Although concern about harming of the natural environment is high among "all students," it is of lesser concern to students from disadvantaged areas. And unlike "all students" few young people from disadvantaged areas consider the environment one of the
two or three issues facing Americans today that they would like to help address. Further, specific problems that students from disadvantaged areas consider "the most serious" vary considerably from those selected by those from non-disadvantaged areas. A
cluster analysis is presented in this chapter which describes 5 distinct types of students when it comes to environmental concerns and highlights differences between students from disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas.
A. Environment A Leading Concern To Non-Disadvantaged
Students, But Not To Disadvantaged Students
Young people today are facing issues and problems relatively unknown to previous generations. AIDS, the environment and homelessness are getting greater attention in the media than ever before, and the concerns of American youth in grades 4 through 12 re
flect this trend.
Students from disadvantaged areas have very different concerns than those from non-disadvantaged areas, perhaps a reflection of the neighborhoods in which they live. In fact, students from disadvantaged areas are significantly more likely to be "very wor ried" about most of the ten issues facing the nation about which they were asked, with one key exception Ñ harming of the natural environment. (Possible confusion over the use of the term "natural environment" does not come into effect, as the focus grou ps in Phase I of this research demonstrated that students report that the term refers to everything from acid rain to trees to the water that people drink.) For this issue, students from disadvantaged areas are significantly less likely than students fro m non-disadvantaged areas to be very worried. Among non-disadvantaged students, concern about harm to the environment places second behind only AIDS; among students from disadvantaged areas, the environment places sixth. Concerns that are higher than th e environment in the minds of students from disadvantaged areas include kidnapping, the large number of people with guns, crime and violence in local neighborhoods and the economy.
Looking at areas of concern by gender, girls from disadvantaged areas exhibit higher levels of concern than boys on most issues, a trend seen often in the data. For example, 79% of girls are very worried about AIDS, compared to 65% of boys. Perhaps in k eeping with the "macho" image of men, far fewer boys from disadvantaged areas than girls say they are very worried about kidnapping (47% vs. 69%), guns (48% vs. 60%) or crime in the neighborhood (45% vs. 55%). With regard to concern about harm to the nat ural environment, however, students from disadvantaged areas differ from students from non-disadvantaged areas. Gender and region are not significant influences on the opinions of youth from disadvantaged areas, as boys (43% are "very worried") are just as concerned about the environment as are girls (42% are "very worried"); among non-disadvantaged youth, however, gender remains a factor as 57% of these girls are "very worried" compared to 45% of boys. Looked at by region, there is less difference among students from disadvantaged areas than among those from non disadvantaged areas. Non-disadvantaged students in the West (59%) and Northeast (54%) are more likely to be "very worried" than non-disadvanta ged students in the Midwest (43%) and South (48%), the differences are less apparent among students from disadvantaged areas, ranging from 37% in the Northeast to 45% in the West.
Urban students from disadvantaged areas are often more worried about these problems than rural students from disadvantaged areas. For example, students from urban areas are more concerned about the number of guns (57%) and crime and violence in their nei ghborhood (54%) than are rural students (48% and 43%, respectively). However, concern about harm to the environment is similar, at 42% among urban students from disadvantaged areas and 44% among rural students of this group.
The racial or ethnic background of a young person is another influencing factor on the data. White students from disadvantaged areas generally show lower levels of concern than blacks or Hispanics. For example, 38% of white students from disadvantaged a reas say they are very worried about crime and violence in the neighborhood, compared to 61% of black students and 51% of Hispanic students. With regard to harm to the environment, however, white students from disadvantaged areas (50%) and Hispanics stud ents (46%) are more likely to be very worried than black students from disadvantaged areas (34%).
An effective way to see the relationship between education and concern about the environment is to examine young peopleÕs concerns and their self-reported environmental education. Students from disadvantaged areas who say they know "a lot" about the envi ronment are far more likely to be worried about the state of the natural environment than students from disadvantaged areas who say they know "only a little" or "practically nothing" about the environment in general, by a 67% to 31% margin.
Similarly, by a margin of 55% to 40%, students from disadvantaged areas who say they learn a lot about the environment at school are more likely than those who learn only a little/practically nothing to be worried about the environment.
These are the same trends as occur among students from non-disadvantaged areas.
The concern about harm to the natural environment seen earlier translates for some students into the desire to help make the natural environment better. This attitude, however, is far stronger among students in non-disadvantaged areas (39%, placing it se cond on their list of issues to make better) than it is among students in disadvantaged areas (23%), who place it eighth on their list, a reflection of the different problems these two groups of young people face.
Non-disadvantaged and disadvantaged students share similar attitudes toward most other issues, with the exception of wanting to lessen homelessness and crime and violence in local neighborhoods. Both of these issues emerge as significantly stronger wishe s among those from disadvantaged areas.
Among demographic subgroups, the desire to lessen harm to the environment among students from disadvantaged areas is highest in the West (32%), where concern is high, and lowest in the Midwest (18%), where concern is lower. Region does not figure especia lly in the wish to address the other issues facing the nation.
Among students from disadvantaged areas, only two problems vary considerably between urban and rural areas, the economy (more of a priority in rural areas, 36% to 26%) and the large number of guns (more of a priority in urban areas, 30% vs. 19%). Student
s from disadvantaged areas in rural areas are slightly more likely than their urban peers to place a priority on helping the environment, 26% to 21%. For students from non-disadvantaged areas, the gap is wider -- it is 10 points higher among those in rur
al areas (38%) than it is in urban areas (28%).
C. Attitudes Toward Seriousness Of Environmental Problems
Although students from disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas differ in their concern about harm to the environment, both groups of youth are able to differentiate among specific environmental issues in terms of their seriousness. Young people were as
ked which of nineteen issues they see as "one of the most serious environmental problems" they and the nation face. (This list is a result of the issues raised by students in Phase I of this research, the focus groups, as well as input from environmental
experts.) The nineteen items fall into three broad categories: health problems; ecological problems; and aesthetic or other problems.
Those which may be considered health problems include damage to the ozone layer, air pollution and shortages of good drinking water, pollution from toxic dump sites and global warming. Pollution of water from fertilizers and pesticides used in farming an d lead poisoning from water or old paint also relate to human health.
Several other problems are more ecological in nature. These include destruction of the rainforest, pollution of lakes, rivers, streams, polluted ocean waters and unsafe beaches, endangered animals, plants, insects and damage to the environment from minin g/cutting trees. Rounding out the issues that can be considered ecological problems are destruction or filling in of wetlands and acid rain.
The remaining issues fit into a third broad category basically related to aesthetics. There are five such problems: Not enough open areas, not enough landfill space for trash, littering of trash and garbage, too little recycling, and not enough energy.
The major environmental concerns of students today are not necessarily confined to their neighborhood. In fact, young people are most concerned about problems that cannot be seen: damage to the ozone layer and destruction of the rainforest. Still, air and water quality rank high in the minds of todayÕs students as serious environmental problems that they and the nation face.
Only a few issues exhibit large differences in the attitudes between students in disadvantaged areas and students in non-disadvantaged areas. Destruction of the rainforest and too little recycling are greater concerns to non-disadvantaged students than t hey are to students from disadvantaged areas. On the other hand, shortages of good drinking water, acid rain, lead poisoning and not having enough energy are named by greater percentages of students from disadvantaged areas. Still, for 13 of the 19 issu es asked about, the opinions of students from disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas are similar.
These differences, however, are key to understanding the overall perspectives of youth from disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas or the focus of the issues themselves. Issues that are more local and immediate in nature, affecting the "here and now," are often of greater concern to youth from disadvantaged areas. On the other hand, issues that are less immediate or more long-term or even "altruistic" in nature are often of greater concern to students from non-disadvantaged areas.
Urbanicity figures into the opinions of students from disadvantaged areas, with disadvantaged students in urban areas generally reporting higher levels of concern than those in rural areas. For example, polluted ocean water (63% urban vs. 57% rural), des truction of the rainforest (60% vs. 54%), lead poisoning (54% vs. 47%), global warming (54% vs. 48%), damage to the environment caused by mining or cutting down trees (53% vs. 46%) and pollution of water from fertilizers (48% vs. 40%) are all issues of gr eater concern to disadvantaged students from urban areas. For issues that might have a bearing on their day to day lives, though, such as shortages of good drinking water, pollution from toxic or hazardous dumps sites, not enough landfill space for trash or garbage and not enough energy, the results for urban and rural disadvantaged students are remarkably similar. This indicates that concern about these problems is not limited to big, urban cities or small, rural towns, but crosses these boundaries.
Gender is less of an influence on disadvantaged students than it is on non-disadvantaged students. Whereas among students from non-disadvantaged areas girls generally express stronger sentiments than boys, there are few significant differences by gender for students from disadvantaged areas. The only exceptions to this trend among students from disadvantaged areas are shortages of good drinking water, lead poisoning from water or old paint and destruction of the rainforest, the first two of greater conc ern to disadvantaged girls (73% and 55%) than boys (65% and 49%), while the opposite is true for the rainforest (63% among disadvantaged boys and 53% among girls). These differences may be traced back to general concern about the environment, which was s imilar among disadvantaged boys and girls but markedly different among non-disadvantaged boys and girls.
Perhaps an indication that concern can be correlated with knowledge, students from disadvantaged areas who say they know a lot about the environment in general are more likely than those who know only a little or practically nothing of the subject to cons ider each of these issues "one of the most serious." (See Chapter Two, Section A for details on these two groups of students.) For example, fully 72% of the former compared to 54% of the latter consider the pollution from hazardous dump sites one of the most serious environmental problems. Pollution of the ocean and beaches and destruction of the rainforest are other examples of this trend.
This correlation is also seen in the amount of environmental education students from disadvantaged areas say they are getting in school. Damage to the environment caused by mining, lead poisoning and litter are topics young people are learning about in s ome but not all schools, for these issues exhibit the greatest differences between those who say they learn a lot about the environment in school and those who say they learn only a little or practically nothing.
These results parallel the seriousness associated with each of these issues among students from non-disadvantaged areas for both overall environmental education and learning about the environment in school.
A statistical procedure known as path analysis, used to determine the relationships between various elements in a dataset, was applied to a comprehensive environmental knowledge/ environmental action paradigm, described further in Appendix B. Part of thi s path model involved an examination of the hypothesized relationship between a studentÕs self-reported environmental knowledge and the seriousness associated with various environmental issues. These two variables are linked strongly in the model; studen ts who know a good amount about the environment in general tend to profess concern about the various environmental problems. For example, endangered animals, plants, insects and air pollution are two of the problems with the strongest relations between o verall knoweldge and consideration of a problem as "one of the most serious." This relationship is significant in 15 of the 19 problems about which students were asked. Increasing environmental knowledge, then, should lead to increased concern or seriou sness linked with environmental problems.
In turn, the seriousness attributed to various problems appears to lead to interest in joining environmental groups. This link holds true for 12 of the 19 environmental issues, especially too little recycling, littering of trash and garbage, endangered a nimals, plants, insects, damage to the environment from mining or cutting down trees, pollution of water from fertilizers, and acid rain.
A map plotting the five clusters and various demographic characteristics is shown below. The map depicts four quadrants into which the five clusters fall: Concerned Global; Concerned Local; Not Concerned Global; Not Concerned Local. Thus, the map shows that students in the Northeast, Students in the West, Students in elementary school, and those in Groups I and II tend to be highly concerned about larger, more global. In contrast, students in the South, students in high school female students, and tho se in Group IV tend to exhibit lower levels of concern and focus more on local than global issues.
global, <------------------------------------> local,
not concerned not concerned
===========================================================
GROUP V: | GROUP IV
|
Central Middle School |
| High School
Rural |
White Male | Female South
|
Non-disadvantaged |
Suburban | Urban Black
____________________________|__________________________
| Disadvantaged
GROUP II | GROUP III
Elementary |
|
|
North | Hispanic
GROUP I |
West |
|
=============================================================
global, <-----------------------------------------> local,
concerned concerned
With regard to the problems the nation faces in general, Group I is the most likely to be worried about each, from concern about harm to the environment (78% vs. 48% overall) to kidnapping (76% vs. 51% overall) to discrimination against minorities (53% vs . 33%).
This group reports by far the most environmental knowledge in general. Fully 77% know either a lot (24%) or a fair amount (53%) about environmental issues and problems, compared to 62% of students overall. Also, Group I reports the highest amount of lea rning about the environment in school Ñ 48% report learning a lot or a fair amount versus 40% for students as a whole; however, the same percentage (48%) report learning only a little or practically nothing about the environment in school.
Group I is generally the most likely to say that the nineteen environmental problems asked about affects them personally, and they tend to practice environment-friendly activities more often than other groups. Group I is also the most likely to report be ing very or somewhat interested in joining environmental clubs or groups (84% vs. 66% overall), though the students are not significantly above average in current involvement (25% vs. 20%). Interestingly, this group is the most likely to feel that govern ment money should be spent on research that would protect the environment for future generations (48%), rather than the clean-up of neighborhoods in the present (40%). This is in sharp contrast to both Groups III and IV, who prefer clean-up today to futu re research.
Demographically, Group I is heavily female, with 59% girls and 40% boys. This groups also mirrors the national average with regard to race/ethnicity and disadvantaged/non-disadvantaged status. However, this cluster has the greatest percentage of student s in grades 4 and 5 Ñ 30%, versus 22% overall, and the fewest in grades 11 and 12 (14% vs. 19% overall). By region, this group is somewhat heavy in the West, and considerably below average in the Midwest. The combination of students in the lower grades and their greater presence in the West may help explain this group's strong concerns about the environment and other problems such as kidnapping, as well as their higher levels of environmental knowledge (see elsewhere in this report for details).
Group II is also like Group I in concern about harm to the environment in general, with 67% considering this one of the problems facing the nation about which they are very worried. And this group places a greater priority on wanting to have an impact on harm to the environment (58%) than does Group I (43%).
This group is second only to Group I in self-reported knowledge of the environment (71% say they know either a lot or a fair amount, compared to 62% overall).
In keeping with their inclination toward the less immediate, more future-oriented concerns, Group II places a priority on research to protect the environment for future generations (47%) rather than clean-up neighborhoods today (37%).
Interest in joining environmental groups is high (81% either very or somewhat interested), though actual participation among Group II students, whether in school- or community-based programs is only about average.
Demographically, Group II is split evenly between boys (50%) and girls (50%). They are slightly above average in being in grades 4 and 5 and 6 through 8, and are close to average in all regions of the country except the South, where there are fewer than average Group II students. This group is the most heavily non-disadvantaged (89%); just 11% are from disadvantaged areas, in part explaining the groupÕs tendency toward future-oriented environmental concerns and solutions.
While this group is about average in concern about harm to the environment in general, they are 11 percentage points below average in naming the environment as one of the two or three issues on which they would like to have an impact. This may reflect t he fact that they are above average in concern about the problems of AIDS (79% vs. 66% overall), the economy (59% vs. 40% overall) and homelessness (32% vs. 23% overall).
With regard to self-reported environmental knowledge and environmental education in school, these students are slightly below average (55% vs. 62% overall). However, they report higher than average levels of interest in joining a club or group that works to benefit the environment (75% vs. 66% overall).
In light of their concern about everyday, local problems, this group is more likely to feel that money to clean up the environment should be spent on cleaning up the environment today (49% vs. 40% overall) rather than on research for a better environment in the future (35% vs. 41% overall). Air pollution (65% vs 53% overall) and shortages of good drinking water (47% vs. 34% overall) are cited as issues that affect them everyday.
Demographically, Group III is the most heavily male group Ñ 65% are boys. This group also has the largest percentages of black and Hispanic students, and is above average in the Northeast and Southern regions of the country. Group III has the largest pe rcentage of students from disadvantaged areas in its composition (26%), perhaps a clue to their increased awareness of and concern about localized environmental problems.
This group is among the least concerned about the environment in general (27% vs. 48% overall); in fact, they are average or below average in considering each of the ten problems facing the nation "very serious."
Group IV is toward the bottom of the spectrum when it comes to overall environmental knowledge: 50% say they know either a lot or a fair amount about the environment (vs. 62% overall). Not surprisingly, then, this group reports the second lowest amount of interest in joining a club or group to work for the environment (55% vs. 66% overall).
Group IV cites protecting human health as a reason for protecting water from pollution, in-line with their defining characteristic. Like Group III, this cluster of students prefers spending money on cleaning up neighborhoods today (48% vs. 40% overall).
Demographically, there are more boys (57%) than girls (42%) in Group IV. This group can be found throughout the country, generally mirroring all students with regard to region, race/ethnicity and grade, as well the percentages of disadvantaged (18%) and non-disadvantaged (82%) students that make up the cluster.
While this group is not the lowest in self-reported knowledge of the environment (54% know either a lot or a fair amount self-reported, the amount of environmental education they report learning in school is the lowest of the five clusters (34% vs. 40% ov erall).
Perhaps as a result of their lack of concern about the environment, Group V is below average for engagement in most environment-friendly activities, though these students are about average in returning soda or beer bottles and cans to recycling centers an d sorting trash for recyclables.
Demographically, Group V has by far the greatest percentage of boys Ñ 61%, while 37% are girls. By grade, this group is heavy in grades 11 and 12 (29% vs. 19% overall), a grade set that is often faced with concerns other than the environment. Group V ha s the greatest percentages of students in the Midwest (33% vs. 25% overall) and West (30% vs. 21% overall). Group V is about average in its percentage of disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students.
Students from Students from
Disadvantaged Non-disadvantaged
Areas Areas
% %
Group I (All) 23 21
Group II (Long-Term) 14 22
Group III (Local) 23 13
Group IV (Shortages of 21 19
Drinking Water)
Group V (None) 19 24
Not surprisingly, the difference between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students are in Groups II and III.
Group II, which focuses on long-term environmental issues, has a greater percentage of non-disadvantaged students, who tend to be concerned about long-term environmental issues. On the other hand, Group III, which focuses on immediate and localized envir
onmental problems, has a greater percentage of disadvantaged students, who tend to be concerned about localized environmental problems.
D. Protecting The Environment And Water, Reducing
Litter
Having determined the two or three environmental issues they consider most
serious, students from disadvantaged areas were asked about reasons for
protecting the environment in general, reasons for protecting water from
pollution and reasons for reducing litter. "Protecting human health" is the
number one reason for protecting the environment, cited by 72% of
students from
disadvantaged areas. Of considerably less importance are "to protect
natural
resources for the use of future generations" (38%), "to ensure that natural
places and wildlife always exist" (32%) and "to protect natural resources
that
our economy relies on" (23%). "To preserve recreational areas" is named
by 21%
of youth from disadvantaged areas. (Students from non-disadvantaged
areas were
not asked about protecting the environment in general.)
In a comparison with a national sample of adults interviewed by Roper in September 1994, students from disadvantaged areas place greater stress on protecting human health, ensuring that natural places always exist and preserving recreational areas. Adults place greater importance on protecting resources for future generations than do students from disadvantaged areas, again demonstrating the "immediate and local" perspective held by youth from disadvantaged areas.
Among subgroups, girls from disadvantaged areas are more likely than boys to want to protect the environment to protect human health (76% vs. 67%), though the genders are similar for the other possible reasons. By region, students from disadvantaged areas in the Northeast are the most supportive of the reason concerning the future (44% vs. 38% overall), while those in the West are far above average in their agreement with ensuring that natural places always exist (43% vs. 32% overall). Students from disadvantaged areas who reside in the Midwest cite "protecting natural resources that our economy relies on" more than youth in other regions of the country (32% vs. 23%).
Beyond their assessment of reasons for protecting the environment in general, students were asked about reasons for protecting two specific areas of the environment Ñ water pollution and litter.
Starting first with water pollution, human health stands out for both students from disadvantaged areas and those from non-disadvantaged areas. Beyond this, students from disadvantaged areas are more likely to focus on keeping areas clean and nice for use today, while students from non-disadvantaged areas choose protecting plants and animals as a reason for protecting water from pollution or for reducing litter and garbage. These two perspectives, focusing on the local and immediate versus the larger environmental picture, appear often throughout the data and serve to differentiate between students from disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas.
Not all young people consider litter one of the most serious environmental issues. As seen earlier, litter is an environmental problem which few students from either disadvantaged or non-disadvantaged areas consider "one of the most serious" problems (it ranks 16th of 19 issues for both groups of students).
When given a list of five reasons for reducing litter and waste, students from both disadvantaged areas and non-disadvantaged areas say protecting human health is the leading reason, though this view is not as strongly held as it is for water pollution.
Significantly fewer students from disadvantaged areas want to reduce litter to protect plants and animals (35%) than students from non-disadvantaged areas (46%), similar to the result for protecting water from pollution. Fewer than 4 in 10 students from either group cite "to keep areas clean and nice for future generations" (39% and 38%), though significantly more disadvantaged than non-disadvantaged students name "to keep areas clean and nice for people to enjoy today" (41% vs. 32%). These two differences again demonstrate the "here and now" focus of youth from disadvantaged areas compared to the future-oriented, more altruistic focus of youth from non-disadvantaged areas.
Emphasizing the need for further opportunities to recycle and educate about recycling, few students feel that a reason for reducing litter is to save and recycle resources like glass and plastic.