ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA: A SURVEY OF STUDENT KNOWLEDGE AND
PERCEPTIONS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
H. E. Longenecker, III, Earth Sciences Department, University of
South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688. E-Mail: heliii@aol.com.
The best approach to identifying
and solving environmental problems within Mobile County,
Alabama is to enhance public understanding
and awareness of such issues.
Public understanding and awareness of environmental issues
afflicting Mobile County
are critical to improving the quality of Dog
River and other area streams,
rivers, and bays, in addition to the general environmental health of the county. Dog
River Clearwater
Revival is a grassroots organization dedicated to protecting and restoring Mobile
County’s Dog
River, and this project is geared
toward helping this organization reach its goals. The University
of South Alabama’s students
originate from Mobile County
and other areas throughout the world. Therefore, this project surveyed 255
students at the University of South
Alabama to determine their level of environmental
knowledge and perceptions for several geographic scales ranging from local to
global. Survey
results indicate the students of the University
of South Alabama possess limited
knowledge of environmental issues at the local, regional, national, and global
levels. In
addition, the survey results revealed multiple and various student perceptions
about environmental problems on the same scales. Students voluntarily supplied their
opinions about environmental problems in a subjective question and answer
section of the survey.
The findings of this project call for development of an
environmental education requirement in the University
of South Alabama’s general
education curriculum.
Keywords: environmental
education, Mobile County,
Dog River
Introduction
As with many areas in the United
States, Mobile County,
Alabama must deal with its share of
environmental issues in a responsible and sustainable manner. Mobile
County is home to numerous natural
resources and recreations, nearly 400,000 people, thousands of businesses, and
abundant commercial and residential activity (U.S. Census 2002). Local lawyers
describe the county as liberal in relation to developing demographic trends,
though many residents of the county may not agree to this assertion. However, the
increasing number of local media stories about environmental issues over the
past few years lends support to the county’s increasing awareness and
perception of practices and conditions afflicting the environment of the county. Still, no studies
performed to date display a particular level of knowledge or perception of
environmental issues among the residents of Mobile
County. Policymakers, businesses,
technologies, and residents, among others, make decisions that will affect the
present and future environmental health of Mobile
County. Thus, the residents of Mobile
County should possess an adequate
working knowledge of environmental conditions and appropriate environmental practices.
The American Association for the
Advancement of Science has recognized that community-based research involving
affected local communities in setting research agendas is effective and successful
in dealing with problems such as pollution (AAAS 1999). Dog
River Clearwater
Revival is a community action group based in Mobile County,
Alabama, and its goals include improvement
of the quality of Dog River
and its watershed. This
group works to improve the quality of Dog
River in many ways, including
educating people about the watershed and regulatory compliance. With hopes of
meeting the group’s goals, special attention should be directed to educating
the potential residents of Mobile County,
especially those people who may choose to reside in the Dog River Watershed. To reach these
goals, however, residents of Mobile County
and other local communities should possess the background knowledge they need
to recognize environmental concerns and affect the policies that lead to
various environmental problems. This educational effort should focus
on current environmental issues generally affecting the Dog River Watershed,
including topics regarding alteration of the physical environment of Mobile
County such as pollution, sewage
system maintenance, runoff and erosion, and many other issues. Furthermore, this education should be
offered to the community and required for students attending college in Mobile
County. An environmental education requirement
as part of the general curriculum requirements of college students is an
effective method to instill environmental knowledge in future Mobile
County residents.
The University of South Alabama
(USA) and its students were targeted in this study since many students may
become residents of Mobile County
in the future, and, of course, since the students presently reside in the
county. A
substantial number of USA
students are natives of Mobile County,
while other students grew up in, transferred, or moved to Mobile
County at some point in their lives. With enrollment
topping the 12,000-student mark in 2002 (USA),
a number of USA
students are certain to make Mobile County
their temporary or permanent place of residence upon graduation. As such, these students
need a solid environmental education for enlightenment about local, regional,
national, and worldwide environmental issues. Even if the graduating students move
away from Mobile County,
their new homes also need a foundation inclusive of a proper environmental
education.
The University
of South Alabama does not require
any type of environmental education course whatsoever as a prerequisite for
graduation from any of its bachelor’s degree programs at the present time (USA
General Education Requirements 2004). As such, USA
graduates may be more likely to contribute to environmental problems if their
environmental knowledge is insufficient. The content of a proposed
environmental education program at USA
can be put together by assessing what USA
students broadly understand about environmental characteristics at the local,
regional, national, and global scales. Evaluation of USA’s
student body reveals what students recognize about the skills, policies, and
solutions needed to confront existing and potential environmental issues. Therefore, an
environmental education course required by USA
is likely to enhance the environmental quality of Mobile
County and its Dog River Watershed.
In support of the foregoing
paragraphs, the research presented in this report centers on the development of
an environmental education program to be administered by the University
of South Alabama. I believe proper environmental
education of USA
students will benefit the overall environmental health and conditions of Mobile
County for the long run. In pursuit of this
goal, students of USA
should possess and maintain environmental knowledge about the students’
immediate environment of Mobile County,
at the very least, and grander scales of environment, including regional, national,
multinational, and global issues. The North American Association for
Environmental Education further supports the development of an environmental
education program at USA, stating knowledge of environmental issues “must be
integrated into all aspects of the curriculum and into all types of educating
institutions” to be truly effective (NAAEE 2004).
Research Question and Objectives
This project administered
environmental education surveys to approximately 255 USA
students with the intent of answering the following question: What is the level
of students’ environmental knowledge at the University
of South Alabama? The central research objective for
this project is to find out whether sufficient evidence exists for the University
of South Alabama to require its
students to participate in an environmental education course or program as part
of the general education requirements for each bachelors degree offered. As expected, the
results of this research revealed the students’ level of environmental knowledge;
however, these results also contribute to the understanding of how
environmental issues develop with Mobile
County.
Methods
Since there was no particular
instrument readily available for this project, an environmental education
survey (Appendix A) was developed to assess the students’ level of
environmental knowledge.
This survey collected information for analysis and
characterization of various aspects of student environmental knowledge. A series of
statements on the survey sought admissions from the students about their
knowledge of environmental conditions within Mobile
County and current events affecting
the environment in general.
These statements were designed for objective responses on
scan-tron forms to ease processing, with no individually identifiable
information requested to maintain confidentiality. The survey also sought categorical
data to classify the students by age, gender, type of secondary education, and
birthplace. A
subjective response section included at the end of the survey allowed students
to opine about environmental issues at the local, national, and global scales:
the first question asked for the student’s major, while questions two, three,
and four asked for the student’s opinion of what he or she thought were environmental
problems facing the City of Mobile, the United States, and the world as a whole. Once completed, the
surveys were administered to several USA
classes which represented various major departments.
Once the survey period ended,
student demographic data was collected from the Office of Institutional
Research and Planning at USA. Information about
the student population at USA
in general is attributed to careful study and research performed by this
particular department.
The institutional researchers in this department often take the
lead role in university assessment projects due to their
familiarity with information resources at the university.
Processing of the survey results
was completed by USA’s
Computer Services
Center. Forty-two statements on the survey
were designed as fact statements, opinion statements, or consistency
statements; therefore, statistical analysis of the students’ responses revealed
a certain level of knowledge and consistency for fact statements. Chi-square testing
ensured that no random factors created differences among the students’
responses, and Student’s t testing calculated whether certain groups of
students responded in statistically significant and different ways. Opinion statements
on the survey revealed students’ attitudes and perceptions about differing
scales of environments.
The subjective response sections for each survey were
individually reviewed and recorded in tabular format. The analysis of information collected
from the students further strengthened the grounds for this research by
revealing that the students have multiple opinions about environmental
conditions on differing scales, and that the students’ knowledge of the causal
processes of such environmental conditions is limited.
Results
Four undergraduate courses in
three subjects were surveyed, including philosophy, geography, and computer
science, with a total of 255 responding students. Responding students represent more
than 45 major departments, and slightly more than 10% of the students are business
majors (Table 1). Of
the 255 students responding to the objective portion of the survey, only 168
students responded to the subjective question and answer section of the survey. Statistical methods
were referenced to Downie (1977), Sapsford (1996), and Schmidt (1975). Assigned values
were as follows: Strongly Agree is graphed as 1.000,
Somewhat Agree is graphed as 2.000, I Don’t Know is graphed as 3.000, Somewhat
Disagree is graphed as 4.000, and Strongly Disagree is graphed as 5.000
(Appendix B).
Statistical analysis of
responses to the objective section was carried out to determine if significant
differences existed by classifying variables. The student respondents were
classified by birth in Mobile County
versus elsewhere, high school attendance in Mobile
County versus elsewhere, public
versus private high school attendance, gender, and age. In general, the students’ responses
approached the expected response of “I Don’t Know” when graphed with a trend
line (Figure 1). The
trend line in Figure 1 shows the length of the survey may affect students’
responses.
Students classified as being Mobile
County natives or non-natives
responded to questions 7, 8, 9, 14, 18, 26, 28, 29, 31, 36, and 43 with
statistically significant differences (Figure 2). Mobile
County natives were more likely
than non-natives to believe that Mobile
Bay and Dog
River are polluted, and that
treated sewage is dumped in to Mobile
Bay. Non-natives were less likely to agree Dog
River is located in Mobile,
Alabama; additionally, non-natives were
less likely to know a company must apply for permits from the Army Corps of
Engineers to place its business on a river. Mobile
County natives agreed that Mobile’s
drinking water contains fluoride; however, these natives also agreed that the University
of South Alabama is located in the
Dog River Watershed, even though USA
lies in the Three-mile Creek Watershed. Non-natives generally did not know
that methyl mercury accumulates in the tissues of organisms such as fish and
people. When
presented value statements regarding environmental concerns, Mobile
County natives were more likely to
be more concerned with the immediate local environment of Mobile
than the environment of the United States. Non-natives did not
know if there is an abundant supply of wetlands on the planet, whereas Mobile
County natives disagreed that an
abundant supply of wetlands exists on the planet. The final statistical analysis between
these student classifiers revealed that non-natives did not know the Environmental
Protection Agency states all drinking water can be expected
to contain some amount of contaminants.
Students classified as attending
or not attending Mobile County
high schools responded to questions 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 28 with statistically
significant differences (Figure 3). Students who attended Mobile
County high schools were more
likely to agree that Mobile Bay
and Dog River
are polluted; however, these same students were more likely to agree that rain
falling on USA’s
campus drains into Dog River,
when in actuality rainfall at USA
drains into Three-mile Creek.
More students attending Mobile
County high schools believe Dog
River is located in Mobile,
Alabama, and that rainfall sometimes enters
the city’s sewer system.
Question 28 was designed to test the
consistency of student responses, and again, students attending Mobile
County high schools believed,
incorrectly, that USA
is located in the Dog River Watershed.
Students classified as attending
public versus private high schools responded to questions 11, 31, and 42 with
statistically significant differences (Figure 4). Students who attended public high
schools were less likely to agree that oil, mud, and trash are collected by the
city’s stormwater drainage system and deposited into the nearest stream;
however, both public and private high school attendees responded in the range
of not-knowing the correct answer. Responses to question 31 again
revealed student responses in the not-knowing range when asked if they were
more concerned with Mobile’s
immediate local environment as opposed to the environment of the United
States. Question 42 presented a tougher
statement: public and private high school attendees were both likely to not know that the EPA requires all wastewater treatment
systems to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from
a state regulatory agency for discharging treated effluent to state waters.
Male and female students
responded to questions 7, 16, 30, and 33 with statistically significant
differences (Figure 5).
Female students agreed more than male students that Mobile
Bay is polluted. More female students than male
students believe it is not okay to pour leftover paint, oil, or
hamburger grease into a kitchen sink. The female students are also apparently
more concerned than male students about the immediate local environment of Mobile
and Mobile County. More female
students than male students believe the polar icecaps are melting faster than
ever before.
The students were classified
into four age groups: under 25, between 25 and 30, between 31 and 45, and older
than 46 years. Statistical
analysis revealed significant differences between age groups when compared
against one another. Students
under age 25 were less likely than students age 25 to 30 to know that treated
sewage is dumped into Mobile Bay;
additionally, the younger students in this comparison were less likely to know
about Atlantic fisheries depletion (Figure 6). Students of age 25 to 30 agreed more
than students younger than 25 that fertilizers and pesticides are picked up by
rainwater and carried to rivers. Students of age 31 to 45 years agreed
that a tanker loaded with ethanol and fuel oil sank off the Virginia coast in
February 2004, whereas students younger than 25 were less likely to know of
this fact (Figure 7).
The most significant differences
in responses from age groups occurred between students younger than age 25 and
students more than 46 years old (Figure 8). Significant statistical differences
between these age groups’ responses occurred on questions 19, 20, 26, 27, 29,
30, 35, 36, 37, and 48; however, it should be noted that some bias might have
occurred between these classifiers since less than 10 students responding to
the objective questions were more than 46 years of age. These statistical differences were
interpreted with caution due to the unbalanced number of respondents in these
age categories. With
this said, students younger than age 25 generally responded in the “I Don’t
Know” range more often than students more than 46 years old.
Numerous responses were given
for the subjective questions regarding environmental problems at the local,
national, and global scales.
Each problem identified in each student’s responses was counted. Of the top 15
responses given by students, nearly 63% of the responses indicated some form of
pollution was the biggest environmental problem facing Mobile
(Figure 9). Thirty-four
percent of local-scale responses identified pollution affecting Dog
River, Mobile
Bay, or the Gulf of Mexico,
with specificity to the body of water but not as to the particular type of
pollution. Eight
percent of the students identified pollution from industry, 5% of students
identified automobile emissions as pollutants, and 2% of the students
identified mercury as a problem for Mobile. Nearly 82% of
student responses were very general. Ten percent of students admitted they
did not know what environmental problems faced Mobile, 1% said they never
thought about or do not think about such problems, and 11% did not respond to
the local-scale question but responded to larger scale questions.
In response to the national
scale question, 63% of students identified some form of pollution as the
biggest environmental problem for the United
States (Figure 10). Nearly 11% of these students
specifically identified pollution from automobile emissions, 6% indicated
global warming, and another 6% listed trash or garbage as the U.S.’s
biggest environmental problem. Two percent of students polled
suggested President George W. Bush is the biggest environmental problem for the
U.S., and 3%
listed peoples’ attitudes toward the environment.
Pollution was again identified
as the biggest environmental problem facing the world at a response rate of
37%; however, only 2% of students identified a specific form of pollution:
automobile emissions (Figure 11). Four percent listed peoples’ attitudes
toward the environment, and nearly 25% listed global warming or the greenhouse
effect. Fourteen
percent identified human overpopulation or deforestation as the world’s biggest
environmental problem.
Most notable in the subjective
results is the fact that most students did not identify environmental problems
with specificity (Table 2). However,
these results do indicate that the students have some awareness of
environmental problems. The students’
awareness of environmental problems is limited by the fact that very few (less
than 2) students identified wetlands destruction, desertification, agricultural
runoff, insecticides or pesticides, chemical runoff in general, logging, or any
other environmental problem on the local, national, or global scale. Despite intense media coverage at the local
and national levels, very few students identified mercury contamination. No students identified urban sprawl or lack
of best management practices, though very few (less than 2) identified overuse
of natural resources or fossil fuels as a problem. Of particular importance, here, is the fact
that nearly 20% of students clearly stated at their own will that they did not
know what environmental problems were on the local, national, or global scale.
Discussion
The results of the environmental
education survey shed light on student knowledge of environmental issues on
several different scales; furthermore, student perception of environmental
issues can be somewhat understood through the foregoing analysis. This analysis revealed bias kept to minimal
levels in this survey under the guidance of Golledge and Stimson’s survey
methods (1987). These analytical
behavioral geographers would suggest, however, that further studies be
conducted to evaluate the students’ perceptions, attitudes, and values about
the differing scales of environment (Golledge and Stimson 1987).
Development of an environmental
education requirement at USA could have long-lasting, beneficial impacts upon
the environment of Mobile County and the Dog River Watershed. As Holl et al suggest, “environmental
education efforts need to do more to inform people of changes they can make in
their own lives to minimize environmental degradation[.]” (1995). The university level is the appropriate arena
for understanding and solving environmental problems, and for instilling
concepts about how to act toward the environment. Schoenfeld recognizes “there is an ethical or
moral dimension to the enviornmental [sic] movement that makes it indigenous to
the American campus[.]” (1979). Perhaps
a course can be developed at USA which integrates geographic or earth science
principles with environmental ethics and related case studies.
The current Code of Alabama
(1975) does not require environmental education per se, yet it does call for
environmental protection education at the elementary level (Ala. Code §16-6B-2(f)). What good can be instilled for environmental
protection on the elementary level is questionable at best. Moreover, there is no mention of
environmental education whatsoever at the secondary, undergraduate, or graduate
levels, nor is there mention in any environmental management legislation under
Alabama statutory authority (Ala. Code
1975, ADEM 1988). There is, on the other
hand, a section of education law providing for marine environmental sciences at
the university level, though this legislation is designated for research
endeavors as it appears in the Code of Alabama (§16-45-2, 1975). The benefits of creating legitimate
environmental education laws for the State of Alabama, and Mobile County, would
be far-reaching and very wise.
Conclusion
The research described
throughout this report has laid a foundation for implementing an environmental
education requirement for University of South Alabama students. Some type of environmental education program
should be developed for inclusion into the general education requirements at
USA; however, additional research into student environmental knowledge and
perceptions should also be undertaken to achieve further, stronger evidence for
this proposition. As such, the
University should endeavor to further delineate the causes of environmental
problems in Mobile County as part of its commitment to public service and the
advancement of knowledge.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Professors Kevin
Meeker, Doug Porter, Glenn Sebastian, and Miriam Fearn for their class time and
for offering their students’ participation in this project. Thanks to Jim Longino of USA’s Computer
Services Center for his help processing the survey results. Thanks also to the students of USA for their
honest participation in this research project.
References Cited
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management. 2004. General Administration, Administrative
Code. Online by the State of Alabama
Legislature at http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/adem/
(April 30, 2004).
American Association for the
Advancement of Science. 1999. “Science & Technology for the Nation:
Issues and Priorities for the 106th Congress: Views from the Science and Technology
Community on the House Science Committee’s Report ‘Unlocking the Future.’”
Washington DC: AAAS. Online at http://www.aaas.org/ (accessed March 19, 2004).
Code of Alabama. 1975.
Education, §16-6B-2(f) et seq.,
and §16-45-2. Online by the State of
Alabama Legislature, http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm,
(April 4, 2004).
Downie, N. M., and A. R.
Starry. 1977. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Golledge, Reginald G., and
Stimson, Robert J. 1987. Analytical Behavioral Geography. London, New York, Sydney: Croom Helm Series
in Geography and Environment.
Holl, Karen D.; Daily, Gretchen
C.; and Ehrlich, Paul R. Knowledge and
Perceptions in Costa Rica Regarding Environment, Population, and Biodiversity
Issues. December 1995. Conservation
Biology, Vol. 9, No. 6: 1548-1558.
North American Association For
Environmental Education. 2004. Online at http://www.naaee.org/
(May 1, 2004).
Sapsford, R., and Jupp,
Victor. 1996. Data Collection and Analysis. London: The Open University.
Schoenfeld, A. Clay. May-June 1979. The University-Environmental Movement
Marriage. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 60, No. 3: 289-309.
Schmidt, Marty J. 1975. Understanding
and Using Statistics. Lexington: D.
C. Heath and Company.
United States Census
Bureau. 2002. Alabama QuickFacts. Online at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01/01097.html
(May 1, 2004).
University of South Alabama,
Office of Institution Research and Planning.
2002. Enrollment Facts &
Figures. Online at http://www.southalabama.edu/instres/irhome.html
(April 16, 2004).