Young people were asked to indicate whether three issues, pollution, crime and problems with money, affect their own family more, less or about the same as most other people in this country.
While earlier in this report we saw that students from disadvantaged areas report higher levels of concern about a variety of local environmental problems, we find that students from disadvantaged areas are no more likely than non-disadvantaged students to feel pollution affects them more than other families. Just 16% of students from disadvantaged areas report that they and their family are affected more by pollution than other families, basically the same as students from non-disadvantaged areas (13%). One student in four (26% among both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students) say pollution affects them less than others. This is consistent with many other surveys which have found that many people feel their experiences are the same as most other people.
The same pattern holds for money problems. Meanwhile, students from disadvantaged areas are somewhat more likely to feel that crime problems effect their families more than most people in the country.
Belief that oneÕs family is exposed to more pollution than most families seems to correlate with overall environmental knowledge and learning about the environment in school. Young people who say they know a lot about the environment tend to be more aware of pollution affecting their family than those who know only a little or practically nothing of the subject. This is true among both students from disadvantaged areas (28% among those who know "a lot", 13% among those who know "only a little/practically nothing") and students from non-disadvantaged areas (16% among those who know "a lot" versus 10% among those who know "only a little/practically nothing"). Likewise, students who say they learn "a lot" about the environment in school tend to be more likely to think pollution affects their family than those who report learning "only a little/practically nothing" about the environment in school.
B. A Million Dollar Decision
The choice: the here and now or the future. Earlier, we saw a marked difference in the concerns and reasons for protecting the environment among students from disadvantaged areas (focused more on the here and now), compared to students from non-disadvantaged areas (focused more on the future). But if they were making policy, which would young people choose as the destination for one million dollars of government money to help the environment? The answer is not quite as clear. Not surprisingly, then, students from disadvantaged areas say that cleaning up neighborhoods today (44%) is a better use of one million dollars than research to protect the environment in the future (39%) Ñ a 5 point spread. Students from non-disadvantaged areas lean slightly in the opposite direction, with a 2 point spread favoring research to protect the environment in the future (42%) over cleaning up neighborhoods today (40%).
In the data for both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students, gender is the only demographic variable that figures into a young personÕs response to this question. Recalling that girls seem to know more about environmental issues focused on the here and now than boys (Chapter Two; Section D), it is no surprise that among students from disadvantaged areas, 48% of girls compared to 40% of boys would opt for spending a million dollars to clean up neighborhoods today. Among non-disadvantaged students, the difference is 43% to 36% in favor of girls. On the other hand, 44% of boys from disadvantaged areas would prefer research that would protect the environment for future generations, compared to 34% of girls. The difference among students from non-disadvantaged areas in favor of boys over girls on this count is 46% to 38%.
C. Key Differences in Everyday Environmental Concerns
Consistent with the perspective of disadvantaged students that their families are no more affected by pollution than non-disadvantaged students, the issues that most affect young people everyday are similar among students from disadvantaged areas and students from non-disadvantaged areas: air pollution, littering of trash and garbage and damage to the ozone layer are the three problems most often named both groups as affecting their everyday life. Pollution of lakes, rivers, streams and polluted ocean waters and unsafe beaches are other problems on the list of 19 issues developed in the focus groups young people say affect them every day.
But, there are four exceptions to the similarity between students from disadvantaged areas and students from non-disadvantaged areas, which are consistent with the local versus global perspectives of the two groups of young people: shortages of good drinking water, lead poisoning, not enough energy and pollution from hazardous or toxic dump sites, all of which are significantly higher (8 to 12 points) among students from disadvantaged areas and were the issues considered "most serious" by students from disadvantaged areas.
As might be expected, urbanicity appears to be a factor in the perception of various environmental problems affecting everyday life. However, the trends among students from disadvantaged areas are the antithesis of those among students from non-disadvantaged areas. In general, disadvantaged students from urban areas are more likely than those from rural areas to feel that various environmental problems affect them everyday. Air pollution is one example, as 57% of urban disadvantaged students report this affects them everyday, compared to 48% of rural disadvantaged students. This pattern holds true for shortages of good drinking water (49% vs. 39%), polluted ocean waters (48% vs. 36%), lead poisoning (35% vs. 26%), global warming (35% vs. 25%) and not enough energy (32% vs. 24%). Only littering of trash and garbage is an exception, which more rural disadvantaged students (57%) than urban disadvantaged students (47%) say affects them every day.
The opposite pattern appears among students from non-disadvantaged areas, as larger percentages of rural rather than urban students cite these problems as affecting their everyday life. These include too little recycling (38% rural vs. 30% urban), not enough landfill space (31% vs. 23%), pollution of water from fertilizers (28% vs. 20%), damage to the environment caused by mining (29% vs. 18%) endangered plants and animals (30% vs. 16%), acid rain (27% vs. 19%), not enough energy (25% vs. 16%), pollution from toxic sites (26% vs. 16%) and destruction of the rainforest (22% vs. 14%).
Grade is another key to the data for everyday concerns, as concern earlier was correlated with learning about the environment. Students in grades 4 and 5, whether disadvantaged or non-disadvantaged, are the most likely to feel that the majority of the problems personally affect them in everyday life. Alternately, in 15 of the 19 cases, students in grades 11 and 12, regardless of disadvantaged/non-disadvantaged status, are the least likely to state that each problem affects them personally. This is perhaps because they pay less attention to the environment, experience having made it less of an "unknown" and mysterious entity. Or, perhaps, maybe they have come to accept environmental problems as a given and do not particularly think about them as having an effect. Or, perhaps they are in fact less educated than their younger peers and therefore legitimately less aware.
D. Suspicions of a Lack of Good Drinking Water
From the preliminary data in the nationwide cross-section, it was apparent that drinking water was an issue of concern to youth from disadvantaged areas. To this end, students from disadvantaged areas in this third phase of research were asked the following question: "Do you have any reason to believe that you donÕt have enough good drinking water or that you didnÕt have enough good drinking water in the past?" Nearly half of these young people Ñ 44% Ñ respond in the affirmative, that they have suspicions about the quantity and/or quality of their supply of drinking water. (This question was not asked of youth from non-disadvantaged areas.) This is consistent with the data in the preceding section regarding issues of everyday concern as seen in the results for shortages of good drinking water and lead poisoning from water, both higher among students from disadvantaged rather than non-disadvantaged areas.
Younger students, the most likely to report experiencing everyday shortages of good drinking water, are also among the most likely to report suspicions of a lack of good drinking water. Thus, whereas 47% of disadvantaged students in grades 4 and 5 and 6 through 8 express such suspicions, the figure drops to 40% in grades 9 and 10 and 38% in grades 11 and 12.
By region, those in the Midwest (53%) and Northeast (50%) show higher levels of concern about their water than disadvantaged youth in the South (41%) and West (38%).
The racial or ethnic background of students from disadvantaged areas is also a key element, as 51% Hispanic students from disadvantaged areas and 49% of blacks are the most likely to say they have had problems with their drinking water, compared to only 32% among white students from disadvantaged areas.
Also, students who report knowing a lot about the environment in general are considerably more likely to believe they do not or did not have enough good drinking water in the past than those who know only a little/practically nothing about the environment in general (55% vs. 39%).
What do students tell us is the basis for their suspicions? The taste (71%) and the look (58%) and the smell (40%) of the water are among the chief reasons for the lack of good drinking water.
Beyond first hand experience, 55% say they learned about problems with their water supply through a TV news or nature program. Smaller numbers say they learned about this problem in school (36%), read about it in the newspaper (34%) or were told by an adult about the situation (31%).
E. The Home and Environmental Action
There are many actions and behaviors that individuals can undertake to help the environment, from shutting off lights when leaving rooms to recycling soda bottles and cans. Yet not all students are equally involved in practicing environment-friendly activities at home. In fact, students from disadvantaged areas are significantly less likely than students from non-disadvantaged areas to engage in 6 of 10 listed activities, most notably those relating to litter and recycling. However, the top two behaviors Ñ saving energy and saving water Ñ are relatively equal for both groups of students. Taken together, these findings are consistent with higher concern about energy and water among students from disadvantaged areas, as well as this groupÕs lower concern about recycling.
These and other differences in environment-friendly practices may in part be due to the different issues that disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students consider serious. For example, shortages of good drinking water or acid rain, issues of greater concern to students from disadvantaged areas, are perhaps less easy to get involved in than recycling, one of the issues non-disadvantaged students consider serious. An action agenda that addresses the immediate and localized concerns of disadvantaged students might spur greater action on the part of these students.
Gender is a key factor in five of the top six environment-friendly behaviors. Among students from disadvantaged areas, more girls than boys say they and their family try to save energy (79% vs. 71%), try to save water (69% vs. 57%), cut down on littering (62% vs. 52%), pick up litter (47% vs. 41%) and buy recycled products (45% vs. 38%). Among students from non-disadvantaged areas, girls score higher than boys on the same items, with the addition of cutting down on indoor pollution.
The youngest children (and their families) are the most environmentally active group. They lead the way for buying recycled products (50% of those in grades 4 and 5 vs. 42% overall), cutting down on indoor pollution (46% vs. 38% overall) and picking up trash in the neighborhood (60% vs. 44% overall). This is consistent with the generally higher levels of concern and interest in the environment expressed by younger students throughout this study.
Examining the data by region, two cases stand out among students from disadvantaged areas: returning soda and beer bottles and cans to recycling centers is far higher in the West (70%) than it is elsewhere (Northeast, 55%; Midwest, 52%; South, 48%). Sorting trash for recyclables is higher on the two coasts (Northeast, 52%; West, 50%) than it is in the Midwest (38%) or the South (32%). These data reflect findings of other Roper surveys among adults, which find greater degrees of environmental activity among people living in the Northeast and West, and the lowest levels of activity among Southerners.
Knowledge about the environment correlates with action. Disadvantaged students who say they generally know a lot about the environment seem to buy more recycled or reusable products than disadvantaged students who report knowing only a little or practically nothing about the environment. The gap between the two groups is 24 percentage points, 57% to 33%. (An even wider gap in buying recycled or reusable products occurs among students from non-disadvantaged areas: 69% among those who know a lot and 35% among those who know only a little/practically nothing.) In fact, this trend holds true for each of the issues, with those who say they know a lot about the environment being an average of 14 percentage points higher in their practice of these environment-friendly activities. Among students from non-disadvantaged areas, the average gap is 18 percentage points.
Learning about the environment in school also correlates with action. Students from disadvantaged areas who report learning a lot about the environment in school are an average of 12 percentage points higher than those who say they are learning only a little/practically nothing. The largest gaps are for cutting down on trash and garbage (53% vs. 30%) and picking up litter or trash in the neighborhood (60% vs. 39%). Among students from non-disadvantaged areas, the average gap is 16 percentage points.
F. Causes of Environmental Inaction
Whereas the previous section discussed the various things young people are actively doing to help the environment, a separate question asked young people to say whether there are various reasons they are not currently doing more about the environment. Despite the gaps between students from disadvantaged areas and students from non-disadvantaged areas on things actively done to benefit the environment, there are no differences between these two groups with regard to possible reasons for not doing more for the environment. Less than a third of either group of young people agree with any of the nine potential responses.