<%BANNER%>

Sustainability in Higher Education

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025111/00001

Material Information

Title: Sustainability in Higher Education an Analysis of Responsible Environmental Behaviors among Undergraduate Students
Physical Description: 1 online resource (92 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Pernambuco, Fernanda
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: behaviors, education, environmetal, sustainability, undergraduate, university
Family, Youth and Community Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Family, Youth and Community Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS By Fernanda Frota Pernambuco August 2009 Chair: Marilyn E. Swisher Major: Family, Youth and Community Sciences Many scientists and activists agree that current consumption patterns will inevitably deplete resources for future generations. In response, the United Nations initiated the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development in 2005. The purpose of this research was to examine the degree to which exposure to an educational environment at a major institution that stresses sustainability affects the degree to which individuals engage in responsible environmental behavior (REB). The theoretical frame work of this study was based on the environmental behavior model. A cross-sectional research design was used with two comparison groups (upper and under classmen), in order to see if there was a change in REB and to measure the relationship between the predictor variables (locus of control, norms and barriers) and the outcome variable (responsible environmental behavior). The results have shown that there is no statistically significant p < 0.05 (p=0.069) difference between upper and lower classmen s responsible environmental behavior. The predictor variables identified in this study explained about 45% of the variance in responsible environmental behavior for both upper and underclassmen. However, the models were different for the two comparison groups. The best predictor variable for underclassmen s REB was family norms followed by locus of control then barriers. And for upperclassmen, the best predictor variable was locus of control followed by barriers then family norms. The result also showed that there were no statistically significant differences for independent variables (locus of control, family norms and barriers) between upper and lower classmen. In conclusion, universities have a very important role to play in having students engage in responsible environmental behaviors. Explicitly addressing ecology and/or environmental issues in the curriculum is a very effective way to see behavior change in students. It might that the most effective way to change behavior is to combine traditional techniques, non-traditional techniques and greening university activities. The research on emerging adulthood shows that the most effective time to influence a student s worldview is during their freshman year of college. Universities should make especially sure that freshmen are included in their intervention and teaching activities. Universities also need to implement a common set of age-specific responsible environmental behaviors.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Fernanda Pernambuco.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Swisher, Marilyn E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025111:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025111/00001

Material Information

Title: Sustainability in Higher Education an Analysis of Responsible Environmental Behaviors among Undergraduate Students
Physical Description: 1 online resource (92 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Pernambuco, Fernanda
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: behaviors, education, environmetal, sustainability, undergraduate, university
Family, Youth and Community Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Family, Youth and Community Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS By Fernanda Frota Pernambuco August 2009 Chair: Marilyn E. Swisher Major: Family, Youth and Community Sciences Many scientists and activists agree that current consumption patterns will inevitably deplete resources for future generations. In response, the United Nations initiated the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development in 2005. The purpose of this research was to examine the degree to which exposure to an educational environment at a major institution that stresses sustainability affects the degree to which individuals engage in responsible environmental behavior (REB). The theoretical frame work of this study was based on the environmental behavior model. A cross-sectional research design was used with two comparison groups (upper and under classmen), in order to see if there was a change in REB and to measure the relationship between the predictor variables (locus of control, norms and barriers) and the outcome variable (responsible environmental behavior). The results have shown that there is no statistically significant p < 0.05 (p=0.069) difference between upper and lower classmen s responsible environmental behavior. The predictor variables identified in this study explained about 45% of the variance in responsible environmental behavior for both upper and underclassmen. However, the models were different for the two comparison groups. The best predictor variable for underclassmen s REB was family norms followed by locus of control then barriers. And for upperclassmen, the best predictor variable was locus of control followed by barriers then family norms. The result also showed that there were no statistically significant differences for independent variables (locus of control, family norms and barriers) between upper and lower classmen. In conclusion, universities have a very important role to play in having students engage in responsible environmental behaviors. Explicitly addressing ecology and/or environmental issues in the curriculum is a very effective way to see behavior change in students. It might that the most effective way to change behavior is to combine traditional techniques, non-traditional techniques and greening university activities. The research on emerging adulthood shows that the most effective time to influence a student s worldview is during their freshman year of college. Universities should make especially sure that freshmen are included in their intervention and teaching activities. Universities also need to implement a common set of age-specific responsible environmental behaviors.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Fernanda Pernambuco.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Swisher, Marilyn E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025111:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS By FERNANDA FROTA PERNAMBUCO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PA RTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Fernanda Frota Pernambuco

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my husband, Za ch, for all of his love and support. I would also like to thank my parents, Lucia and Luiz, and my siblings Pedro and Luana. Without your love, support, patience and encouragement I would never be the person that I am today. I would like to thank all of the members of my graduate committee: Dr. Swisher, Dr. Culen and Dedee DeLongpre for their guidance expertise and patience throughout this entire process. This was not easy and I would not have been able to complete my thesis without all of you. I would e specially like to thank my thesis chair and mentor, Dr. Marilyn Swisher whose guidance has been invaluable. Mainly I need to thank Dr. Swisher for believing in and giving me the confidence to strive for higher aspirations.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 8 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 11 Importance of Sustainability ....................................................................................................... 11 Sustainability in Higher Education ............................................................................................ 11 The University of Florida and Education for Sustainable Development ................................. 15 Buildings/Energy ................................................................................................................. 19 Food ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Transportation ...................................................................................................................... 20 Land/Water ........................................................................................................................... 21 Purchasing/Waste ................................................................................................................ 21 Affective and Cognitive Learning .............................................................................................. 22 Research Questions: .................................................................................................................... 23 Hypothesis: .................................................................................................................................. 23 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 24 Environmenta l Education ........................................................................................................... 24 Locus of Control .......................................................................................................................... 32 Barriers ......................................................................................................................................... 33 Norms ........................................................................................................................................... 34 Model for Thesis ......................................................................................................................... 35 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 36 Hypothesis ................................................................................................................................... 37 3 METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 38 Design .......................................................................................................................................... 38 Sample Selection ......................................................................................................................... 40 Instrument Development ............................................................................................................. 41 Indices .......................................................................................................................................... 44 Steps in Developing Indices ................................................................................................ 45 Weighting Items ................................................................................................................... 47 Instrument Limitations ................................................................................................................ 47

PAGE 6

6 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 49 5 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 57 Timing of the Study .................................................................................................................... 57 Theoretical Perspectives ............................................................................................................. 58 Educational Implications and Recommendations ..................................................................... 64 Traditional vs. Nontraditional Instructional Methods ............................................................... 67 Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................................... 70 Instrument Development ............................................................................................................. 71 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 73 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 74 B CONSENT LETTER .................................................................................................................. 80 C AMERICAN COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS CLIMATE COMMITMENT ......................................................................................................................... 83 D AMERICAN COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS CLIMATE COMMITMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW ............................................................................ 85 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 87 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................. 92

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Constructs and their definitions based on theory. ................................................................ 42 3 2 Table of constructs and variables. ......................................................................................... 44 4 1 Results of the t test for the outcome variable, behavior, for a sample of upper and lowe r classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. ............................................................. 49 4 2 Results of the stepwise regression for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. .................................................................................................. 50 4 3 Results of the t test for the predictor variables (locus of control, family norm and barriers) for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. ........................................................................................................................................ 51 4 4 Results of the Spearmans Rank Order Correlation for independent variables for a sample of lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. ............................................ 51 4 5 Results of the Spearmans Rank Order Correlation for independent variables for a sample of upper classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. ............................................ 51 4 6 Results of the Kruskal -Wallis test for responsibl e environmental behavior by degree which ecology and/or environmental issues are stressed in major, for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. ............................................ 52 4 7 Results of the Kruskal Wallace test of responsible environmental behaviors by ethnicity, for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. ........................................................................................................................................ 53 4 8 Results of the Kruskal -Wa llace test of responsible environmental behaviors by source of information concerning ecology and/or environmental issues for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. ....................................... 54 4 9 Results of the test of responsible environmental behaviors by participants place of residence, for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. ........................................................................................................................................ 54 4 10 Results of the Kruskal -Wallis test of responsible environmental behaviors by gender, for a sample of undergraduate students at the University of Florida, 2009. ....................... 55 5 1 Results for confirm atory factor analysis for all indices. ...................................................... 72

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Behavioral Change System ................................................................................................... 25 2 2 The Hines Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior ................................................ 27 2 3 Environmental Behavior Model ........................................................................................... 30 2 4 Environmental Behavior Model with added Constructs. ..................................................... 36 5 1 Bronfenbrenners Ecological Model ..................................................................................... 59 5 2 Adjusted Environmental Behavior Model Based on the Results of this Thesis ................. 65

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS By Fernanda Frota Pernambuco Aug ust 2009 Chair: Marilyn E. Swisher Major: Family, Youth and Community Science s Many scientists and activists agree that current consumption patterns will inevitably deplete resources for future generations. In response, the United Nations initiated the D ecade of Education for S ustainable Development in 2005. The purpose of this research was to examine the degree to which exposure to an educational environment at a major institution that stresses sustainability affects the degree to which individuals engage in responsible environmental behavior (REB) The theoretical frame work of this study was based on the environmental behavior model. A cross -sectional research design was used with two comparison groups (upper and under classmen), in order to see if the re was a change in REB and to measure the relationship between the predictor variables (locus of control, norms and barriers) and the outcome variable (responsible environmental behavior). The results have shown that there is no statistically significant p<0.05 (p=0.069) difference between upper and lower classmens responsible environmental behavior. The predictor variables identified in this study explained about 45% of the variance in responsible environmental behavior for both upper and underclassmen. However, the models were different for the two comparison groups. The best predictor variable for underclassmens REB was family

PAGE 10

10 norms followed by locus of control then barriers. And for upperclassmen, the best predictor variable was locus of control foll owed by barriers then family norms. The result also showed that there were no statistically significant differences for independent variables (locus of control, family norms and barriers) between upper and lower classmen. In conclusion, universities have a very important role to play in having students engage in responsible environmental behaviors. Explicitly addressing ecology and/or environmental issues in the curriculum is a very effective way to see behavior change in students. It might that the most e ffective way to change behavior is to combine traditional techniques, non traditional techniques and greening university activities. The research on emerging adulthood shows that the most effective time to influence a students worldview is during their freshman year of college. Universities should make especially sure that freshmen are included in their intervention and teaching activities. Universities also need to implement a common set of age -specific responsible environmental behaviors.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Importance of Sustainability Today it is common to hear about acid rain, air pollution, global warming, hazardous waste, ozone depletion, smog, water pollution, overpopulation, and rain forest destruction. There is a constant reminder of how these conditions affect current and future generations and that contemporary lifestyles generate major environmental problems. Many scientists and activists agree that current consumption patterns will inevitably deplete resources for future generations. In response, the United Nations initiated the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development in 2005. Sustainability in Higher Education Hans Carl von Carlowitz, a German forester, first used the term sustainability in 1712 to prescribe how forests should be managed on a long term basis (Scoones, 2007) However, it did not become a popular term until the 1980s when publication of the Brundtland Report generated a major debate. This report contains the most widely use d definition of sustainable development: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) Many University administrators made their first official commitment to include sustainability in higher education in 1990 at an international conference in France when the Talloires D eclaration was issued. The Talloires Declaration is a ten point action plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges and universities (Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 1994) Higher education institutions worldwide recognize the Talloires Declaration, and

PAGE 12

12 as of 2007, over 300 institutions had declared a commitment to sustainability by signing the declaration (Parker, 2007) During the United Nations Conference on Environmental Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992, environmental education came into the di scussion of sustainable development. The first program area of chapter 36 of Agenda 21 Promoting Education, Public Awareness and Training is Reorienting Education Toward Sustainable Development. In this section of Agenda 21 the basis for action is: Ed ucation, including formal education, public awareness and training should be recognized as a process by which human beings and societies can reach their fullest potential. Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capaci ty of the people to address environment and development issues. While basic education provides the underpinning for any environmental and development education, the latter needs to be incorporated as an essential part of learning. Both formal and non forma l education is indispensable to changing people's attitudes so that they have the capacity to assess and address their sustainable development concerns. It is also critical for achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behaviour consistent with sustainable development and for effective public participation in decision making. To be effective, environment and development education should deal with the dynamics of both the physical/biological and socioeconomic environmen t and human (which may include spiritual) development, should be integrated in all disciplines, and should employ formal and non -formal methods and effective means of communication (United Nations, 2004) These tw o events, the Talloires Declaration and Agenda 21, marked the introduction of sustainability as a key component of higher education. The challenge for institutions of higher education has been how to implement sustainability into education and practice. The declaration of the Decade for Education for Sustainable Development by the United Nations, 20052014, created additional pressure for institutions to become sustainable in practice and teaching (Pearson, Honeywood, & O'Toole, 2005) The vision of The Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) is, a world where everyone has the opportunity to benefit from education and learn the values, behaviour

PAGE 13

13 and lifestyles required for a sustainable future and for positive societal transformation (United Nations, 2004) The UN has five objectives for The Decade of Education for Sustainable Development: 1 Give an enhanced profile to the central role of education and learning in the common pursuit of sustainable development; 2 Facilitate links and networking, exchange and interaction among stakeholders in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD); 3 Provide a space and opportunity for refining and promoting the vision of, and transition to sustainable development through all forms of learning and public awareness; 4 Foster increased quality of teaching and learning in education for sustainable development; and 5 Develop strategies at every level to strengthen capacity in ESD (United Nations, 2004) These objectives focus on all sectors of education, including higher education. Institutions of higher education can become leaders in the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (Cusick, 2008) According to Orr (2004), Edwards (as cited in Cusick, 2008), and Cusick (2008), A reorientation of education is required in contemporary societies to provide and disseminate knowledge and skills for living and working sustainably. This is especially true for institutions of higher education. This change cannot occur only in the classroom, but must also characterize the institutions daily operations. Part of the DESD is to integrate the principles, value s, and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning (UNESCO, 2004) The American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) began in 2007. The American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment is a high visibility effort to address global warming by garnering institutional commitments to neutralize greenhouse gas emissions, and to accelerate the research and educational efforts of higher education to equip soc iety to re -stabilize the earths climate ( Presidents Climate Commitment,

PAGE 14

14 2008). As of 2009, over 600 Universitys have signed the ACUPCC. According to ACUPCC (2008), Universities that sign the ACUPCC pledge to : Complete an emissions inventory Within two y ears, set a target date and interim milestones for becoming climate neutral. Take immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by choosing from a list of short term actions. Integrate sustainability into the curriculum and making it part of the educa tional experience. Make the action plan, inventory and progress reports publicly available. Three nonprofit organizations support the ACUPCC, Second Nature, Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), and e coAmerica. Each plays an important role in supporting institutions of higher educa tion who have signed the ACUPCC (Presidents Climate Commitment 2008). Second Nature established in 1993, has helped over 500 colleges and universities include principles of sustainabilit y as a fundamental aspect of higher education. Their mission is to accelerate movement toward a sustainable future by serving and supporting senior college and university leaders in making healthy, jus t and sustainable living the foundation of all learni ng and practice in higher education (Second Nature Inc, 2007). EcoAmerica founded in 2005, is an organization that use s social marketing to develop program matic support T heir mission is to work to restore deep and comprehensive connections between mainstream Americans and their natural world, and change their personal and voting behaviors. Our tools are psychographic consumer research and engagement marketing. We develop programs and implement them with strategic partners to produce significant and meas urable results (ecoAmerica, 2009). Officially, AASHE was launched as a North American organization in 2006. Before that, AASHE was the Education for Sustainability Western Network (EFS West), a regional

PAGE 15

15 organizati on. AASHE s mission is to empower higher education to lead the sustainability transformation. We do this by providing resources, professional development, and a network of support to enable institutions of higher education to model and advance sustainability in everything they do, from governa nce and operations to education and research. ( Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009 ). AASHE has played a key role in implementing sustainability in higher education. They have developed the Sustainability Tracking, A ssessment and Rating Systems (STARS), guidelines that institutions can use to measure progress toward sustainability These guid elines provide the basis for recognizing institutions for different levels of accomplishments (A ssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009). Many universities worldwide have started to make changes in order to include sustainability in their visions, curricula, and operations. Even though the concept has been widely accepted, institutions of higher education face many challenges when trying to incorporate sustainable practices in their institutions. Two main challenges that institutions of higher education face are a lack of curriculum development and the difficulty of transdisciplinary approaches (Pearson et al., 2005) It is difficult for colleges and universities to communicate transdisciplinary solutions to their students. Sustainability is inherently transdisciplinary in nature and requires collaboration from different academic fields. There is not a specific curriculum for higher education institutions to use to teach about sustainability, and, as a result, there is no specific structure and consensus for what or how to teach (Pearson et al., 2005) The University of Florida and Education for Sustainable Development The University of Florida (UF) is the nations fourth largest university and the largest university in Florida. UF enrolls over 51,000 students and c omprises over 900 buildings on 2,000 acres ( University of Florida 2009). Because of the large enrollment studen ts at UF may not

PAGE 16

16 experience as much personal interaction with the institution and its representatives as students who attend smaller universiti es. For example, s tudents at UF never have to live on campus or participate in campus activities outside the classroom. Much of the original interest in sustainability, and particularly the AASHE approach that focuses on creating an interactive, lived mo del for learning, developed at smaller universities, often liberal arts universities. It is not clear how well this model can be implemented in a large, more impersonal university setting. This study is therefore important to understanding whether a very l arge university can affect students respo nsible environmental behavior even though students are not required to take courses on environmental issues or participate in extracurricular activities. The University of Florida is one of the leaders in incorpora ting Education for Sustainable Development into the Universitys vision. The greening of the University of Florida originated when President Lombardi signed the Talloires Declaration in 1990. Since 1990, UFs efforts to incorporate sustainability have re ached several important milestones. The following is a timeline from the UF Office of Sustainability (U niversity of F lorida Office of Sustainability, 2008) of milestones that helped pave the way for t he sustainability effort at UF: 19242002: Howard T. Odum was one of the most creative minds in the fields of ecology, environmental science, systems ecology, environmental policy, and energ y studies. 1994: UF joined 310 universities world-wide in signing the Talloires Declaration, pledging support to reduce environmental degradation and natural resource depletion. October 1997: The Greening UF program was initiated as a grassroots movement of students, faculty and staff from across the campus for environmental stewardship. September 2000: An Office of Sustainability was established within the College of Design, Construction and Planning to facilitate, among other things, sustainability ini tiatives on campus 2001: UF adopted Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria for design and construction for all major new construction and renovation projects to deliver high performance and sustainable building design to the Univers ity of Florida.

PAGE 17

17 March 2001: A Sustainability Task Force was created jointly by the President and Faculty Senate, following a Faculty Senate proposal of December 2000. July 2002: The Task Force released the Final Report. October 2002: The Faculty Senate endorsed the Task Force Final Report, but asked for continuation of its term until fall 2004 for developing an implementation plan. March 2003: In response to a request from President Young, the Task Force identified high priority recommendations from the Final Report. April 2004: A Student Senate resolution (#1041) urged the creation of a university Office of Sustainability with full administrative support. September 2004: An adhoc Sustainability Committee was established through appointments from th e Faculty Senate and President Machen. September 2005: UF opens the search for a director of a new Office of Sustainability to support cross -campus efforts. October 2005: President Machen gave a speech on National Campus Sustainability day setting goals for campus sustainability and pledging to deliver an annual report card on the university's efforts. February 2006: UF hires a director of the Office of Sustainability. October 2006: UF hosts first Florida Campus & Community Sustainability conference at which President Machen gives his annual report card on the universitys efforts. October 2007: UF hosts National Campus Sustainability Day at which President Machen gives his annual report card on the state of sustainability at UF. (U niversity of F lorida Office of Sustainability, 2008) The University of Florida has also achieved major milestones in curriculum and resea rch. As of 2008, there are over one hundred courses offered at UF that emphasize some aspect of sustainability. In the fall of 2008, UF undergraduate students were given the opportunity to pursue a minor in Sustainability Studies, an interdisciplinary mino r open to students from any college. The College of Design, Construction, and Planning has a new major in Sustainability and Built Environment, also started in the fall of 2008. A Master of Law in Environmental and Land Use Law is also available through the University Of Florida Levin College Of Law. In

PAGE 18

18 2006, the Water Institute was formed, which has over 50 programs, with a goal to improve understanding of the physical, chemical and biological processes in aquatic systems (A ssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education 2009) The Florida Institute for Sustainable Energy brings together research capabilities necessary to create a sustainable energy future. FISE encompasses more than 150 faculty members and 22 energy research centers at the University of Florida. In the last few years alone, UFs Federal and State funded energy research exceeded $70 million. (A ssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education 2009) UFs emphasis on sustainability is visible in the culture of the campus. As of 2008, there were more than fifteen student groups on campus with a mission that was in some way related to sustainability. Sustainability has also been the f ocus of UFs student senate and student government. The student government ad hoc sustainability committee has successfully advanced a variety of important initiatives: the minor in Sustainability Studies, the addition of B20 biodiesel in regional transit buses, the implementation of web -based GPS tracking of campus buses, and the greening of their student center ( Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009) The Greeks Going Green campaign is a campaign through which fraternities and sororities support sustainability on and off campus. Gators for a Sustainable Campus is a student group with nearly 700 members. The group works closely with the Office of Sustainability to promote Recycle Ma nia, the annual Battle of the Halls, residence hall energy competition, the Earth Day celebration on campus, local creek cleanups, concerts, an annual sustainable economy forum, and much more (A ssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2009) In 2008, 350 University of Florida students signed the Green Graduation Pledge, which vows to take sustainable practices with them into their careers

PAGE 19

19 and communities (A ssoc iation for the Advancement of S ustainability in Higher Education, 2009) According to the University of Florida 2008 Campus Sustainability Leadership Award Applications, UF has also seen major changes in daily operations ( A ssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education 2009) : Buildings/Energy In 2006, UF committed to the LEED Silver standards for all major new construction and renovation projects. The campus boasts two Gold -certified buildings, 8 ce rtified buildings, and seven that are registered. Thirty -two buildings across campus are part of the UF Portfolio Pilot Program for LEED Existing Buildings. UF was selected by USGBC as one of 12 entities to pursue this portfolio approach. In 2007, UF buil t its first green roof The roof helps reduce storm water runoff and insulates the building against heat and sound. Non -toxic cleaning products are used by custodial staff whenever possible; 61% of expenditures on cleaning products are Green Seal -certified In 2007, UF hosted the first -ever carbon neutral college football game. This year, UF will host an entirely carbon neutral home football season. All of the offsets are being generated through gains in energy efficiency in low income areas of the local co mmunity.

PAGE 20

20 Food Since the early 1970s, the university has administered organic garden plots on campus. These 75 plots are cultivated by some 100 faculty, staff and students year round. UF has worked with its dining services provider, ARAMAEK/Gator Dining Se rvices, to implement principles of sustainability into food service operation, including regional sourcing of food, green catering, waste management and diversion, energy conservation, transportation impacts, and sustainable procurement. UF was named one o f the Top 10 Vegetarian Friendly Schools by PETA in 2006 and 2007. Transportation UF urges alternative modes of transportation through discounted carpool decals, and online rideshare matching service, a Zipcar shared vehicle fleet, and pre -paid universal r egional transit for all faculty, staff, and students. Ridership has risen from less than a million people per year to nearly nine million in ten years. UF provides bicycle lanes and bike racks for parking throughout campus. The University Police Department offers bicycle registration in order to aid in recovery in the case of bicycle theft. Student Government offers free bike repair on campus. The university has committed to purchasing high fuel efficiency hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles. Additionally, the university stocks biodiesel and E85 ethanol for use in its fleet vehicles.

PAGE 21

21 Land/Water UF maintains 31 conservation areas on campus, including 60 acres on campus dedicated to teaching students and the public about ecology and biotic diversity. In 2005 the university achieved designation as an Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuary. UFs three million gallon a day water reclamation facility enables over 90% of the universitys irrigation needs to be met with reclaimed water. Purchasing/Waste The uni versity has instituted a sustainable purchasing policy to support the purchase of products that will minimize any negative environmental or societal impacts of university operations. UF recycles nearly 40% of the waste stream. Additionally, UF is currently recycling 85% of its deconstruction debris. The volunteer -based Tail Gator recycling program collected over 26,000 lbs during the 2007 home football season. The Veterinary Medical Center repurposes animal waste through a composting partnership with the Forestry Service. UF established an Electronics Reuse/Recycling Policy as well as an accompanying step -by -step guide for disposal and recycling and a recovery program. (A ssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in High er Education 2009) Although UF has reached important milestones for a sustainable campus, the universitys efforts are ongoing and new goals are always being developed. The Office of Sustainability brings together diverse stakeholders from campus in ord er to set strategic goals and to implement a planning process ( A ssociation for the

PAGE 22

22 Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education 2009) Ultimately, the Office of Sustainability is responsible for meeting university -wi de goals and objectives. Two of UFs current goals, endorsed by President Machen, are particularly visionary: Zero Waste by 2015 and Carbon Neutrality by 2025 (A ssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education 2009) Affective and Cognitive Learning A major problem facing institutions of higher education is that the concept of sustainability is broad and many of the goals are vague. Shephard (2008) proposes that higher education has a specific functi on, to graduate influential citizens who value their environment and appreciate that they have a responsibility to help to sustain it (p. 88). If this is true, educators need to not only focus on cognitive learning, but also on affective learning. Affect ive learning relates to values, attitudes and behaviors and involves the learner emotionally. Cognitive learning relates more to knowledge and its application (Shephard, 2008) Students can learn information and pass exams, but doing so does not mean that attitudes and behaviors have or will change. To learn to live sustainability, one has to learn new concepts, but their attitudes and behaviors must also change (Shephard, 2008) Both aspects are prominent in the literature about sustainability in higher education. Higher Educations most valuable contribution to sustainability lies in providing large numbers of graduates with the knowledge, skills and values that enab le business, government and society as a whole to progress towards more sustainable ways of living and working (Chalkley, 2006) Graduates need knowledge about issues, the skills to make sustainable decisions, an d the values that will lead them to choose sustainable alternatives. In order for institutions of higher education to contribute to sustainable development, they need to teach about sustainable development and provide students with affective knowledge and skills.

PAGE 23

23 This research will examine the degree to which exposure to an educational environment at a major institution that stresses sustainability affect s learning, in particular affective learning. Research Questions: 1 To what degree does exposure to a cam pus environment that emphasizes sustainability affect students adoption of environmentally responsible behaviors? 2 To what degree do locus of control, family norms, university norms, and barriers explain students adoption of environmentally responsible be haviors? Hypothesis: 1 Students who have been at UF longer (juniors and seniors) will experience greater exposure to the sustainable campus movement and therefore will engage in more environmentally responsible behaviors than students with less exposure (fre shmen and sophomores). 2 Higher internal locus of control, membership in a family that stresses environmental norms, perception of environmental norms as important to the university, and few perceived barriers to environmentally responsible behavior will fos ter environmentally responsible behaviors. 3 Students who have been at UF longer (juniors and seniors) will experience greater exposure to the sustainable campus movement and therefore will have higher internal locus of control and lower perceived barriers and therefore will be more likely to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors than freshmen and sophomores.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Environmental Education Environmental e ducation has only recently been recognized as a distinct field of study. Stapp first proposed a definition of environmental education in 1969 that suggested it should be a separate field. Stapp wrote, Environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to solve these problems, and motivated to work towards their solution (Stapp et al, William B., 2005, p.34) This definition was proposed and accepted in 1969, but litera ture in the environmental education field really only began to accumulate in the late 1970s. The Tbilisi Declaration of 1977 was significant because it helped de fine environmental education: a process of developing a world population that is aware of and concerned about the total environment and its associated problems, and which has the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivation and commitment to work individually and collectively toward solutions of current problems and prevention of new ones (Stapp et al, William B., 2005) The Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference not only helped define environmental education, but it also identified objectives for the field: Awareness: to help social groups and individ uals acquire an awareness and sensitivity to the total environment and its allied problems [and/or issues] Sensitivity: to help social groups and individuals gain a variety of experiences in, and acquire a basic understanding of, the environment and its as sociated problems [and/or issues] Attitudes: to help social groups and individuals acquire a set of values and feelings of concern for the environment and motivation for actively participating in environmental improvement and protection. Skills: to help so cial groups and individuals acquire skills for identifying and solving environmental problems [and/or issues]

PAGE 25

25 Participation: to provide social groups and individuals with an opportunity to be actively involved at all levels in working toward resolution of environmental problems [and/or issues] (Unknown, 2005) These objectives have comprised the foundation for environmental education (Hungerford & Volk, 2005) According to t hese objectives, the main goal of environmental education is to promote citizenship behavior, or responsible environmental behavior (REB). Not only does the field have to provide knowledge, attitudes and skill, but educators have to find a way to also prom ote active participation in society. In order to achieve this goal, educators must understand behavioral theories and be able to evaluate how effectively they can be used to achieve behavioral change (Hungerf ord & Volk, 2005) Two very similar linear models (Figure 2 1) have been widely used in environmental education. The first linear model is the behavioral change system, which proposes that if people are more knowledgeable about environmental issues, the y will be more aware of these issues, resulting in more environmentally responsible behavior. The second linear model states that the more knowledge one acquires, the more favorable their attitudes will be towards the environment and eventually this will p roduce more environmentally responsible behavior (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, 314) Fi gure 2 1 Behavioral Change System (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.314) Rese arch has failed to validate these traditional and linear theoretical models. Most of the research testing these theories has used descriptive designs. Therefore they cannot establish a causal relationship between these variables (Hungerford & Volk, 2005)

PAGE 26

26 In 1986, Hines et al. conducted a meta analysis of the environmental education behavior research. One hundred and twenty -eight different studies were analyzed. Fifteen variables were analyzed in order to de termine their relationship with responsible environmental behavior. As a result of this meta analysis, Hines et al. proposed a new model for responsible environmental behavior (Figure 2 2 ). Contrary to the earlier models, Hines does not propose that environmental knowledge is the main influence in responsible environmental behavior. Rather, Hines proposes that if an individual expresses the intention to act in an environmentally responsible manner, he or she will be more likely to actually act that way than someone who did not express an intention to act. Intention to act is a composite of other factors, like cognitive knowledge, cognitive skill, and personality factors. Knowledge of environme ntal issues is considered a pre requisite for action. If a person lacks knowledge concerning environmental issues, it is not possible for them to take action. Knowledge in this model includes knowledge about environmental issues and knowledge about the actions that can be taken and which one of these actions will be the most effective in a given situation. Another important component of the theory is that individuals must have the desire to act in an environmentally responsible manner. This desire to be environmentally responsible originates from several variables, including locus of control, attitudes toward the environment, and perceptions of personal responsibility toward the environment. Situational factors, for example, economic constraints, social pressures, and opportunities to choose different actions, can either s trengthen or weaken the effect of the variables in this model (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.315316) Hungerford and Volk adapted the Hines model of responsible environmental behavior to reflect more recent re search findings about environmental education. They developed the environmental behavior model, which represents major and minor variables involved in

PAGE 27

27 environmentally responsible behavior (Figure 2 3). The model illustrates that behaviors are influenced by three categories of variables, which are entry -level variables, ownership variables, and empowerment variables. According to Hungerford and Volk (2005), all of the variables discussed below probably operate in some sort of synergistic manner. While the categories of variables probably operate in a linear fashion, the variables within each category do not necessarily operate in a similar manner (p. 317). Figure 2 2. The Hines Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior. (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.315) Entry Level Variables have been shown to be good predictors of responsible citizenship behavior. These appear to be prerequisite variables or, at the very least, variables that would enhance a persons decision making once an action is undertaken (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.317) The entry -level variables are listed below. Environmental Sensitivity: is defined as an empathetic perspective toward the envi ronment. It is the one entry-level variable that has shown a dramatic relationship to behavior in the research.

PAGE 28

28 Androgyny: is a variable that is often associated with individuals who are active in helping resolve environmental issues. Androgyny refers to t hose human beings who tend to reflect nontraditional sex role characteristics. Androgyny is not as strong a predictor as environmental sensitivity. Knowledge of ecology: is almost always prerequisite to sound decisions regarding solutions to issues. Knowle dge of ecology refers to an ecological conceptual basis for decision -making, e.g., concepts associated with population dynamics, nutrient cycling, succession, and homeostasis, ect. Attitudes toward pollution/ technology/ economics: are variables that have shown themselves to be significant in some of the research. Although these attitudes appear to be involved with behavior, the extent of their involvement is still unknown and, thud, they are shown here as minor variables. (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.317) Ownership Variables are variables that make the issues very personal to the individual. The issues are extremely important, at a personal level, to him/her (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.317) These variables seem to be significant predictors of responsible environmental behavior. In -depth knowledge of issues is a crucial variable to ownership. It appears that before individuals can engage in responsible citize nship behavior, they must understand the nature of the issues and its ecological and human implications. When individuals have an in -depth understanding of issues, they appear more inclined to take on citizenship responsibility toward those issues. Persona l investment: Personal investment is much like ownership itself. Here the individual identifies strongly with the issue because he/she has what might be called a proprietary interest in it. For example, an individual who thoroughly understands the econom ics of recycling and who uses a substantial amount of recyclable material might feel a substantial personal economic investment in recycling. However, the motivation might no necessarily have to be economic. It could be environmental in nature if the person has good ecological concepts about waste disposal, biodegradability and nutrient cycles and understands the broad human involvement in these things. Recycling might, then, become a strong personal need which could be translated as personal investment. (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.317) Empowerment variables are the most crucial in promoting responsible environmental behavior. These are the variables that give individuals the sense that they can make a diff erence and that they can help resolve key environmental issues. Empowerment seems to be the

PAGE 29

29 cornerstone of training in environmental education (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.318) The empowerment variables a re listed below. o Perceived skill in using environmental action strategies: is one of the very best predictors of behavior. This is basically if individuals believe that they have the power to use citizenship strategies to help resolve their issues. o Knowled ge of environmental action strategies: This variable is very closely related to perceived skill in using environmental action strategies. These two variables seem to be taught together. And knowledge of environmental action strategies would probably not be as significant if it were taught independently from perceived skill in using environmental action strategies. o Locus of control: an individuals belief in being reinforced for a certain behavior. Internal locus of control is when a person expects that he/s he will experience success or somehow be reinforced for doing something. External locus of control is when a person does not believe that he/she will be reinforced for doing something and, therefore, probably will not do it. o Intention to act: If a person i ntends to do some sort of action, the chances of that action occurring are increased. (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.317318) The main goal of environmental education is to promote environmental literacy, and as result create an environmentally literate society. Elder defined environmental literacy as, The capacity of an individual to act successfully in daily life on a broad understanding of how people and societies relate to each other and to natural systems and how they might do so sustainable. This requires sufficient awareness, knowledge, skills, and attitudes in order to incorporate appropriate environmental considerations into daily decisions about consumption, lifestyle, career, and civics, and to engage in individual and collective action (Elder, 2003, p.1) That is, the goal of environmental education is not only to teach facts about environmental issues, but to create citizens who are engaged in their societies a nd who can make appropriate and knowledgeable decisions about environmental issues. The environmental behavior model proposes that entry level -variables, ownership variables, empowerment variables, and citizenship behavior interact in a linear manner.

PAGE 30

30 The refore entry -level variables lead into ownership variables, which lead into empowerment variables, which then lead into citizenship behavior. If this model is correct, once one reaches the empowerment variables he or she must also have ownership and entry level variables. Figure 2 3. Environmental Behavior Model (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.316) When deciding which constructs and variables to use in this research, the researcher considered the nature of the theory and the goals of UFs Office of Sustainability. The role of the Office of Sustainability is not to provide in -depth knowledge to all of the students at the University of Florida. Students are expected to be receiving the in depth knowledge in thei r

PAGE 31

31 courses. The Office of Sustainability focuses more on affective knowledge, such as having students feel that changes in their behavior do make a difference. The outcome variable of this theory is citizenship behavior or responsible environmental behavi or The model posits a direct, positive relationship between the outcome and the predictors and the three levels of predictor variables are cumulative. Therefore, an individual who exhibits the outcome behavior is assumed to exhibit to some degree the thre e classes or levels of predictors The three classes or levels of predictors are entry level, ownership and empowerment. Each of these includes several variables. For example, sensitivity, knowledge of ecology, and androgyny are entry level variables. The goal of this research was to examine which, if any, of the predictor variables can be affected by a university environment in order to affect students REB. The goal of institu tions of higher education is not just to dictate behavior, but rather to provide students with the skill s and knowledge needed to make environmentally responsible decisions and engage in REB in the future. Since the environmental behavior m odel is a linear one with direct positive relationships between the three levels of predictors, all of which contribute to the outcome, one can conclude that engaging in REB indicates that an individual has acquired the skills, knowledge and higher cognitive abilities needed to apply make environmentally responsible decisions. Due to the nature of t he theory, the researcher chose to measure one of the empowerment variables, because if students had reached empowerment variables it automatically means that they have also reached entry-level and ownership variables. Out of the major empowerment variable s, locus of control was the one that best represented the Office of Sustainabilitys role on campus. The researcher also chose to add norms to the environmental behavior model. Norms are not mentioned in this model, but have been shown to be a major influe nce on behavior in

PAGE 32

32 other theories and models. Barriers, which were a part of the Hines model of responsible environmental behavior, were also added to this model. The following is a literature review of each of these constructs (locus of control, norms, and barriers) and how they have been shown to affect behaviors (Hines & et. al., 1986/87) Locus of Control When researchers in the environmental education field discuss locus of control they are referring to an in dividuals belief in being reinforced for a certain behavior (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.318) A person could have internal or external locus of control, which in turn influences their citizenship behavior. Individuals with internal locus of control believe that they will be reinforced in certain behaviors. Reinforcement can also come in the form of success, or a feeling of accomplishment. For example, an individual who believes that he or she can make a dif ference in waste reduction by recycling will feel successful when they engage in this behavior, which in turn is reinforcement for their behavior. The more one feels reinforced for a behavior, the more likely he or she is to repeat the behavior (Hungerford & Volk, 2005) When one does not believe that he or she will be reinforced for a behavior, they experience external locus of control. An individual who experiences external locus of control towards responsi ble environmental behavior is less likely to engage in citizenship behaviors. An individual who believes that he/she is powerless to make changes in society probably will not act in a citizenship dimension. There is no expectation of success or reinforcem ent for acting. This person would have an external locus of control for trying to help resolve environmental issues (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.318) Several studies have found that locus of control is a pr ecursor to responsible environmental behavior. Researchers have consistently found a positive correlation between locus of control and responsible environmental behavior. Sias et al. study (as sited in Marcinkowski, 2005)

PAGE 33

33 reported a positive correlation o f r = 0.38 (p < 0.05) and Smith, Sebasto and Fortner (as sited in Marcinkowski, 2005) reported a similar positive correlation of r = 0.33 (p < 0.01) (Marcinkowski, 2005) .Hwang et al. (2000) reported a positive correlation between locus of control and responsible environmental behavior (r = 0.21, p < 0.05), and found that internal locus of control was the core variable for improving the intention to act for responsible environmental behavior (Hwang, Kim, & Jeng, 2000, p.24) These researchers therefore suggest that in order to improve responsible environmental behaviors educators should focus on changing or improving an individuals internal locus of control (Hwang et al., 2000) Barriers The Hines model of responsible environmental behavior includes a construct called situational factors. According to Hines et al. (198687), situational factors can influence the other va riables in the model, either strengthening or weakening them. Some examples of situational factors are economic constraints, social pressures, and opportunities to choose different actions. Some situational factors could be considered barriers to responsible environmental behavior. When the Hines model of responsible environmental behavior was adapted into the environmental behavior model, situational factors were removed from the model. (Hungerford & Volk, 2005) However, studies have shown that barriers have a great influence on a variety of behaviors, including responsible environmental behavior. Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002) reviewed the literature about pro-environmental behaviors and identified many barrier s to responsible environmental behaviors. The following are just a few of the most important barriers to pro -environmental behavior identified by (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002) : existing values prevent learning existi ng knowledge contradicts environmental values

PAGE 34

34 lack of knowledge emotional blocking of environmental values or attitudes emotional blocking of new knowledge existing values prevent emotional involvement lack of environment consciousness lack of internal incentives lack of informal incentive lack of external possibilities and incentives negative or insufficient feedback about behavior old behavior patterns Semenza et al. (2008) also found barriers to behavior change related to climate change. About 85% o f respondents who had heard about global climate change were also concerned about global warming. However, only about 50% of those participants actually reported changing their behaviors. The study revealed several barriers to behavior change, including n ot knowing how to change behavior to reduce ones contribution to climate change changing ones own behavior will not make any difference anyway. Not having enough money and not having enough time to change ones behavior followed as reasons for not changing. (Semenza et al., 2008, p.483) This literature shows that barriers have a major impact on an individuals engagement in responsible environmental behaviors. Any model that explains variables that affect respo nsible environmental behaviors should include barriers as one of their variables or constructs. Norms Norms are not mentioned in either the Hines (as cited in Hungerford& Volk, 2005) model of responsible environmental behavior or in the environmental beha vior model, but it is a construct that other researchers have found to be a predictor of various behaviors, including responsible environmental behavior. Rajecki (as cited in Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002) identified fou r causes to explain the gap between attitude and behavior. One of these causes was normative influence. Rajecki (as cited in Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002) defines normative influences as

PAGE 35

35 social norms, cultural traditions, and family customs influence and shap e peoples attitudes, e.g. if the dominant culture propagates a lifestyle hat is unsustainable, pro -environmental behavior is less likely to occur and the gap between attitude and action will widen. (p. 242) The theory of reasoned action and the theory o f planned behavior are two theories that incorporate normative beliefs as a predictor of behavior. These theories have been used to explain a wide range of behaviors, including adolescent alcohol and marijuana use (Ka m, Matsunaga, Hecht, & Ndiaye, 2009) saturated fat consumption (de Bruijn, Kroeze, Oenema, & Brug, 2008) using seat belts (Helmut et al. 2008), sustainable food consumption (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008) academic dishonesty (Harding, Mayhew, Finelli, & Carpenter, 2007) and many others. Both the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action define normative belief s as the perceived behavioral expectations of such important referent individuals or groups as the person's spouse, family, friends, and -depending on the population and behavior studied teacher, doctor, supervisor, and coworkers (n/a) Model for Thesis This research does not propose a new model to environmentally responsible behavior. It does, however, propose adding norms and barriers to the current environmental behavior model. Figure 2 4 depicts the env ironmental behavior model and highlighted in red are the constructs that have been used as the basis of this research. The researcher does not know if norms will be an entry -level, ownership, or empowerment variable. Therefore norms are in a separate box.

PAGE 36

36 Figure 2 4. Environmental Behavior Model with added Constructs. Research Questions 1 To what degree does exposure to a campus environment that emphasizes sustainability affect students adoption of environmentally responsible behaviors? 2 To what degree do l ocus of control, family norms, university norms, and barriers explain students adoption of environmentally responsible behaviors?

PAGE 37

37 Hypothesis 1 Students who have been at UF longer (juniors and seniors) will experience greater exposure to the sustainable camp us movement and therefore will engage in more environmentally responsible behaviors than students with less exposure (freshmen and sophomores). 2 Higher internal locus of control, membership in a family that stresses environmental norms, perception of enviro nmental norms as important to the university, and few perceived barriers to environmentally responsible behavior will foster environmentally responsible behaviors. 3 Students who have been at UF longer (juniors and seniors) will experience greater exposure to the sustainable campus movement and therefore will have higher internal locus of control and lower perceived barriers and therefore will be more likely to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors than freshmen and sophomores.

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 3 METHODS T he objective of this research is to analyze the role of higher education in fostering sustainable behaviors among students. As of 2007, over 300 universities from around the world have made a commitment to sustainability by signing the Talloires Declaration (Parker, 2007) Signatures to the declaration make a commitment to a ten -point action plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges and universities (Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 1994) The theoretical population for this study is all students graduating from an institute of higher education that has signed the Talloires Declaration. This study was conducted at a major four year university in the Southeastern United States, the University of Florida. There are no reasons to believe that the University of Florida student population differs in ways that can affect the outcomes of this study from those of other universities that are signatories of the Declaration. President Lombardi signed the Tallies Declaration in 1990, the same year that the declaration was issued. The University of Florida is also a member of the American Association for Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). The University has developed a fairly comprehensive program in sustainability, described in the introduction. The university has made conside rable effort to incorporate sustainability into the universitys daily operations, to make students aware of the impacts of their behaviors on the environment, and to change their behaviors. Design I anticipate a change in behaviors between incoming (lower classmen) and graduating (upperclassmen) student at UF because longer exposure to a campus environment that emphasizes sustainability affects students adoption of responsible environmental behaviors

PAGE 39

39 (REB). A longitudinal design in which I could compare be haviors on incoming and graduating students would be ideal. This would permit me to explore changes in behavior that result from exposure to UFs programs in sustainability for the same individuals. However, I could not adopt this design due to time limita tions for my study. I therefore elected to use a cross -sectional design, comparing lowerclassmen and upperclassmen. According to De Vaus, Cross -sectional designs have three distinctive features: no time dimension; reliance on existing differences rather than change following intervention; and groups based on existing differences rather than random allocation (p. 170). Unlike other research designs, in a cross -sectional design data are only collected at one point of time, and one can only measure differen ces between groups and not change (de Vaus, 2001) Groups in a cross -sectional design are based on existing differences in the population and participants are assigned to groups based on the independent variable length of exposure to UFs sustainability programs in this case. One of the major criticisms of a cross -sectional design is that it lacks a time dimension because one is only collecting data from one point of time. One way to address this problem is to c onduct cross -sectional study at several points in time. This will not track the same group of people over time, but does permit the researcher to compare groups at different points in time as de Vaus (2001) points out: We can track changes by comparing pa tterns in each sample with those in previous or subsequent samples (p.174). One of the goals of this study is to develop an instrument to measure changes in behavior that can be used for repeated measures over time. The study will also provide a baseline measurement of undergraduates responsible environmental behaviors for the Office of Sustainability. This will permit the Office of Sustainability to collect data annually to see if students are engaging in more environmentally responsible behaviors.

PAGE 40

40 There fore, this study is designed to later become a repeated cross -sectional design. This would allow the Office of Sustainability to compare changes in students behaviors over the years. Sample Selection Several screening criteria were used in sample selecti on in order to control for characteristics that were not of interest to the researcher. Participants had to be between the ages of 18 and 24, the age range of typical undergraduate students. Undergraduate students who are older than 24 are considered unconventional students and therefore could bias our results. Unconventional students might have had experiences which have influenced their environmentally responsible behaviors other than being exposed to the University of Florida. Transfer students were also removed from the sample because this research focused on length of exposure. A senior who is a transfer student would not have had the full four years of exposure that a senior who came in as a freshmen would have. I did not control for gender and ethnici ty based on McConney & McConneys (1996) study about undergraduate students environmental literacy found that gender and ethnicity do not have a significant effect on ones responsible environmental behavior (McConne y & McConney, 1995) Sample size was determined based on the formula: items had five response categories. The variance was first estimated based o n a pre test and was later re -estimated based on the first set of data collected. Variance for upperclassmen was much higher than the variance for underclassmen. Therefore, a larger sample was needed for upperclassmen than for underclassmen. The final samp le size was: 87 for underclassmen and 176 for upperclassmen.

PAGE 41

41 It was not possible to take a completely random sample of the University of Florida undergraduate student population. In order to conduct a completely random sample, I would have needed a complet e list of all undergraduate students at the University of Florida (Bryman, 2001) I do not have access to a list of all undergraduate students at the University of Florida or a way to reach them because this informat ion is confidential. Instead, I selected classes from different colleges at UF as the sampling frame. I chose several classes that would have a large number of underclassmen and several that would have a large number of upperclassmen. Most of the underclas smen sample came from one -credit introductory courses required for freshmen, such as First Year Florida and Career Planning. Students enrolled in these classes are from various colleges. I chose upper division classes from three colleges: Liberal Arts and Sciences, Agricultural and Life Sciences, and Health and Human Performance. Upper level classes were chosen to get the sample of upperclassmen. Some of the courses chosen were required for some minor, which means that many students in the class were not f rom the specific college but instead from a number of colleges and were enrolled in the class in order to receive credit toward their minors. This helped assure that the participants were representative of UFs undergraduate population. The response rate w as 100%. Instrument Development High measurement validity is critical for generating reliable, valid results in social research. According to Adcock and Collier (2001), valid measurement is achieved when scores (including the results of qualitative classi fication) meaningfully capture the ideas contained in corresponding concept (p. 530). The concepts or constructs are defined by the theory used as the basis for the research. The constructs in a given theory have been tested and shown to be related to each other in an explanatory fashion (Maher & Gottesman, 2005) I relied on Adcock and Collins (2001) approach to validation of the research instruments (Adcock & Collier, 2001)

PAGE 42

42 The first step in ensuring validity is to select a theory that applies to the kind of behavior under study. My theoretical framework (ch. 2) specifically applies to the adoption of responsible environmental behaviors. It has been well tested (Hungerf ord & Volk, 2005; Hwang et al. 2000; Marcinkowski, 2005) by other researchers. Second the researcher must define constructs as t hey are defined in the theory, not as in general usage The outcome variable of the environmental behavior model is citizenship behavior, which I measured. Based on the linear nature of the model and the assumed cumulative relationships between predictors, the researcher need not measure all constructs to draw conclusions about the value of the theory. I therefore chose those predi ctor variables that are important in the context of the potential effect of a university environment on student behavior. The table below provides the definitions of the constructs as defined in the theory. Table 3 1. Constructs and their definitions based on theory. Construct Definition Citizenship Behavior Active involvement at all levels in working toward resolution of environmental problems (and/or issues) (Hungerford & Volk, p.314). Locus of Control An individuals belief in being reinforced for a certain behavior (Hungerford & Volk, 2005, p.318) Norms The perceived behavioral expectations of such important referent individuals or groups as the person's spouse, family, friends, and -depending on the population and behavior studied teacher, doctor, supervisor, and coworkers (n/a) Barriers Situational factors can influence the other variables in the model, either strengthening or weakening them (Hines & et. al., 1986/87) Creating instruments that are specific to the context of the study is a critical step in instrument development. In order to successfully operationalize responsible environmental

PAGE 43

43 behavior it was necessary to create an instrument that contained items to specifically measure behaviors promoted by the University of Floridas Office of Sustainability: transportation, energy efficiency, waste reduction, water conservation and purchasing decisions. The five categories of behaviors and corresponding barriers were identified by using the University Florida Office of Sustainability website, the Green Team website, Think Green: A Gators Guide to the Sustainable Living, and by consulting with The Of fice of Sustainabilitys director and outreach coordinator. The next concept that needed to be operationalized for this study was locus of control. As defined in ch.2, locus of control has to do with an individuals belief that he/she will be reinforced for a behavior (Hungerford & Volk, 2005) Reinforcement can also result from how successful one feels he or she is in performing a certain behavior. In the context of this study, locus of control is based on how successful one feels when engaging in responsible environmental behaviors. If a person feels that he or she can make a big difference in the amount of solid waste by recycling, he or she will feel reinforced and therefore be more likely to recycle. I e xamined locus of control in relationship to the five behavioral categories of interest (transportation, energy efficiency, waste reduction, water conservation, and purchasing decisions). Ajzen defines norms as, the perceived behavioral expectations of suc h important referent individuals or groups as the person's spouse, family, friends, and -depending on the population and behavior studied teacher, doctor, supervisor, and coworkers. This study looks at how the Office of Sustainability can influence a students norms, which in turn will influence their environmentally friendly behaviors. The only way to do this is to create university norms that support environmentally friendly behaviors. I also examined family norms. If one comes from a

PAGE 44

44 family which does not have responsible environmental behaviors as a norm, but is exposed to a university environment which has responsible environmental norms will their behaviors change based on the new set of norms? I considered including peer norms in the study. How ever the Office of Sustainability cannot influence the norms of each individuals peer group on campus. University norms and family norms were operationalized in terms of the five categories of behavior of interest. Table 3 2. Table of constructs and varia bles. Construct Variables Responsible Environmental Behavior Transportation Energy Efficiency Waste Reduction Water conservation Purchasing Decisions Locus of Control Locus of control as it relates to engaging responsible environmental behaviors Norms University Norms Family Norms Barriers Transportation Energy Efficiency Waste Reduction Water conservation Purchasing Decisions Indices I chose an index to measure all of the constructs because I wanted to gather interval data for statistical analysis and because I wanted to look at specific dimensions of the constructs of interest that I could identify a priori I created ten indices representing four constructs, locus of control, norms, barriers and responsible environmental behaviors. I used two in dices to measure norms (family and university norms) and five indices to measure responsible environmental behaviors (energy use, transportation mode, waste reduction, purchasing decisions and water

PAGE 45

45 use). Although separate indices were created for each of the behavioral categories, individuals only received one summative behavioral score. The barriers to the desired behaviors are based on the same five categories of behavior. Steps in Developing Indices The first step in developing the indices was to gathe r expert input. I consulted the University of Florida Office of Sustainability website, the Green Team website, Think Green: A Gators Guide to Sustainable Living and met with The Office of Sustainabilitys director and outreach coordinator. I created ite ms based on the information gathered. The director and outreach coordinator from the Office of Sustainability and committee members reviewed the initial array of items. As a result, I created some new items, edited some items, and deleted some items. I th en tested for comprehension by conducting a first pre test with undergraduate students. I conducted a cognitive debriefing with participants after they completed the instrument. Participants pointed out some problems that they had with language. They felt that some of the questions were hard to understand and they had some suggestions regarding the structure of the instrument. After the cognitive debriefing, I made changes based on the participants suggestions. No items were deleted from the instrument. Most of the suggestions from the pilot test were to change the wording of items. For example, the pilot group found it hard to answer the question: When you make routine purchases, do you choose products made from recycled materials? They said that not all products can be made from recycled materials and that it was hard to find recycled products. Their suggestion was for me to change the question to: When you make routine purchases, does the amount of recycled content influence what you purchase? I re -t ested the revised instrument for comprehension by conducting a second pilot test with undergraduate students. After the second pre test, participants did not have any suggestions for

PAGE 46

46 the instrument and no further changes were made to the instrument. After the second pre test I also evaluated the item reliability for each index. The results for item reliability were different for each index. Therefore the criteria for removing items from the index differed T able 3 3 shows the alpha score and the cutoff va lue for deleting items from each index. At this point most of the items deleted exhibited poor discriminatory power. This item exhibits two common weaknesses that argue for deletion: When you are traveling, do you discard of the following materials in a r ecycling bin? Batteries. Very few respondents exhibit this behavior. Therefore, it is not useful for exploring differences between comparison groups. This item exhibited another weakness, low inter item reliability E.g., the pattern of response to the it em is not consistent with that of other items in the waste reduction index, which reduces the overall reliability of the index score. There are no ironclad rules for deciding which items to retain. For example, I did retain some items that had low inter it em reliability, in part because the pilot test sample was small. One of the goals of this thesis is to develop an instrument that the Office of Sustainability can use in the future. Therefore, I decided to keep as many items as possible and delete items th at were not successful after more data were collected. Table 3 3. Alpha score and cutoff value for deleting items. Index Final Alpha Cut off value # of items in the beginning # of items deleted Water Conservation 0.87 0.3 4 2 Transportation 0.10 none 14 0 Waste Reduction 0.94 0.3 20 2 Energy Efficiency 0.68 0.0 8 2 Purchasing 0.89 0.2 9 1 General Behaviors 0.93 0.4 11 1 Locus of Control 0.37 None 13 0 Norms 0.72 0.2 9 2 Barriers 0.83 None 5 0

PAGE 47

47 Weighting Items Quality of life research has shown that weighing items by importance makes the items a stronger predictor of life satisfaction. According to Wu & Yao (2006), The result revealed that importance -weighted discrepancies were more strongly related to item satisfaction than were the real statu s only, suggesting that weighting have -want discrepancy score with item importance could improve the prediction for item satisfaction (p.488). Wu et al. show that when items are weighted, the results of the study become more accurate (Wu & Yao, 2006) For the current study behaviors were weighted based on perceived barriers. During both of the pre -tests, participants not only answered how often they engaged in a behavior but they also answered how difficult it was to engage in that behavior. Participants answered how difficult it was to engage in certain behaviors in a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being not difficult and 5 being very difficult. After both of the pre tests, a perceived barrier score was given to each beha vior by taking the average number for each behavior. This meant that even if someone always (5) engaged in a behavior that was ranked as not difficult (1), his or her score for that behavior would be 5x1=5. On the other hand if someone always (5) engaged i n a behavior which was ranked as very difficult (5), he or she would receive a score of 5x5=25 for that behavior. Instrument Limitations There are some limitations to the instruments created for this study. First the index for transportation did not work. I kept the index in the final instrument, although it showed apparent weakness in the item reliability test. The Office of Sustainability currently focuses on transportation, and getting students to use alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, I wan ted to have data about the transportation habits of undergraduate students. A new index for transportation is needed, perhaps one that only lets participants choose the type of transportation that they use the most.

PAGE 48

48 Another limitation is that the water con servation index only had two items. In order to have a good index at least five or six items are necessary. Therefore only having two items makes this index less reliable. I started with more items for water conservation but participants from the first pre test did not understand the questions. After running inter -item reliability, half of the items did not work. Water conservation behaviors are both too easy, so everyone engages in these behaviors or too hard, and no one engages in this behaviors. It is ne cessary to develop more items to add to the index in order to make the index more reliable. Third, the index for university norms only contains two items. This poses very similar problems to the water conservation index. It was very hard to come up with i tems that accurately measure university norms, even after the expert consultations. Many of the items created did not have good item reliability: Therefore, these items had to be deleted from the instrument. More items need to be tested and added to this i ndex.

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS I used the Shapiro Wilk test of normality (Statistica Version 8.0) to determine whether the values for the outcome variable, behavior total, were normally distributed. Data were normal for both groups, upperclassmen (W=0.98, p=0.16) and lowerclassmen (W=0.99, p=0.73). Independent variables were also tested for normality. A transformation was needed to normalize the data for the independent variables. The independent variables were normalized by squaring the total value for each vari able. I was unable to normalize university norms. Therefore, I was not able to include university norms in any of the parametric tests. I used the K -S test for normality to determine whether the values for the independent variables were normally distribute d. I conducted a t test to evaluate differences in behavior (behavioral total) between upperclassmen and lowerclassmen. This difference is not significant at p=0.05 (p=0.69), but given the relatively small sample size and some of the limitations of my ind ices, the data suggest that a difference might emerge with a larger sample. Table 4 1. Results of the t -test for the outcome variable, behavior, for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. t value D F p value Mean Valid N Std. Dev. Behavior Total 1.83 261 0.069 Freshmen + Sophomores 33.70 87 6.26 Juniors + Seniors 35.37 176 7.29 I used forward stepwise regression to explore the explanatory power of the predictor variables, norms, barriers and locus of contro l, for the outcome variable, behavior total. Although the results of the t test did not indicate that the two groups differ significantly with regard to the outcome variable, I decided to use two models, one for each comparison group, rather than

PAGE 50

50 treating the two groups as a single population. My objective was to determine whether the predictor variables differed in explanatory power for each group. The predictor variables explain approximately 45% of the variance in the outcome variable, behavior, for both lower (R2=0.424) and upperclassmen (R2=0.480). However, the models are dissimilar. The variable family norms has the greatest explanatory power for lowerclassmen (B= 0.35), considerably higher than either locus of control (B=0.31) or barriers (B=0.22). Lo cus of control had the highest explanatory power for upperclassmen (B=0.306), followed very closely by barriers (B=0.305) and family norms (B=0.252). Table 4 2. Results of the stepwise regression for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. Lower Classmen R=0.666 R squared=0.4438 Adjusted R squared=0.4237 F(3,83)=20.685 p<0.0001 Std. Error of estimate: 4.7521 Beta Std. Err. Of Beta B Std. Err. Of B T(83) p level Intercept 17.52 2.23 7.84 <0.001 Locus of Con trol 0.312 0.094 0.004 0.001 3.309 0.001 Family Norms 0.349 0.089 0.020 0.005 3.897 0.001 Barriers 0.223 0.101 0.016 0.008 2.206 0.030 Upper Classmen R=0.699 R squared=0.489 Adjusted R squared=0.480 F(3,172)=54.905 p<0.0001 Std. Error of esti mate: 5.2556 Beta Std. Err. of Beta B Std. Err. of B T(172) p level Intercept 17.04 1.67 10.23 <0.001 Locus of Control 0.306 0.065 0.004 0.001 4.717 <0.001 Family Norms 0.252 0.065 0.017 0.004 3.885 <0.001 Barriers 0.305 0.068 0.024 0.005 4.487 <0. 001 I used a t -test to see if there is a difference between upper and lower classmen for independent variables. I ran the t test using the squared total value for each independent variable.

PAGE 51

51 There were no statistically significant difference between upper and lower classmen for independent variables (locus of control, family norms and barriers). Table 4 3. Results of the t -test for the predictor variables (locus of control, family norm and barriers) for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the Universit y of Florida, 2009. Mean Lower Classmen Mean Upper Classmen t value DF P Valid N Lower Classmen Valid N Upper Classmen Std. Dev. Lower Classmen Std. Dev. Upper Classmen Locus of Control 2004.072 2037.841 0.50 261 0.62 87 176 516.29 514.30 Family Norms 270.813 284.501 0.94 261 0.35 87 176 110.69 111.84 Barriers 198.353 199.636 0.11 261 0.91 87 176 84.85 92.48 I used Spearmans Rank Order Correlation to examine the relationships among the predictor variables. Correlations in red are significant p<0. 05. For lowerclassmen, barriers are significantly correlated to locus of control, family norms and university norms. Locus of control and university norms are significantly correlated with each other and barriers, but not with family norms. Family norms only have a statistically significant correlation with barriers. All of the independent variables had a statistically significant correlation for the upperclassmen. Table 4 4. Results of the Spearmans Rank Order Correlation for independent variables for a sample of lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. Locus of Control Family Norms University Norms Barriers Locus of Control 1.0 0.16 0.25 0.48 Family Norms 0.16 1.0 0.17 0.41 University Norms 0.25 0.12 1.0 0.28 Barriers 0.48 0.41 0.28 1.0 Table 4 5. Results of the Spearmans Rank Order Correlation for independent variables for a sample of upper classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. Locus of Control Family Norms University Norms Barriers Locus of Control 1.0 0.38 0.30 0.48 Fa mily Norms 0.38 1.0 0.26 0.49 University Norms 0.30 0.26 1.0 0.27 Barriers 0.48 0.49 0.27 1.0

PAGE 52

52 I used the Kruskal Wallis median test for several post hoc analyses based on descriptive variables Since t he se variables were not used in determining sample size, the results of these analyses cannot be generalized beyond this sample. The post -hoc analyses included comparisons by gender, ethnicity, information source and the degree to which the students major stresses ecology. One of the questions was: On a scale of 1 to5, with 1 being very low and 5 being very high, to what degree are ecology and/or environmental issues stressed in you major? I conducted Kruskal Wallis ANOVA, using the ordinal score as the grouping variable, to see if the participants perc eption of the degree to which his/her degree program stressed ecology and/or environmental issues affects behavioral outcomes. The results of the Kruskal -Wallace test showed a difference among groups for responsible environmental behavior. Participants who scored their major as a 4 or 5 (strong emphasis on ecology and/or environmental issues) had significantly higher scores on environmental behaviors than participants who scored their major as a 1 (little emphasis). Table 4 6. Results of the Kruskal Wallis test for responsible environmental behavior by degr ee which ecology and/or environmental issues are stressed in major, for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. Multiple Comparisons p values (2 tailed); REB total Independent (grouping) variable: Major Kruskal Wallis test: H (4, N=259) = 24.84 p=0.001 1 R: 99.891 2 R: 126.15 3 R: 132.14 4 R: 172.70 5 R: 169.23 1 0.604 0.075 <0.001 0.023 2 0.604 1.000 0.052 0.637 3 0.075 1.000 0.072 0.937 4 <0.001 0.052 0.072 1.00 0 5 0.023 0.637 0.937 1.000 Major Behavior Mean Behavior Std. Err. Behavior 95% Behavior 95% N 1 31.98 0.83 30.35 33.60 64

PAGE 53

53 2 34.36 0.92 32.56 36.17 52 3 34.89 0.67 33.57 36.21 97 4 38.72 1.15 36.46 40.99 33 5 39.05 1.83 35.45 42.66 13 I ran a K ruskal -Wallis test to see if there was a difference between responsible environmental behaviors based on ethnic groups. There is a statistically significant difference (p=0.006) in responsible environmental behavior between different ethnic groups. The res ults show that the there is a statistically significant difference between Caucas ians and African American/Black in this sample. Table 4 7. Results of the Kruskal Wallace test of responsible environmental behaviors by ethnicity, for a sample of upper and l ower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. Multiple Comparisons p values (2 tailed); REB Total Independent (grouping) variable: Ethnicity Kruskal Wallis test: H (4, N=263) = 12.19857 p = 0.0159 White/ Caucasian R: 140.16 African American/ Black R: 104.81 Hispanic R: 137.74 Asian R: 116.46 Other R: 160.24 White/Caucasian 0.029 1.0 1.0 1.0 African American/ Black 0.029 0.359 1.0 0.081 Hispanic 1.0 0.359 1.0 1.0 Asian 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Other 1.0 0.081 1.0 1.0 Frequency Table for Ethnicity Count Cumulative Count Percent Cumulative Percent White/Caucasian 135 135 51.33 51.33 African American/ Black 59 194 22.43 73.76 Hispanic 39 233 14.83 88.59 Asian 13 246 4.94 93.54 Other 17 263 6.46 100 I ran a Kruskal -Wallis test to see if there was a difference in responsible environmental behavior based on how participants answered the question: Where do you get most of your information concerning ecology and/or environmental issues? The response categories for this

PAGE 54

54 question were UF cour ses, media/internet, from other people (like family, friends, and colleagues), Office of Sustainability and other. The results show that there is no statistically significant difference (p=0.60) on how one answered this question and their behaviors. Table 4 8 Results of the Kruskal Wallace test of responsible environmental behaviors by source of information concerning ecology and/or environmental issues for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA by Ran ks: REB Total Independent (grouping) variable: Information Kruskal Wallis test: H(4, N= 259) = 2.712 p = 0.6072 Code Valid N Sum of Ranks UF Courses 1 30 3764.00 Media/Internet 2 137 18481.00 From other people 3 55 6481.00 Office of Sustainability 4 9 1338.00 Other 5 28 3606.00 The instrument included an item that asked participants where they lived. The response categories for this item were fraternity or sorority house, on campus, off campus (rented housing), off campus (not a rental) and other I ran a Kruskal Wallace test to see if there was a significant difference in responsible environmental behavior between the different residential categories. The results (p=0.147) show that there is no statistically significant difference in responsible environmental behavior according to place of residence. Table 4 9 Results of the test of responsible environmental behaviors by participants place of residence, for a sample of upper and lower classmen at the University of Florida, 2009. Kruskal Wallis A NOVA by Ranks: REB Total Independent (grouping) variable: Place of Residence Kruskal Wallis test: H(4, N= 259) = 6.791 p = 0.1474 Code Valid N Sum of Ranks Fraternity or Sorority House 1 14 2181.00 On Campus 2 55 6494.00 Off Campus, rented housing 3 167 23094.00

PAGE 55

55 Off Campus, not a rental 4 24 2610.00 Other 5 3 328.00 Kruskal Wallis was conducted to see if there was a difference in gender and responsible environmental behavior. A separate test was conducted for each group and one for both groups to gether. The results for all grade levels show that there is a significant difference (p=0.019) in responsible environmental behaviors between males and females. The females engaged in a significantly higher amount of responsible environmental behaviors tha n the males. Lower classmen had similar results. There was a significant difference (p=0.013) in responsible environmental behaviors between lower classmen males and females. Lower classmen females engaged in significantly higher amount of responsible envi ronmental behaviors than lower classmen males. When comparing males and females for the upper classmen, this difference disappears. There is no significant difference (p=0.3109) between males and females responsible environmental behavior for upper classme n. Table 4 10. Results of the Kruskal -Wallis test of responsible environmental behaviors by gender, for a sample of undergraduate students at the University of Florida, 2009. Mean Male Mean Female Kruskal Wallis Test P Valid N Male Valid N Female Std. Dev Male Std. Dev. Female Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors, and Seniors REB 33.31 35.34 5.543 0.0186 74 188 7.36 6.73 Freshmen and Sophomores REB 31.42 34.67 6.226 0.0126 26 61 5.27 6.43 Juniors and Seniors REB 34.33 35.66 1.027 0.3109 48 127 8.14 6.87 Summary The results have shown that there is no statistically significant p<0.05 (p=0.069) difference between upper and lower classmens responsible environmental behavior. The predictor variables identified in this study explained about 45% of the varianc e in responsible

PAGE 56

56 environmental behavior for both upper and underclassmen. However, the models were different for the two comparison groups. The best predictor variable for underclassmens REB was family norms followed by locus of control then barriers. And for upperclassmen, the best predictor variable was locus of control followed by barriers then family norms. The result also showed that there were no statistically significant differences for independent variables (locus of control, family norms and barri ers) between upper and lower classmen.

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION I tested three hypotheses in this research. Some of my results corroborate those of previous researchers, while others do not. Hypothesis 1: Students who have been at UF longer (juniors and s eniors) will experience greater exposure to the sustainable campus movement and therefore will engage in more environmentally responsible behaviors than students with less exposure (freshmen and sophomores). Hypothesis 2 : Higher internal locus of control, membership in a family that stresses environmental norms, perception of environmental norms as important to the university, and few perceived barriers to environmentally responsible behavior will foster environmentally responsible behaviors. Hypothesis 3: Students who have been at UF longer (juniors and seniors) will experience greater exposure to the sustainable campus movement and therefore will have higher internal locus of control and lower perceived barriers and therefore will be more likely to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors than freshmen and sophomores. I argue that some conditions specific to the timing of the study at UF may have affected the results. However, I also conclude that this research has important implications both theore tically and for the development of sustainability programs at institutions of higher education. Timing of the Study Upperclassmen (mean=35.37) had a slightly higher score for responsible environmental behavior than underclassmen (mean=33.70). Although the difference was not statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval, the pvalue was 0.69. The director for the Office of Sustainability was hired in February 2006. The Office had existed less than three years at the time of t his study. Upperclassm en had been exposed to the Office of Sustainabilitys efforts for three years, at most, and sophomores could have been exposed for two years. The difference in length of exposure between upperclassmen and sophomores is slight and could account for the insi gnificant difference in behavior.

PAGE 58

58 Freshmen participated in this study during their first semester at the University of Florida. They had already been exposed to a campus environment that emphasized sustainability, even if it was for only a few months. Som e of the freshman might also have been at UF during summer B, providing longer exposure. The ideal situation would be to get incoming freshmen to participate in the study during Preview, UFs orientation for incoming freshmen. When students come to Preview they have been accepted at UF and know that they will be attending classes in either summer or fall. At this point, students would not have experienced the campus environment that emphasizes sustainability, although their perceptions of the Universitys c ommitment to sustainability could influence their responses. Nonetheless, being able to comparing true incoming freshmen to seniors with four full years at UF would provide a more robust test of the first hypothesis. Future research will examine the difference in behavior between incoming freshmen and four year seniors. The most telling data may result when the current (200809) sophomores are seniors and we can compare them to the incoming freshmen. The current sophomores have experienced the Office of Su stainabilitys efforts since they first arrived on campus. By the time they are graduating seniors, they will have had four full years of exposure to a campus environment that emphasizes sustainability. Theoretical Perspectives This study was based on th e Environmental Behavior Model; however it examines some additional constructs that were not included in the original model. These additional constructs could improve the explanatory power of the Environmental Behavior Model. Other social theories may also help understand the results, especially those that deal with development of norms and behavior over the life span.

PAGE 59

59 The ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) suggests that the relative importance of the fam ily compared to other referent groups declines as individuals mature. In his model, there are five ecological systems that influence an individual. 1) Microsystems consist of activities, social roles, and interpersonal relations experienced in a face to fa ce setting. 2) Mesosystems are the linkages and/or relationships between the microsystems. 3) Exosystems are social settings that do not directly include the individual, but affects them indirectly. 4) Macrosystems consist of cultural values, laws, customs and resources. 5) Chronnosystems encompass change over time, not only of the individual but also of all other systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) Figure 5 1. Bronfenbrenner s Ecological M odel

PAGE 60

60 The regression m odels for under and upperclassmen show that the variables influencing responsible environmental behaviors (REB) differ for the two groups. For underclassmen, family norms are the strongest predictor of resp three predictor variables changes over time, possibly as a result of students growing sense of personal responsibility and control after they move away from the home setting. Fami ly norms can have a strong influence on behavior, particularly for children. Kakefuda et al., for example, studied bicycle helmet use among children, adolescents and emerging adults. They found that kids respond strongly to parental influence. If wearing a helmet was a family norm, participants were more likely to wear a helmet. However, their study also showed that the influence of family norms declined as children moved into adolescence and young adulthood (Kake fuda, Henry, & Stallones, 2009) Edelen et al. did a study on smoking initiation age among West Coast youth from age 5 to 23. This study found that adolescents were more likely to start smoking if they reported that the adult who was most important to the m smoked. The results also show that the influence of having an important adult who smokes declines with age and by the age of 19 has no effect (Edelen, Tucker, & Ellickson, 2007) The ecological model predic ts that the influence of family norms decreases as one goes through different developmental stages. The influence of family norms decreases as one starts to interact with the larger -scale ecological systems (Br onfenbrenner, 1994) This may explain the results of this study. Typically, upperclassmen have been living away from their families longer than underclassmen. Based on the ecological model and research findings like those described

PAGE 61

61 previously, greater te mporal separation from the family may reduce the effects of family norms. Both family behaviors and norms influence behavior. Underclassmen may still engage in the behaviors that they observed or participated in at home, while upperclassmen may have change d their behaviors as a normal part of the developmental process. Emerging adulthood (ages 18 to 25) is a time of identity formation and therefore emerging adults are eager to explore different life possibilities. According to William Perry, 1999 (as cited in Arnett, 2000) : Emerging adults often enter college with a worldview they have learned in the course of childhood and adolescence. However, a college education leads to exposure to a variety of different world views, and in the course of this exposure college students often find themselves questioning the worldviews they brought in. Over the course of their college years, emerging adults examine and consider a variety of possible worldviews. By the end of their college years they have often committed themselves to a worldview different from the one they brought in, while remaining open to further modifications of it (Arnett, 2000, p.474) Another study found that the majority of participants attributed their commitment to community services to college experiences. Over half of the participants responded that this experience happened during their freshman year of college. Results also show that many of the part icipants felt that they had experienced a life marker or a frame -changing experience during emerging adulthood (Seider, 2007) Autonomy has been shown to increase an individuals locus of control. When an indivi dual moves away from home to attend college or a university they become more independent and in turn should develop more autonomy. Wolfle & List (2004) found that college attendance increases locus of control and that external locus of control shift to int ernal locus of control. Similar results were also found 20 years earlier by Pascarella & Terenzini (as cited in Wolfle & List, 2004) Another study found that higher education led to higher locus of control for heal th related behaviors (Leganger & Kraft, 2003) Enhanced locus of control may be critical in

PAGE 62

62 achieving environmentally responsible behavior. Hwang, Kim & Jeng (2000), conclude that the core variable for improving the intention to act for responsible environmental behavior is internal locus of control (p. 24). Contrary to family norms, locus of control was the strongest predictor variable of responsible environmental behavior for upperclassmen and the weakest for underclassmen. The results for locus of control corroborated those of previous studies. The beta value was 0.31 for both upper and lower classmen in this study. Hwang, Kim & Jeng ( 2000) found that locus of Hugerford & Tomera (1985) also found internal locus of control to be a significant predictor of 0.14). The similarity of the results of this study and those of previous studies show that locus of control is a strong predictor variable of responsible environmental behaviors. This is very important to universities that have signed the Talloires Declar ation because their ultimate goal is to enhance responsible environmental behavior. Based on the results of this study and those cited here and in the literature (Hwang, Kim, & Jeng, 2000; Sia, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986/86) these universities need to focus their programs to develop critical thinking and action skills that will increase an individuals internal locus of control. Barriers were the second stronge st predictor variable for upper classmen, but they were the least significant predictor variable for under classmen. Referring back to the emerging adulthood literature may help explain why barriers were a stronger predictor variable for upper than for lo wer classmen. During the first years of college, individuals are exploring new and questioning previous worldviews. In contrast, by the end of college one has already committed him or herself to a set of worldviews. This may mean that underclassmen are sti ll exploring, and barriers are not

PAGE 63

63 as significant in their decision to engage in REB. Upperclassmen might already have a set of worldviews and barriers weigh more heavily in their decision to engage in REB. The results of the stepwise regression make impo rtant contributions to the environmental behavior model and to future research. For upperclassmen locus of control, barriers, and family norms explain 48.92% of the variance in responsible environmental behaviors. Locus of control is already included in th e environmental behavior model, but norms and barriers were also shown to be significant predictor variables. This result is important because it shows norms and barriers are significant, and need to be considered to understand responsible environmental be havior. The results for underclassmen were a somewhat different, but also showed that locus of control, norms and barriers are statistically significant predictor variables. Family norms, locus of control and barriers explain 44.38% of variance in undercla ssmens responsible environmental behaviors. The results of the Spearman Rank Order Correlations for the independent variables also make an important contribution to the environmental behavior model. The results for upperclassmen show that locus of control, family norms, university norms, and barriers are all significantly correlated. The results for the lowerclassmen show that barriers are significantly correlated with locus of control, family norms and university norms. Family norms are only significantly correlated with barriers. Loci of control and university norms are significantly correlated with barriers and each other but not with family norms. These results may give some insight as to where norms and barriers may be included in the environmental be havior model. In chapter 2, I proposed that barriers were a filter between variables and behavior. This means that even if one conquers all of the empowerment variables, barriers might still interfere with whether or not one engages in responsible environm ental behaviors. The results from the correlation of

PAGE 64

64 the independent variables show that this might be where barriers fit in the model. Since barriers were significantly correlated with all other independent variables for both groups, it could mean that ba rriers are a filter between all independent variables and behaviors. After a review of the literature, I found that norms where shown to be strong predictors of behavior. Rajecki (as cited in Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002) found that normative influences were one of the four main causes for a gap between attitude and behavior. In chapter 2, I indicated that, I was not sure where norms would fit into the environmental behavior model. After analyzing the results of the Spearman Rank Order Correlations for indepe ndent variables, it appears that norms might be an ownership variable. Although family norms for underclassmen were only statistically correlated to barriers, university norms were correlated to locus of control. For upperclassmen, both family and universi ty norms were significantly correlated to locus of control. This relationship between norms and locus of control leads me to believe that norms would be an ownership variable. The results of this study corroborate with previous studies. Egbert et. aI. (200 1), for example, found that when there were high family norms supporting screening for cancer, women had a higher internal locus of control for cancer (Egbert & Parrott, 2001) Figure 5 2, shows the revised model t hat I suggest to help explain responsible environmental behavior. Educational Implications and Recommendations One of the questions included in the instrument was: On a scale of 1 to5, with 1 being very low and 5 being very high, to what degree are ecol ogy and/or environmental issues stressed in you major? I conducted a post hoc analysis of variance, using the ordinal score as the grouping variable, to see if the participants perception of the degree to which his/her degree program stressed ecology and /or environmental issues affects behavioral outcomes. This question is important to the Office of Sustainability because it shows how participants perceived

PAGE 65

65 their degree program stressed ecology and/or environmental issues. This variable does not measure t he degree to which programs feel or say that they are teaching this content, but instead how students perceive or feel their degree programs address ecology and/or environmental issues. Figure 5 2 Adjusted Environmental Behavior Model Based on the Resul ts of this Thesis

PAGE 66

66 The results of the Kruskal -Wallis ANOVA provide two important insights. First, there is statically significant difference between how participants ranked their degree program and behavior. Students who scored a 1 differed significantly fr om participants who scored a 4 or a 5. Participants who scored a 4 or a 5 on this question engaged in significantly more responsible environmental behavior than participants who scored a 1 on this question. The analysis of variance also shows to what degre e participants felt that their degree program stresses ecology and/or environmental issues. In 2003, Holt conducted a study at Middlesex University Business School in London. Results of the study showed that subject specific learning experiences appear t o make a difference not only in attitude but perhaps more importantly in actions (Holt, 2003, p.341) Modules that integrated environmental issues as a part of the curriculum were more successful at influencing students attitudes and behaviors. Sterling (2004) claims that the best way for a university to give students the skills for them to engage in sustainable behavior is to integrate sustainability into all course work and research projects (Sterling, 2004) Results from the current study were very similar to those of Sterling and Holt. Students in the current study who indicated that their major stressed ecology and/or environmental issues to a high or very high degree engaged in more REB than students who said that their major stressed ecology and/or environmental issues to a very low degree. Therefore, the degree to which ones degree program stresses ecology and/or environmental issues affects behavioral outcomes. If the University of Florida wants students to engage in responsible environmental behavior, it would be helpful to have all degree programs address ecology and /or environmental issues. However, the ANOVA shows that only 13 participants said that their major stressed ecology and/or environmental issues to a high degree

PAGE 67

67 (score of 5). Most of the participants, 97, ranked their degree program at a 3. Most of the participants did not feel that their majors stressed ecology and/or environmental issues to a high de gree Although researchers have shown that knowledge alone does not show a change in behavior k nowledge is included in the environmental behavior model because it is considered an important pre -requisite for the acquisition of other characteristics that m ore directly affect behavior. That is, knowledge is a necessary, but insufficient condition for behavioral change. The model assumes that an individual must have several types of knowledge as a precursor for behavioral change : knowledge of ecology, indept h knowledge about issues, knowledge of the consequences of behavior both positive and negative, and knowledge of and skill in using environmental action strategy. Traditional vs. Nontraditional Instructional Methods The use of traditional vs. nontraditi onal interventions may not be important in effecting responsible environmental behaviors. Zelezny conducted a meta analysis in 2005, to compare the results of environmental education research that use different intervention strategies. All of the studies t hat used the classroom intervention strategy (or traditional interventions) reported improved responsible environmental behavior. Only 44% of the studies that used nontraditional intervention strategies reported improved responsible environmental behavior. One of the conclusions of this meta analysis was that, educational interventions in the classroom more effectively improved environmental behavior (Zelezny, 2005, p.257) However, there are other com ponents that might have made the traditional interventions more effective. The results also show that intervention strategies were more effective when the participants were 18 years old or younger, and interventions were more effective if they lasted 10 ho urs or longer. Most of the traditional classroom interventions were done with participants who were 18 years old or younger and lasted 10 hours or more, while most of the non traditional interventions were done

PAGE 68

68 with participants who were over 18 years old, and lasted less than 10 hours (Zelezny, 2005) The difference found in Zeleznys meta analysis could be due to a variety of variable combinations and not just because of traditional versus nontraditional i nterventions. Hughes and Estes (2005) found that there was no significant difference between traditional and non -traditional teaching methods in effecting college students responsible environmental behaviors. However, the highest increase in REB between pre and post test was among students in the traditional classroom. Students in the non traditional teaching method showed a moderate increase in REB and the control group had little or no change in REB (Hughes & E stes, 2005) Smith Sebasto (1995) found a significant difference in undergraduate college students who completed an environmental studies class and students who did not. Students who completed an environmental studies course had higher internal locus of c ontrol, higher knowledge of and skill in using categories of environmentally responsible behaviors, and more frequently engaged in responsible environmental behaviors (Smith Sebasto, 1995) Hsu (2004) found simil ar results in Taiwan. This study showed that, the EE course did significantly promote the students REB, locus of control, environmental responsibility, intention to act, perceived knowledge of environmental issues, and perceived knowledge of and skills i n using environmental action strategies (Shih Jang Hsu, 2004, p.44) These studies suggest that the most effective way to change ones behavior, maybe to participate in environmental education. It could be that traditional classroom teaching is the most effective way to engage an individual in more responsible environmental behaviors. However, nontraditional methods have also proved to be effective in changing behavior. It could be that nontraditional methods must have a similar structure to the traditional method to be equally effective. For example, teaching interventions need to last over 10 hours and should have a

PAGE 69

69 curriculum with specific goals and objectives. Most of the universities that have signed the T alloires Declaration do not have a university wide environmental education curriculum. There are some majors and/or minors available that focus on the environment and/or sustainability. Not every student in these universities is required to take an environmental education course. Most of these universities hope to influence students behavior by having a sustainable and/or green campus. Therefore a majority of students are not participating in formal or non -formal environmental education. The most effectiv e way to form citizens who engage in more responsible environmental behaviors may be to incorporate formal education strategies, informal education strategies and greening of universities in higher education. According to Hsu (2004), Smith-Sebasto (1995) and Hughes and Estes (2005), traditional education strategies are an effective way to get students to engage in more responsible environmental behaviors The results of the current study corroborate those of previous studies S tudents who felt that their majors stressed ecology and/or environmental issues to a high degree engaged in more responsible environmental behaviors than students who did not. This indicates that students who receive traditional classroom education about environmental issues engage in more REBs than students who do not. According to Zelezny (2005), some nontraditional strategies can also be effective in changing behaviors. Hsu (2004) suggests that in order to maintain REB, formal environmental education must be followed by constant informal environmental education. Social norms have also been shown to affect REB (Barr, 2003). Universities could affect behavior through establishing strongly supportive social norms. At the University of Florida the Office of Sustainability is the most likely entity to achieve this goal A university with green or sustainable operations promotes the se norms to their students. According to Sammalisto et. al (2008), in order for students to apply principles of

PAGE 70

70 sustainability in their future careers, a university must have a greening of courses, research and campus (Sammalisto & Lindhqvist, 2008) Recommendations for Future Research Finally, universities need to establis h and define age appropriate behavioral objectives. Behaviors that a child can perform are very different than those that an adult can perform. The literature, including Zeleznys meta analysis, often does not define behavioral objectives. Some of these in tervention studies may examine the same behaviors for all age groups. An intervention might create a significant change in responsible environmental behaviors, depending on which behaviors one is measuring. It was hard to develop an instrument for this res earch without a guiding list of age appropriate behaviors. For example, turning off the water while one brushes his or her teeth might be a challenging task for a child. However once one has been doing it for a long time it becomes a habit which means tha t this item will no longer measure a behavior change. I originally had a question: H ow often do you turn off the water while you brush your teeth? This question did not exhibit discriminatory power. Almost all of the pilot test participants said that the y always turned off the water, even the ones who did not engage in any other water conservation behaviors. The suggestion was to change the question: Do you leave the water running while soaping up in the shower? However, almost all of the participants s aid that they always left the water running, even participants who engaged in all other water conservation behaviors. This version was therefore no better than the previous with regard to discriminatory power. E xperts suggested questions like: Do you buy a ppliances that use less water? Do you buy faucets or shower heads that conserve water? However, most college students do not own the place where they are living and therefore have no say in what kind of appliances and/or faucets are installed. This was a c onsistent problem in developing a valid instrument for this context, and particularly for some variables, such as water conservation Experts in the field

PAGE 71

71 need to define what is considered responsible environmental behaviors for different age groups. There is no comprehensive list of age -specific REBs, making it difficult to compare the effectiveness of different interventions. In order to compare how effective different intervention methods are, comparable behaviors must be measured. According to Hungerford and Volk (2005), the first step to creating a successful environmental education curriculum is: the curriculum developer(s) must know, before starting, what their philosophy is and what their goals must be (p. 118). These goals should include a clear definition of what the developer(s) expect the learner to be able to do, know and accomplish after completing the curriculum program (Hungerford & Volk, 2005) This is a very important step for universities which have signed the Talloires Declaration. These universities need to have a common set of specific and measurable goals for their students. If all of these universities had a common clear definition of what they expect students to be able to do, know an d accomplish at the time of graduation, it would be easier to compare how well different curriculums and teaching techniques achieve these goals. To the contrary, the current literature about sustainability in higher education uses different standards maki ng it hard to compare and contrast how effective different curriculums and teaching styles are in achieving REB. Almost every study has created their own research instrument and measures different REBs. Instrument Development One of the main purposes of t his study is to develop an instrument that can be used by the Office of Sustainability. In chapter 3, I list some limitations of the instruments that became apparent in the pre test. Even though there were some limitations, I used the instruments to see if the limitations would remain with a larger sample. Some of the weaknesses found after the pre test remained even after a larger sample was used. After all of the data were collected, I ran a

PAGE 72

72 confirmatory factor analysis. The results show that some items w ere not valid and/or reliable for some of the indices. Table 5 1 Results for confirmatory factor analysis for all indices. Index Total Items # of Items that did not work Water Conservation 2 0 Transportation 16 7 Waste Reduction 18 0 Energy Efficienc y 6 3 Purchasing Behaviors 7 0 General Behaviors 8 0 Locus of Control 14 3 Family Norms 5 0 University Norms 3 0 Barriers 5 0 These weaknesses need to be taken into consideration when creating an instrument for the Office of Sustainability. From th e beginning I was aware that there was a problem with the index for water conservation. It consisted of two items. Transportation was also problematic. After many tries, this index still failed and more work is needed. Half of the items failed for energy e fficiency, which would leave this index with only three items. For university norms I was only able to include three items in the index, which is a limitation. My next few steps to achieve my goal in developing my instrument for the Office of Sustainabili ty will include using the results of this study in order to produce revised instruments. I will develop new items to be added to the water conservation, university norms, and energy efficiency indices. I will develop a new index for transportation that wil l only allow students to select one mode of transportation. These changes to the indices will be pre tested, and changes will be made according to the results of the pre test. After all of the indices are completed with high item reliability, and with a g ood confirmatory factor analysis I will transfer all of the instruments to an online survey database. This will allow students to go online and fill out the survey on their own time. My goal is to have

PAGE 73

73 the online version pre tested by freshmen enrolled in Fist Year Florida and seniors during the fall of 2009. If there are any problems with the instrumentation after this pre -test, I will make the appropriate changes. Conclusion In conclusion, universities have a very important role to play in having student s engage in responsible environmental behaviors. Explicitly addressing ecology and/or environmental issues in the curriculum is a very effective way to see behavior change in students. It might that the most effective way to change behavior is to combine t raditional techniques, non traditional techniques and greening university activities. The research on emerging adulthood shows that the most effective time to influence a students worldview is during their freshman year of college. Universities should m ake especially sure that freshmen are included in their intervention and teaching activities. Universities also need to implement a common set of age -specific responsible environmental behaviors.

PAGE 74

74 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT Directions: Please use a number 2 pencil to bubble in your answers on the scantron provided. There are no right or wrong answers. Please answer all of the questions. If you do not mind being contacted for a future interview please write your email address on the top of the scantron. 1 What is your gender? a ) Male b ) Female 2 How old are you? a ) 18 b ) 19 c ) 20 d ) 21 e ) 22 ab) 23 ac) 24 If none of the above applies to you, please leave #2 blank. 3 What year are you in school? a ) Freshman b ) Sophomore c ) Junior d ) Senior 4 Are you a transfer student? a ) Yes b ) No 5 What is your ethnicity? a ) Caucasian/White b ) African American/ Black c ) Hispanic d ) Asian e ) Other 6 Do you live in Gainesville? a ) Yes b ) No 7 How long have you lived in your current local residence? a ) Less than one year b ) 1 year c ) 2 years d ) 3 years 8 Where do you live? a ) Fraternity or sorority house b ) On Campus c ) Off campus, rented housing

PAGE 75

75 d ) Off campus, not a rental e ) Other Instructions: For the following group of statements, please indicate how frequently you do each of the actions listed in questions 9 through 39. There are no right or wrong answers. Use a scale of 1 t o 5, where 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always. 9 How often do you turn off the lights ( not including a security light) before leaving on a trip ? Do you check to see if the faucets are turned off all the way? 10. At your local residence? 11. At hotels and motels? How often do you use the following means of transportation to get to and from campus ? 12. Bicycle 13. Car 14. Carpool 15. Bus 16. Scooter/Motorcycle 17. Walk or skateboard, rollerblade, etc 18. How often do you use disposable plates, cups, and utensils? 19. Do you carry your own container for the drinks you consume? 20. When you make routine purchases, does the amount of recycled content influence what you purchase? 21. Do you leave the lights on when you are out of the room for 10 minutes or less ? When you are on campus do you discard the following materials in a recycling bin? 22. Paper 23. Plastic Bottles 24. Cans 25. Batteries 26. Plastic Bags 27. How often do you donate clothes, furniture, etc. instead of throwing them away? 28. How often do you leave the computer/monitor plugged in when they are NOT i n use? When you make routine purchases like food and clothes, do any of the following labels influence your decision about which product to buy? 29. Organic 30. Fair Trade 31. Social Justice 32. Eco -friendly 33. Natural 34. When possible do you buy locally produced products, or products from locally owned businesses? 35. When you need a new light bulb, do you base your buying decision on the energy efficiency rating?

PAGE 76

76 How often do you use the following means of transportation to make trips outside of Gainesville ? 36. Car 37. Bus 38. Airplane 39. Tra in Directions : Use a scale of 1 to 5 to answer the following questions. Where 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= No Opinion, 4= Agree, and 5= Strongly Agree. Recycling bins for paper, plastic bottles, and cans are easy to find... 40. On campus 41. At my resid ence 42. When I travel (at hotels, gas stations, or airports) 43. I can make a difference in domestic job security if I buy products that are produced locally. 44. It is easy to find methods of transportation that have a low environmental impact. 45. I DO NOT see the poi nt for individuals to make changes in order to become more energy efficient. 46. My family makes conserving water a priority in our home. 47. When making purchases, my family DOES NOT consider a products energy efficiency. 48. My personal water consumption has no eff ect on the water shortage in Florida. 49. My family tries to buy local products. 50. The Gator Nation should be known for its efforts to reduce energy use on campus. 51. It is hard to find alternative ways to conserve water. 52. I DO NOT think that my personal effort to r ecycle would have much effect on reducing solid waste. 53. The number of locally produced products that I can buy is very limited. 54. Finding a place to recycle hazardous materials (like batteries) is difficult. 55. My decisions about transportation do NOT really aff ect the environment. Directions: For the following group of statements, please indicate how frequently you do each of the actions mentioned. There is no right or wrong answers. Use a scale of 1 to 5. Where 1= Never, 2= Rarely, 3= Sometimes, 4= Often, 5= A lways. How often do you use the following means of transportation to travel around Gainesville, besides going to and from campus? 56. Bicycle 57. Car 58. Carpool 59. Bus 60. Scooter/Motorcycle 61. Walk or skateboard, rollerblade, etc When you are at your residence, do you disc ard of the following materials in a recycling bin?

PAGE 77

77 62. Paper 63. Plastic Bottles 64. Cans 65. Batteries 66. Plastic Bags 67. Do you turn the lights off when you will be out of a room for more than 30 minutes ? 68. I avoid purchasing products that have a negative impact on the environ ment. 69. I support candidates for political offices who are concerned about environmental problems or issues. 70. I talk to my family and friends about what they can do to help solve environmental problems. 71. I have reported environmental problems or violations tha t I have noticed to the proper authorities. 72. I make an effort to reduce the amount of goods I consume. 73. I make a point of reading newspaper and magazine articles about the environment. 74. If I see an aluminum can on the ground when I am out walking, I pick it up and take it with me. 75. I write or call politicians to express my views about environmental issues. 76. I talk to people that I notice doing something that harms the environment in an effort to persuade that person to stop the activity. (For example, try to tal k a friend into recycling a soda can instead of throwing it in the trash). 77. How often do you leave the lights on when you leave your residence for the day ? When you are traveling do you discard of the following materials in a recycling bin? 78. Paper 79. Plastic Bottles 80. Cans 81. Plastic Bags 82. How often should UFs food services and vendors (like Wendys) try to buy locally produced food? 83. It is easy to find ways to be more energy efficient. Directions: For the following group of questions, please select the answer tha t best describes the situation for you. There is no right or wrong answers. Please bubble in the scantron provided with the answer you choose. 84. How much of an effect does your choice of transportation have on the environment? a ) Very negative effect b ) Negative effect c ) No effect d ) Positive effect e ) Very positive effect 85. What percentages of things like newspapers, bottles, and cans do you think your family recycles?

PAGE 78

78 a ) No idea b ) 0 25 c ) 2650 d ) 5175 e ) 76100 86. Do you think that UF pushes students to conserve water? a ) Nowhere near enou gh b ) Not enough c ) About right d ) Too much e ) Way too much 87. How important is good mileage to your family in deciding what kind of car to buy? a ) Not at all important b ) Not important c ) No opinion d ) Important e ) Very important 88. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about recycling? a ) I am NOT interested in recycling b ) I would like to recycle more, but its too hard c ) I recycle, but its not easy d ) I recycle and it its easy 89. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about purchasing local products? a ) I am NOT interested in buying local products b ) I would like to buy more local products, but its too hard c ) I buy local products, but its not easy d ) I buy local products and its easy 90. Which of the following statement best describes how you feel about conserving water? a ) I am NOT interested in conserving water b ) I would like to conserve water, but its too hard c ) I conserve water, but its not easy d ) I conserve water, and its easy 91. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about using methods of tran sportation that have a low environmental impact? a ) I am NOT interested in using low impact transportation b ) I would like to use low -impact transportation, but its too hard c ) I use low -impact transportation, but its not easy d ) I use low -impact transportation and its easy 92. Which of the following statement best describes how you feel about using less energy? a ) I am NOT interested in reducing the amount of energy I use b ) I would like to reduce the amount of energy I use, but its too hard c ) I reduce the amount of energy I use, but its not easy d ) I reduce the amount of energy I use and its easy 93. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being very low and 5 being very high To what degree are ecology and/ or environmental issues stressed n you major?

PAGE 79

79 94. Where do you get most of your informa tion concerning ecology and/or environmental issues? a ) UF Courses b ) Media/ Internet c ) From other people ( like: family, friends, and colleagues) d ) Office of Sustainability e ) Other

PAGE 80

80 APPENDIX B CONSENT LETTER

PAGE 81

81

PAGE 82

82

PAGE 83

83 APPENDIX C AMERICAN COLLEGE & U NIVERSITY PRESIDENT S CLIMATE COMMITMENT

PAGE 84

84

PAGE 85

85 APPENDIX D AMERICAN COLLEGE & U NIVERSITY PRESIDENTS CLIMATE COMMITMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW

PAGE 86

86

PAGE 87

87 REFERENCES Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative res earch. American Political Science Review, 95 (3), 529546. Ajzen, I. (. d .) (n/a). The theory of planned behavior. Retrieved February 09, 2009, from http://people.umass.edu/ajzen/index.html Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469480. A ssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2009). University of Florida 2008 campus sustainability leadership award application. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_139.php Association for the Advancement o f Sustainability in Higher Education. (2009). About AASHE. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.aashe.org/about/about.php Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. (1994). The Tal loires D eclaration 10 point action plan. Retrieved January 21, 2009, from http://www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires.html Barr, S. (2003). Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and res ponsible environmental behaviour. Area, 35(3), 227240. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3(2), 16431647. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford Uni versity Press Inc. Chalkley, B. (2006). Education for sustainable development: Continuation. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(2), 235236. Cusick, J. (2008). Operationalizing sustainability education at the University of Hawaii at M anoa. Inter national Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 246256. de Bruijn, G., Kroeze, W., Oenema, A., & Brug, J. (2008). Saturated fat consumption and the theory of planned behaviour: Exploring additive and interactive effects of habit strength. A ppetite, 51 (2), 318323. de Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research design in social research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. ecoAmerica. (2009). About Us. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.ecoameri ca.net/about us/about -ecoamerica.

PAGE 88

88 Edelen, M. O., Tucker, J. S., & Ellickson, P. L. (2007). A discrete time hazards model of smoking initiation among west coast youth from age 5 to 23. Preventive Medicine, 44 (1), 5254. Egbert, N., & Parrott, R. (2001). Self -efficacy and rural women's performance of breast and cervical cancer detection practices. Journal of Health Communication, 6(3), 219233. Elder, J. (2003). A field guide to environmental literacy: Making strategic investments in e nvironmental educat ion Rock Spring, GA: Environmental Education Coalition. Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., & Carpenter, D. D. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities undergradu ates. Ethics & Behavior, 17 (3), 255279. Hines, J. M., & et. al. (1986/87). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1 8. Holt, D. (2003). The role and impact of the business school curriculum in shaping environmental education at Middlesex University International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(4), 324343. Hughes, C. S., & Estes, C. A. (2005). The influence of environmental education on envir onmentally responsible behaviors of undergraduate students in a traditional and nontraditional setting. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(3), 308310. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (2005). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. In H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk & J. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential readings in environmental education (3rd ed., pp. 313328). Champ aign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing L.L.C. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (2005). Curriculum development in envir onmental education for the primary school: Challenges and responsibilities. In H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk & J. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential readings in environmental education (3rd ed., pp. 115125). Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing L.L .C. Hwang, Y., Kim, S., & Jeng, J. (2000). Examining the causal relationship among selected antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 19 25. Kakefuda, I., Henry, K. L., & Stallones, L. (2009). Associatio ns between childhood bicycle helmet use, current use, and family and community factors among college students. Family & Community Health, 32(2), 159166. Kam, J., Matsunaga, M., Hecht, M., & Ndiaye, K. (2009). Extending the theory of planned behavior to pr edict alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use among youth of Mexican heritage. Prevention Science, 10 (1), 41 53.

PAGE 89

89 Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro -environmental behavior? Envir onmental Education Research, 8 (3), 239260. Leganger, A., & Kraft, P. (2003). Control constructs: Do they mediate the relation between educational attainment and health behaviour? Journal of Health Psychology, 8(3), 361373. Maher, B. A., & Gottesman, I. I (2005). Deconstructing, reconstructing, preserving Paul E. M eehl's legacy of construct validity. Psychological Assessment, 17(4), 415422. Marcinkowski, T. (2005). Assessment in environmental education. In H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk & J. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential readings in environmental education (3rd ed., pp. 197234). Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing L.L.C. McConney, A., & McConney, A. (1995). Nature of nurture? on the trail of determining the variables that influence environm ental behavior Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. Parker, A. (2007). Creating a "green" campus. Bioscience, 57 (4), 321321. Pearson, S., Honeywood, S., & O'Toole, M. (2005). Not yet learning for sustainability: The challenge of environmental education in a university. International Research in Geographical & Environmental Education, 14(3), 173186. Presidents Climate Commitment. (2008). The Commitment. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/html/commitment.php Presidents Climate Commitment (2008). Why Sign. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/html/why.php Sammalisto, K., & Lindhqvist, T. (2008). Integration of sustainability in higher education: A study with international perspectives. Innovative Higher Education, 32 (4), 221 233. Scoones, I. (2007). Sustainability. Development in Practice, 17 (4), 589596. Second Nature, Inc. (2007). Second Nature Education for Sustainability. Retrieved July 15, 2009, form http ://www.secondnature.org/AboutSN.html Seider, S. (2007). Catalyzing a commitment to community service in emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22 (6), 612639. Semenza, J. C., Hall, D. E., Wilson, D. J., Bontempo, B. D., Sailor, D. J., & George, L. A. (2008). Public perception of climate change: Voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35 (5), 479487. Shephard, K. (2008). Higher education for sustainability: Seeking affective learning outcomes International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 87 98.

PAGE 90

90 Shih Jang Hsu. (2004). The effects of an environmental education program on responsible environmental behavior and associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students. Journal of Environmental Education, 35(2), 37 48. Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986/86). Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(2), 3140. Smith Seba sto, N. (1995). The effects of an environmental studies course on selected variables related to environmentally. Journal of Environmental Education, 26(4), 30 35. Stapp et al, William B. (2005). The concept of environmental education. In H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk & J. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential readings in environmental education (3rd ed., pp. 33 36). Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing L.L.C. Sterling, S. (2004). Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systematic learning. In P. B. Corcoran, I. NetLibrary & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), Higher education and the challenge of sustainability [electronic resource ]: Problematics, promise, and practice (pp. 49 70). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. University of Florida. (2009) About UF. Retrieved July 15, 2009, form http://www.ufl.edu/aboutUF/ University of Florida Office of Sustainability. (2008). Our history. Retrieved November 09, 2008, from http://www.sustainable.ufl.edu/about/history.html UNESCO. (2004). United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable D evelopment 2005-2014 Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.rete.toscana.it/sett/poledu/educa/edamb/decade_unescu.pdf United Nations. (2004). Agenda 21 Chapter 36: Promoting Education, Public Awareness, and T raining. Retrieved February 03, 2009, f rom http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter36.htm Unknown. (2005). The Tbilisi D eclaration. In H. R. Hungerford, W J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk & J. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential readings in environmental education (3rd ed., pp. 13 16). Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing L.L.C. Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 542553. Wolfle, L. M., & List, J. H. (2004). Temporal stability in the effects of college attendance on locus of control, 19721992. Structural Equation Modeli ng, 11(2), 244260. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future; N ew York, Oxford University Press.

PAGE 91

91 Wu, C., & Yao, G. (2006). Do we need to weight item satisfaction by item importance? A perspective from Locke s range -of affect hypothesis. Social Indicators Research, 79(3), 485502. Zelezny, L. C. (2005). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A meta analysis. In H. R. Hungerford, W. J. Bluhm, T. L. Volk & J. M. Ramsey (E ds.), Essential readings in environmental education (3rd ed., pp. 253264). Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing L.L.C.

PAGE 92

92 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Fernanda Frota Pernambuco was born in Sao Paulo, Brazil. At the age of 10 she moved with her family to Napl es, Fl orida With continuous support and love from her family, she started her undergraduate career at the Uni versity of Florida in 2003, w here she earned a Bachelors of Science in both, psychology and family, youth and community s cience s in the summer of 2007. In the fall of 2007, she started her graduate care er at the University of Florida, w here she earned a Master of Science in family, youth and community s cience s in August of 2009. Currently, she is the Program Assistant for Sustainable Agriculture Re search and Education (SARE) at the University of Florida. She plans to continue her graduate education by receiving a Ph. D with an emphasis in international humanitarian assistance and sustainable development.