1

Geophysical Union. 31(14). On-line, accessed June 18, 2004:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf
Marcinkowski, T. J. 1989. An analysis of correlates and predictors of responsible
environmental behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International. 49(2): 3677-A.

McCrae, E. J. and K. deBettencourt (eds.) 2000 . Environmental studies in the K-12
classroom: A teacher's view. NAAEE and the Environmental Literacy Council

McGuire, W. J. 1989. "Theoretical foundations of campaigns." R.E. Rice and C. K.
Atkins (eds.) , Public Communication Campaigns. Newbury Park, CA. Sage. 43
66.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000. Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based
social marketing. American Psychologist. 55(5) : 531-537.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000. Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to
community-based social marketing. Journal ofSocial Issues. 56(3): 543-554.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., and W. Smith. 1999. Fostering sustainable behavior: An
introduction to community-based social marketing. New Society Publishers:
Gabriola Island, B. C.
McWayne E., and E. Ellis. January 2003. Washington State environmental education
needs assessment 2001-2002. Available on-line at Northwest Environmental
Education council website. URL: http://www.nweec.org/wseena.htm
Milbrath, L. W. 1995. Psychological, cultural and informational barriers to sustainabil
Journal ofSocial Issues. 51(4): 101-120.

Moody, D. 1994. Environmental education : A briefing paper for school board member
Washington State School Directors' Association. Olympia, WA.
Mrazek, R. 1993. Alternative paradigms in environmental education research. North
American Association for Environmental Education.
National Audubon Society. 2004. About Audubon. On-line , accessed on March 26,
2004: http://www.audubon.org/nas/

zr

National Science Foundation. 2000 . Environm ental science and engineeringfor the
century: The role ofthe National Science Foundation. National Science Board
Online, accessed on March 26th , 2004: www.nsf.gov/nsb/tfe/nsb99133/start.htm
NAAEE. 2000. Environmental studies in the k-12 classroom : A teacher's view.
Washington DC: North American Association for Environmental Education.

NEEAC. 1996. Report assessing environmental education in the United States and the
implementation of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990, EPA
National Environmental Education Advisory Council. Accessed on February 6,
2004: www.epa.gov/enviroed/pdf/report.pdf

NEETF. 2002. Two out ofthree Americans get a failing grade on the national
environmental report card. The National Environmental Education and Training
Foundation.
NEETF. 2000. Environment-based education: Creating high performance schools and
students. Washington CD: National Environmental Education and Training
Foundation. Online, accessed on March 26,2004:
www.neetforg/pubsINEERF8400.pdf
NEETF. 2000. Summary ofRoper Report 2000: Lessons from the environment.
Washington DC: National Environmental Education and Training Foundation.
On-line, accessed on February 26, 2004:
www.neetforg/roper/2000%20Summary.htm.
NEETFlRoper Starch Worldwide. 2002. Americans' low "Energy IQ:" A risk to our
energy future. The Tenth Annual National Report Card: Energy Knowledge,
Attitudes and Behavior. The National Environmental Education and Training
Foundation: Roper ASW.
J\fEETFlRoper Starch Worldwide. 2001. Lessonsfrom the environment: National Repo
Card on Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors. Washington DC:
National Environmental Education and Training Foundation.

NEETFlRoper Starch Worldwide. 1999. National report card on environmental
readiness for the 21st century. Washington DC: National Environmental Educati
and Training Foundation.
NEETFlRoper Starch Worldwide. 1998/1997. National Report Card on
Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors. Washington DC: National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation.
Newhouse, N. 1990. Implications of attitude and behavior research for environmental
conservation. Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 22(1): 26-32.
Newton, B. 1. 2001. Environmental education and outreach: experiences of a federal
agency. BioScience. 51(4): 297-299.

NWAF. 2004. Northwest Area Foundation Indicator Website. On-line, accessed on Ma
5,2004: http://www.indicators.nwaforg/

1

Odum, E. P. 1992. Great ideas in ecology for the 1990s. Bioscience. 42(7)
On-line, accessed May 5, 2004 : www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watchlew930701.
Orr, D. W. 1993 . Educating a constituency for the long haul. Conservation Biology.
7(4): 752-754.
Orr, D. W. 1992. Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern
world. SUNY Press, New York.

Orr, D. 1984. Earth in mind: On education, the environm ent and humans. Island Press
D.C.
Ostman, R. E. and J. L. Parker. 1987. Impact of education, age, newspapers, and
television on environmental knowledge, concerns and behaviors. Journal of
Environmental Education. 19(1): 3-9.

Paden, M., Pickering, K., T. Volk. 1996 . A summary of survey and research fmdings o
environmental literacy in the United States and the effects of environmental
education. Environmental education in the US: Past, Present and Future.
Collected papers ofthe 1996 National Environmental Education Summit, CA,
USA.NAAEE.

Palmer, 1. A., J. Suggate, I. Robottom, and P. Hart. 1999. Significant life experiences a
formative influences on the development of adults' environmental awareness in
the UK, Australia and Canada. Environmental Education Research. 5(2): 181­
200.

Palmer, J. A. 1994. The handbook ofenvironmental education. Routledge. New York,
N.Y.
Parfitt, B. 2002. Poison evidence points to illegal dumping. Creative Resistance.
November 25 , 2002. On-line, accessed, June 18, 2004:
http://www.creativeresistance. calawarenessO 1/2002-nov25-poison-evidence­
points-to-illegal-dumping-ben-parfitt-georgia-straight.htm

PCSD. 1999. Toward a sustainable America. Advancing prosperity, opportunity and a
healthy environment for the 21s1 century. President's Council on Sustainable
Development. U. S. Printing Office. Washington D.C.

PCSD. 1995. Educationfor sustainability: An agenda for action. President's Council o
Sustainable Development. U.S. Printing Office. Washington D.C.
Pitt, W. R. 2003. The greatest sedition is silence: Four years in America. Pluto Press:
Sterling, VA.

On-line, accessed on June 18,2004:
http://wv..W.brighton73.freeserve.co .uk/gw/paleo/millenniumC02.htm
Robinson, Les. 1998. A 7-step social-marketing approach. Waste Educate 98
Conference. Accessed from the web on April 26, 2004
http: //media.socialchange.net.au/strategy/
Rose, L. C. and A. M. Gallup. 2003. The 35th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's
Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. On-line, accessed on May 11,2004:
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0309pol.htm
Rose, L. C. and A. M. Gallup. 2002. The 34th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's
Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. On-line, accessed on May 11, 2004 :
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0209pol.htm
Rose, L. C. and A. M. Gallup. 2001. The 33rd Annual Gallup Poll of the Public 's
Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. On-line, accessed on May 11 ,2004 :
http ://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kOl09gal.htm
Rose , L. C. and A. M. Gallup. 2000. The 32nd Annual Gallup Poll of the Public 's
Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. On-line, accessed on May 11,2004:
http://VI'WW.pdkintl.org/kappan/kpol0009.htm
Rose, L. C. and A. M. Gallup. 1999. The 31 st Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's
Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. On-line, accessed on May 11,2004:
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kpoI9909.htm

Ross, P.S., G. M. Ellis, M. G. lkonomou, L. G. Barrett-Lennard and R. F. Addison. 200
High PCB concentrations in free ranging killer whales, Orcinus orca: Effects o
age, sex and dietary preference. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 40(6): 504-515.
Roth, C. E. 1992. Environmental literacy: It's roots, evolution, and directions in the
1990s. Columbus, OH: ERIC/CSMEE.
Roth, C. E. 1992. Operationalizing the concept. Environmental literacy: Its roots,
evolution and directions in the 1990 's, rev. ed., 15-21. Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

Rothschild, M. L. 1999. Carrots, sticks, and promises: A conceptual framework for the
management of public health and social behaviors. Journal ojMarketing. 63: 2
37.
Ruskey, A., R. Wilke, and T. Beasley. 2001. A survey of the status of state-level
environmental education in the United States-1998 update. Journal of
Environmental Education. 32(3): 4-14.

Sanera, M. and J. Shaw. 1996. The ABCs of environmental myths. Wall Street Journal
September 4: A14.
Sanera, M. and J. Shaw. 1996. Facts, not fear: A parent's guide to teaching children
about the environment. Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washington, D.C.
Sanera, M., R. Dean, D. Boze, L. Harsh. 1999. K-12 Environmental education report
card for Washington state. Heritage Freedom Foundation. 9(4): 1-23.
Sapsford, R. 1999. Survey research . Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Satchell, M. 1996. Dangerous waters? Us. News and World Report. 120(23): 63-64.

Sia, A. P., H. R. Hungerford, and A. N. Tomera. 1986. Selected predictors of responsib
environmental behavior: An analysis. Journal ofEnvironmental Education . 17(
31-40.

Schultz, P. W. and S. Oskamp. 1996. Effort as a moderator of the attitude-behavior
relationship: General environmental concern and recycling. Social Psychology
Quarterly. 59(4): 375-383.
Shewchuk, J. 1994. Social marketing for organizations. Ministry of Food and
Agriculture. Factsheet 92-097. Ontario,Canada.
Social Marketing Institute. 2000. Conference Report: Nonprofit Marketing Summit
Conference. Tampa, Fl. March 16-17.

Simmons, D. 1991. Are we meeting the goal of responsible environmental behavior? A
we meeting nature center goals? Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 22(3): 1
21.

Simmons, D.,L. Mann, M. Vymetal-Taylor, R. Carter. 2000. Environmental education
materials: Guidelines for excellence workbook. North American Association f
Environmental Education. Rockspring, GA.
Sivek, D. J. 2002. Environmental sensitivity among Wisconsin high school students.
Environmental Education Research. 8(2): 155-169.

Sivek, D. J. and H. Hungerford. 1990. Predictors of responsible environmental behavio
in members of three Wisconsin conservation organizations. The Journal of
Environmental Education. 17(1): 13-22.

Smith, G. A. 2000 . Defusing environmental education: An evaluation ofthe critique o

Analysis, and Innovation. Online, assessed on March 5, 2004:
www.uwm.edu/Dept/CERAIIedpolicyproject/cerai-OO-ll.htm.

Smith-Sebasto, N. J.(Ed.) 1997. Recent graduate works and graduate programs in
Environmental communication and environmental education. NAAEE. Troy, O

Sobel, D. 1998. Mapmaking with children: Sense ofplace education for the elementar
years. Heinemann. Portsmouth, NH.
Sobel , D. 1996. Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart ofnature education.
The Orion Society. Great Barrington, MA.
Spring, J. 2001. The American school: J 642-2000. McGraw Hill. New York, NY.
Stapp, W. et al. 1969. Concept of environmental education. Journal ofEnvironmental
Education. 1(3): 30-31.
Swanagan, J. S. 2000. Factors influencing zoo visitors' conservation attitudes and
behavior. Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 31(4): 26-32.

Tudor, M. T. and K. M. Dvomich. 2001. The Naturemapping program: Resource agen
environmental education reform. Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 32(2): 8
15.

UNESCO. 2003. Resolution adopted at conference plenary session. On-line, accessed
June 30, 2004:
http://www.earthcharter.orgifiles/activitiesIUNESCO%20RESOLUTION%20A
OPTED%20AT%20PLENARY%20SESSION .doc
UNESCO 2002. Educatingfor sustainability from Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons
learnt(sic) from a decade ofcommitment. World Summit on Sustainable
Development. Johannesburg, 26 August- 4 September 2002.

UNESCO 1997. Educatingfor a sustainable future : A trans-disciplinary visionfor
concerted action. Report from the International Conference on Environment an
Society: Education and Public Awareness for Sustainability. Thessaloniki,
December 8-12, 1997.

UNESCO. 1978. Final report intergovernmental conference on environmental educati
Organized by UNESCO in Cooperation with UNEP, Tbilisi, USSR, 14-26.
October, 1997. Paris UNESCO ED/MD/49.
UNESCO. 1978. Needs and priorities in environmental education: An international
survey. Paris: UNESCOIUNEP.

education. Connect: UNESCO- UNEP Environmental Education Newsletter. 1(
1-3.
UNFCCC. 2004. The Convention and Kyoto Protocol. Online, accessed on April 27,
2004. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
http://unfccc .int/resource/convkp.htmi
U.S. Census Bureaus. 2000. Public information office. On-line, accessed on May 5,
2004 : www.census.gov
U.S. COP. 2004. Preliminary report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. April
2004. On-line, accessed May 18,2004:
http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prelimreport/welcome.html

USGS . 2000. Mercury in the environment. Fact sheet: 146-00. United States Geologic
Survey.

USPIRG. 2003 . Bill to define critical habitat designation. U.S. Public Interest Researc
Group. On-line, accessed on May 12, 2004:
http ://uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=8592&id3=USPIRG&#3

Uzzell, D. 1999. Education for environmental action in the community: New roles and
relationships. Cambridge Journal ofEducation. 29(3): 397-413.
Van Liere, K. D. and R. E. Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern:
A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Publi c Opinion
Quarterly. 44(2): 181-197.
Volk, T. L. and W. Me Beth. 1998. Environmental literacy in the United States: What
should be ... What is ...Getting from here to there. NAAEE.

WADOE. 2004 . Summary of the WA state hazardous waste management plan and soli
waste management plan. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication
Number: 04-04-008. May 4,2004. Online, accessed: June 18,2004 :
http://www .ecy.wa.gov/pubs /0404008.pdf

Washington Secretary of State Webpage. 2004. Elections and voting. On-line, accesse
on May 10,2004: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/

Weinreich, N. K. 1999. Hands-on social marketing: A step-by-step guide. "The 'don't
kid yourself campaign case study." Online excerpt, accessed March 25, 2004:
http://www.social-marketing.com/dky.html.
Weisberg, H. F., J. A. Krosnick, and B. D. Bowen. 1996. An introduction to survey
research, polling, and data analysis. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Wheeler, K. and A. Bijur. 2000. Educationfor a Sustainable Future: A paradigm of
hope for the 2Ft century. Kluwer AcademiclPlenurn Publishers, New York.
World Watch Institute. 2004. Global temperatures get hot, hot, hot. On-line , accessed
May 12, 2004: http ://www.worldwatch.org/features/vsow/2003 /10/22/
WPZ. 2003. Guest interview project. Audience Research Office. Woodland Park Zoo.
Zelezny, L. C. 1999. Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors:
meta-analysis. Journal ofEnvironmental Education. 31(1): 5-10.

1

Eugene Odum's List of20 Concepts to I mprove Eco-literacy

Concept 1. An ecosystem is a thermodynamically open, far from equilibrium, system.
Input and output environments are an essential part of this concept. For example, in
considering a forest tract, what is coming in and going out is as important as what is
inside the tract. The same holds for a city. It is not a self-contained unit ecologically or
economically; its future depends as much on the external life-support environment as on
activities within city limits (Odum 1983, Patton 1972, Prigogine et al. 1972).
Concept 2. The source-sink concept: one area or population (the source) exports to
another area or population (the sink). This statement is a corollary to concept 1. It is
applicable at ecosystem as well as population levels . At the ecosystem level, an area of
high productivity (salt marsh, for example) may feed an area oflow productivity
(adjacent coastal waters). At the population level, a species in one area may have a higher
reproduction rate than needed to sustain the population, and surplus individuals may
provide recruitment for an adjacent area of low re-production. Food chains may also
involve sources and sinks (see concept 12; Lewin 1989, Pulliam 1988).
Concept 3. In hierarchical organization of ecosystems, species interactions that tend to be
unstable, nonequilibrium, or even chaotic are constrained by the slower interactions that
characterize large systems. Short-term interactions, such as interspecific competition--the
evolutionary arms race between a parasite and its host, herbivore-plant interactions, and
predator-prey activities--tend to be oscillatory or cyclic. Large, complex systems--such as
oceans, the atmosphere, soils, and large forests-tend to go from randomness to order and
will tend to have more steady-state characteristics, for example, the atmosphere's gaseous
balances. Accordingly, large ecosystems tend to be more homeostatic than their
components. This principle may be the most important of all, because it warns that what
is true at one level mayor may not be true at another level of organization. Also, if we
are serious about sustainability, we must raise our focus in management and planning to
large landscapes and beyond (Allen and Starr 1982, Kauffman 1990, O'Neill et al. 1986,
Prigogine and Stengers 1984, Ulanowicz 1986).
Concept 4. The first signs of environmental stress usually occur at the population level,
affecting especially sensitive species. If there is sufficient redundancy, other species may
fill the functional niche occupied by the sensitive species. Even so, this early warning
should not be ignored, because the backup components may not be as efficient. When the
stress produces detectable ecosystem-level effects, the health and survival of the whole
system is in jeopardy. This idea is a corollary of item 3: parts are less stable than wholes
(Odum 1985, 1990, Schindler 1990).
Concept S. Feedback in an ecosystem is internal and has no fixed goal. There are no
thermostats, chemostats, or other set-point controls in the biosphere. Cybernetics at the
ecosystem level thus differs from that at the organism level (body temperature control,
for example) or that of human-made mechanical systems (temperature control of a
building, for example) where the control is external with a set point. Ecosystem control,
where manifested, is the result of a network of internal feedback processes as yet little
understood--another corollary of concept 3 (Patten and Odum 1981). Concept 6. Natural

173

Accordingly, coevolution, group selection, and traditional Darwinism are all part of the
hierarchical theory of evolution. Not only is the evolution of a species affected by the
evolution of interacting species, but a species that benefits its community has survival
value greater than a species that does not (Axelrod 1984, 1980, Axelrod and Hamilton
1981, Gould 1982, Wilson 1976, 1980).
Concept 7. There are two kinds of natural selection, or two aspects of the struggle for
existence: organism versus organism, which leads to competition, and organism versus
environment, which leads to mutualism. To survive, an organism does not compete with
its environment as it might with another organism, but it must adapt to or modify its
environment and its community in a cooperative manner. This concept was first
suggested by Peter Kropotkin soon after Darwin. (Gould 1988, Kropotkin 1902).
Concept 8. Competition may lead to diversity rather than to extinction. Although
competition plays a major role in shaping the species composition of biotic communities,
competition exclusion (in which one species eliminates another, as in a flour beetle
microcosm) is probably the exception rather than the rule in the open systems of nature.
There, species are often able to shift their functional niches to avoid the deleterious
effects of competition (den Boer 1986).
Concept 9. Evolution of mutualism increases when resources become scarce.
Cooperation between species for mutual benefit has special survival value when
resources become tied up in the biomass, as in mature forests, or when the soil or water is
nutrient poor, as in some coral reefs or rainforests (Boucher et al. 1982, Odum and Biever
1984). The recent shift from confrontation to cooperation among the world's superpower
nations may be a parallel in societal evolution (Kolodziej 1991).
Concept 10. Indirect effects may be as important as direct interactions in a food web and
may contribute to network mutualism. When food chains function in food web networks,
organisms at each end of a trophic series (for example, plankton and bass in a pond) do
not interact directly but indirectly benefit each other. Bass benefit by eating planktiverous
fish supported by the plankton, whereas plankton benefit when bass reduce the
population of its predators. Accordingly, there are both negative (predator-prey) and
positive (mutualistic) interactions in a food web network (Patton 1991, Wilson 1986).
Concept 11. Since the beginning of life on Earth, organisms have not only adapted to
physical conditions but have modified the environment in ways that have proven to be
beneficial to life in general (e.g., increase 02 and reduce C02). This modified Gaia
hypothesis is now accepted by many scientists. Especially important is the theory that
microorganisms play major roles in vital nutrient cycles (especially the nitrogen cycle)
and in atmospheric and oceanic homeostasis (Cloud 1988, Lovelock 1979, 1988, Kerr
1988, Margulis and Olendzenski 1991).
Concept 12. Heterotrophs may control energy flow in food webs. For example, in warm
waters, bacteria may function as a sink in that they short-circuit energy flow so that less
energy reaches the ocean bottom to support demersal fisheries. In cooler waters, bacteria
are less active, allowing more of the fruits of primary production to reach the bottom
(Pomeroy 1974, Pomeroy and Deibel 1986, Pomeroy and Wiebe 1988). Small hetertrophs
may play similar controlling roles in terrestrial ecosystems such as grasslands (Dyer et al.
1982, 1986, Seastadt and Crossley 1984). This concept is a corollary of concept 11.

174

diversity, not just species diversity. The focus on preserving biodiversity must be at the
landscape level, because the variety of species in any region depends on the size, variety,
and dynamics of patches (ecosystems) and corridors (Odum 1982, Turner 1988, Wilson
1988).
Concept 14. Ecosystem development or autogenic ecological succesion is a two-phase
process. Early or pioneer stages tend to be stochastic as opportunistic species colonize,
but later stages tend to be more self-organized (perhaps another corollary of concept 3;
Odum 1989a).
Concept 15. Carrying capacity is a two-dimensional concept involving number of users
and intensity of per capita use. These characteristics track in a reciprocal manner--as the
intensity of per capita impact goes up, the number of individuals that can be supported by
a given resource base goes down (Catton 1987). Recognition of this principle is important
in estimating human carrying capacity at different quality-of-life levels and in
determining how much buffer natural environment to set aside in land-use planning.
Concept 16. Input management is the only way to deal with nonpoint pollution.
Reducing waste in developed countries by source reduction of the pollutants will not only
reduce global-scale pollution but will spare resources needed to improve quality of life in
undeveloped countries (Odum 1987, 1989b).
Concept 17. An expenditure of energy is always required to produce or maintain an
energy flow or a material cycle. According to this net-energy concept, communities and
systems, whether natural or human-made, as they become larger and more complex,
require more of the available energy for maintenance (the so-called complexity theory).
For example, when a city doubles in size, more than double the energy (and taxes) is
required to maintain order (Odum and Odum 1981, Pippenger 1978).
Concept 18. There is an urgent need to bridge the gaps between human-made and natural
life-support goods and services and between non-sustainable short term and sustainable
long-term management. Agroecosystems, tropical forests, and cities are of special
concern. H. T. Odum's "emergy" concept and Daly and Cobb's index of sustainable
economic welfare are examples of recent attempts to bridge these gaps (Daly and Cobb
1989, Folke and Kaberger 1991, Holden 1990, Odum 1988).
Concept 19. Transition costs are always associated with major changes in nature and in
human affairs. Society has to decide who pays, for example, the cost of new equipment,
procedures, and education in changing from high-input to low-input farming or in
converting from air polluting to clean power plants (Renner 1991 , Spencer et al. 1986).
Concept 20. A parasite-host model for man and the biosphere is a basis for turning from
exploiting the earth to taking care of it (going from dominionship to stewardship, to use a
biblical metaphor). Despite, or perhaps because of, technological achievements, humans
remain parasitic on the biosphere for life support. Survival of a parasite depends on
reducing virulence and establishing reward feedback that benefits the host (Alexander
1981, Anderson and May 1981, 1982, Levin and Pimentel 1981, Pimentel 1968, Pimentel
and Stone 1968, Washburn et al. 1991). Similar relationships hold for herbivory and
predation (Dyer et al. 1986, Lewin 1989, Owen and Wiegert 1976). In terms of human
affairs, this concept involves reducing wastes and destruction of resources to reduce
human virulence, promote the sustainability of renewable resources, and invest more in
Earth care.

175

~>

::l. "

::l"C

.....

8..=
g

::l.

i

Environmental Education Survey

'<

.....
o

To show our appreciation for your help, we have a gift for you upon complet ion of this survey.
Contact: Karin Kraft, Research DirectorlEvergreen MES Candid ate-kraftkf@comcast.n et

:::tl
.-+

o

::l

"'O

1. Were you aware that there is a field of study known as environmental education?

a. Yes

b.

No

Not at all
1

2

Moderately well
3
4
5

Very Well
6
7

3. As a child or teenager, were you ever educated by anyone in school or out of school about:
a)
b)
c)
d)

-....J

0\

(l)

~

Circle the item that is closest to your opinion.

2. How well could you explain what
environmental education is to a friend?

~=

The natural environment?
Environmental problems such as air and water pollution?
Preventing environmental problems?
Ways to clean up environmental problems?

1. Yes
1. Yes
1. Yes
1. Yes

2.
2.
2.
2.

No
No
No
No

3.
3.
3.
3.

Can't Remember

Can't Remember

Can't Remember

Can't Remember


...... ...... .......


4-A. Think about your childhood and
teen years. Consider how frequently you
engaged in environmental learning
t~ough each of the following so.urces:
;
Circle a number below for each Item listed
Not
Applicable

--.J
--.J

Neyer

Rarely Occasionally

~~~~.c.~~~~~~~~~r b~l~~~a.~ e~c~l~~~ll~ted.
Not
Applicable

Often

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

/

Environmental
Learning

4-B. Now, think about the present,
and how frequentl y you engage in
environmental learning through
each of the following sou:ces. ~ircl e

"
:,
.,
I

;,

;
Iii

q

i'

'I

"

nature centers
zoos
aquariums
museums
service clubs (Rotary, etc.)
hobbies/hobby clubs
religious institutions
family members
local/regional, environmental

organizations. (Audubon, etc.)
TV programs
friends
radio
newspapers
magazines
academic journals
websites
community service orgs
science centers
school
work place
parks/refuges
other

Neyer

Rarely Occasionally

Often

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3


/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3


Definition:
Environmental education is life-long learning that aims to increase people's knowledge and
awareness about the environment, to provide people with the necessary skills and expertise to
make informed environmental decisions, and to live responsibly in the world.
5. Indicate how important the role of environmental education is in helping to meet
the following needs of society today and in the future:
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Very
Important

Not
Sure

a. Helps preserve living things .

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

b. Helps maintain a healthy environment
for people to live in ..

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

c. Helps preserve the beauty of nature and scenery. .1

2

3

4

5

6

7

d. Helps promote long-term sustained use of
natural resources
.. . . .

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

e. Helps prevent expensive environmental
problems in the future .. .
. ..
.

-.J

Not
Important

.

f. Helps prepare young people and people in the
work-force to address complex environmental
problems .
. . . . ..
.....

00

g. Other: (describe and rate).

6. Please tell us the extent to which you agree or disagree with these claims about environmental
education (EE).
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

-....l

\0

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Not
Sure

Agree

Strongly
Agree

a) EE is the best investment because
it costs less to prevent environmental problems
than to clean them up . .. ... . ... .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

b) EE teaches students to view humans as
destructive to the earth .. . ... ...

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

c) EE shows learners that they should playa positive
.....
role in the care of the environment .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

d) EE has no place in public school education . .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

e) EE needs to stay away from controversial issues .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6. cont'd.
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Strongly
Disagree

f) EE should be a central goal in
public school education . ... .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

...1

2

3

4

5

6

7

h) EE can help people make the connection between
a healthy environment and human health ..
.. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

i) EE is essential for preparing learners
for jobs later in life .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

j) EE preaches environmental activism

. I

2

3

4

5

6

7

k) EE challenges.learners to understand different
perspectives on complex issues ..
..... . -

...1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

....1

2

3

4

5

6

7

g) EE makes learners unduly worried about
.. ...
.. ..
environmental problems ..
.

I) EE is not urgently needed now .
m) National , state and local governments
should support and fund EE programs .. ..

00
0

..

Disagree

Not
Sure

Agree

Strongly
Agree

7. How concerned are you about the
state of our environment today ...
a. in the world?
b. in the United States?
c. in Washington State?
d. m
. your commuruty
. ')...

Very
Unconcerned
Unconcerned

Neutral

Concerned

Very
Concerned

. .1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8. Indicate how important the role of environmental education is in helping to meet the following
needs of children/young people today?
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

00

.........


Not
Important

Not
Sure

Very
Important

a. Helps students perform better in school ..

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

b. Helps prepare young people to make
informed decisions as consumers

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

c. Helps young people feel connected to their
community through service projects

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

d. Helps connect young people with nature ..

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8. Contrd.
Circle the number that reflects your opinion.

Not
Important

e. Helps young people learn to take care of
themselves in the outdoors . .

Not
Sure

Very
Important

2

3

4

5

6

7

f. Helps prepare young people to make
informed decisions when the y become
voters .
.
.

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

g. Other: (Please describe and rate ) .

.1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9. Are you aware of the Washington State law requiring EE as a part of all basic subject matter K-12
(WAC 180-50-115) in the public schools?
Yes
a.
b. No

00
tv

Finally, we would like to ask you a few short background questions about yourself.
Please circle the appropriate responses.
15. How would you describe your political views?
10. I am

a.

Female

b.

Male

a)
b)
c)
d)

11. How old are you?
a) 65 and older
b) 55to64
c) 45 to 54
d) 35 to 44
e) 25 to 34
t) 18 to 24

16. Would you describe the area you live in as:
a)
b)
c)
d)

12. Please describe your occupation:

13. Please indicate the highest level of education
you have completed.
a) High School
b) Some College Courses
c) 4-Year College Degree
d) Graduate School
14. Are you parent or grandparent of a child under
the age of 19?
1) parent
2) grandparent
3) neither
00

14a. Please circle the age group(s) of those children:

w

a) 0-4 years
b) 5-8 years

c) 9-12 years
d) 13-18 years

Conservative
Moderate
Liberal
Independent

Urban
Suburban
Small Town
Rural

17. How would you rate your level of community
involvement? (i.e. voting, volunteering, church
involvement, neighborhood association, etc.)
Very
Active

Not
Active
2

3

4

5

6

7

18. Do you have any other thoughts or
recommendations regarding environmental
education in your community, WA or beyond?
a. Yes
Please exp lain:

b. No

Survey Locations

.-

Legend

I

o

......""

ELCsites
ec.kl

(1'0 site

,.

~

f

,.

~

,.. t'O---­

"

~

nou~

_ oI.1tadt'J t, fila

i

1