This article was downloaded by: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia]

On: 14 March 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 781191584]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Environmental Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t914957653

Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior in Dutch Secondary

Education
Hans Kuhlemeier; Huub Van Den Bergh; Nijs Lagerweij

Online publication date: 31 March 2010

To cite this Article Kuhlemeier, Hans , Bergh, Huub Van Den and Lagerweij, Nijs(1999) 'Environmental Knowledge,
Attitudes, and Behavior in Dutch Secondary Education', The Journal of Environmental Education, 30: 2, 4 — 14
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00958969909601864
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958969909601864

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 The Journal of Environmental Education, 1999, Vol. 30, No. 2, 4-14

Environmental Knowledge,
Attitudes, and Behavior in Dutch
Secondary Education
HANS KUHLEMEIER, HUUB VAN DEN BERGH, and NIJS LAGERWEIJ
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011

ABSTRACT In the Dutch National Assessment Program, environmental knowledge,

environmental attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior were studied in a
nationwide sample of more than 9,000 students (aged f 15 years) from 206 secondary
schools. Fifty-seven percent of the 9th-grade students had a (very) positive attitude
toward the environment, and 35% were prepared to take extra pains or to make
(financial) sacrifices for the environment. The students' knowledge about environ-
mental problems was fragmentary and often incorrect, however. Similarly, the envi-
ronmentally responsible behavior of many of the students was inadequate. The rela-
tion between environmental knowledge and environmental attitudes and behavior
proved to be very weak. There was a substantial relation between environmental atti-
tude, willingness to make personal sacrifices, and environmentally responsible
behavior. Consistent with theories on attitudes, environmentally responsible behav-
ior was more strongly connected with willingness to make sacrifices than with atti-
tude toward the environment.

I n the Netherlands, environmental education is a new and

still relatively little dealt with subject. Because of a lack
of suitable teaching materials, Dutch teachers seldom pay
systematic attention, for example, to the interaction be-
tween man and the environment, the causes of environmen-
tal problems, or potential solutions. The environmental
knowledge that students already possess is likely to be
determined by topicality and to be fragmentary or incorrect,
or both (Eberg, Eijkelhof, Kortland, & Stokking, 1991;
~
Hans Kuhlemeier is a senior researcher at the National
Institute .for Educational Measirrement (Cito). Huub van
den Bergh is an assistant professor at the Utrecht Institute
of Linguistics of the Universitv of Utrecht. Nijs hgenveij is
a researcher at the Faculty of Educational Science of the
Uni\,ersity of' Amsterdam.
4
Hausbeck, Milbrath, & Enright, 1992; Hendnks & van der
Zande, 1990; Munson, 1994). Little nationally representa-
tive research has as yet been carried out in the Netherlands
into the actual environmental knowledge of students; simi-
larly, not a great deal is known about students' attitudes
toward the environment and their ecological behavior. The
Dutch government considers environmental education to be
one of the instruments for establishing a more durable rela-
tion between man and the environment. Accordingly, the
government promulgated goals in the field of environmen-
tal knowledge, insight, and skills in the National Environ-
mental Policy Plan (Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan, 1989) and
also expressed its intent to persuade students to have more
positive attitudes with respect to the environment and even-
tually to behave more responsibly. The underlying idea is
that students who know a lot about the environment have a
positive attitude toward it and are likely to behave in an en-
vironmentally responsible manner.
 Kuhlemeier. van den Bergh, and Lagenveij
To what extent does that assumption have empirical sup-
port'! Does more environmental knowledge indeed lead to a
positive attitude toward the environment-as many assume
i t docs? Doea a positive attitude with respect to the envi-
ronment result in environmentally responsible behavior, or
arc the two entirely unconnected?
Theoretical Framework
A theoretical framework within which those kinds of
questions can be studied was developed by Fishbein and
A j m i (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
I n their theory of reasoned action. they distinguished among
f o u r hasic concepts: beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and
behavior. Holii$s involve knowledge or opinions concerning
thc attitude object; uttifiides involve emotions and evalua-
tions with respect to that object; intentions refers to behav-
ioral itinis: and hehuiior involves the actual action itself.
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011
Fishbein and Ajzen ( 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)pos-
tuluted ;I specilic pattern of effect relations among the four
components. In their view, for instance, actual behavior is,
tirst. ;I function of behavioral intentions, and second, one of
:illittides that. in turn. are affected by knowledge. A critical
is sump ti on in their theory is that knowledge and attitudes
influence actual behavior only through behavioral inten-
tions ( A j m i & Fishbein, 1980; Cooper & Croyle, 1984;
Hines. Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986-1987; Ryan & Bon-
lield. 1975). According to Ajzen and Fishbein, behavioral
intentions ;ire the best predictor of actual behavior, better
t h m the attitude and knowledge components.
I n line with the theory of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975;
A,j/en & Fishhein. 1980). at least four aspects of the topic
o f the environment can be distinguished: knowledge and
opinions concerning the environment, attitude toward the
cnvironment. willingness to make personal sacrifices for the
ciivironmcnt (the behavioral intention), and environmental-
l y responsible behavior. On the basis of Fishbein and
A.jzen's theory. we formulated three, incremental hypothe-
aes cmcerning the relations between knowledge. attitude.
willingness to make sacrifices, and behavior.
First, knowledge of environmental problems. attitude
toward the environment, willingness to make sacrifices, and
environmentally responsible behavior in everyday life
\hould be positively related. Because we made no require-
tiicnta a s to the nature of the correlation, this first hypothe-
\ i s may be hard to reject.
I n the second hypothesis, we included the effect relations
postulated hy Fishbein and Ajzen ( 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein.
1980): Directly related aspects should not have a lower cor-
relation than should other aspects interlinked only indirect-
ly through yet other aspects. At least three criteria for the
accond hypothesis were formulated. First, according to
Fishbein and Ajzen. knowledge affects actual behavior only
through attitude and behavioral intentions; therefore, envi-
rontnentiil knowledge should not have a lower correlation
with environmental attitude than with willingness to make
aacri licea o r environmentally responsible behavior. Second,
i
for analogous reasons, willingness 10 make \acrifict-s
should not have a lower correlation with attitude toward tlic
environment than with environmental knowledge. Third.
because knowledge and attitudes affect behavior oiily
through behavioral intentions, environmentally responsible
behavior should not have a lower correlation with willing-
ness to make sacrifices than with environmental attitude o r
environmental knowledge.
Because the second hypothesis still provides rlither weah
evidence for Ajzen and Fishbein's theory (1980; Fishbein B
Ajzen, 1975). we could also pose the restriction Ihiit thcl-c
should be mutually higher correlations between directlj
related aspects than between all the other. indirectly rcIatcc1
aspects. In the third, much more easily rejectable hypothe-
sis, we assumed that the direct connections are strongest.
In this article. we describe Dutch ninth-grade secondary
school students' environmental knowledge, attitudcs. and
behavior. Furthermore, we examine the hypotheses discusacd
earlier as we explore the relation between environmental
knowledge, environmental attitude, willingness to milkc xic-
rifices, and environmentally responsible behavior. After di\-
cussing our results, we make several recommendationa.
Method
Participants and Collection of Data
An environmental study was conducted in I992 ;is part id'
the National Assessment of Educational Achievement Pro-
gram in the Netherlands. In the geography assessniciit
(Kuhlemeier et al., 1994), a two-staged cluster saniple was
drawn. In the first stage, 206 schools were selected. with ;I
sampling probability proportional to the number 01' nintli-
grade students. In the second stage. students were s;itiiplc*tl
within schools. Using a matrix sampling design. we riiii-
domly assigned the environmental instruments t o the atti-
dents. Of the total of more than 9,000 participants. YPi
were higher general education students, 40% were interiiic-
diate general education students, and 2 I % were lower voc+
tional training students. The student population sample coii-
tained slightly more girls ( 5 2 % ) than boys (48%).
Not every student was presented with each instrutnciit.
Consequently, data from considerably fewer students were
available for the calculation of the correlation between instru-
ments than were available for the calculation o f the tiit'iiiis
and the variances for each instrument separately. The numhcr
of students for each combination of instruments varied troiii
approximately 2.000 for the correlation between eiiviroii-
mental knowledge and the remaining instruments to ahotit
5.500 for the relation between environmentul attitude atitl
willingness to make sacrifices; the number o f schools wax at
least 205 for all instruments, however.
Instruments
Environmental Kno~Jedge
Insight into the interaction between human\ and tlic c i i \ I
ronnient and into the mechanisms that underlie e m iroii
 6 The Journal of Environmental Education
mental problems is an extremely complex subject that may
be viewed from various perspectives and disciplines. We did
not attempt to measure environmental knowledge in its
entirety and depth. Instead, in this study, the concept of
environmental knowledge was restricted to knowledge of
environmental problems, for instance, to those areas that
have been the focus of the media and the educational mate-
rial of the government. Moreover, environmental problems
were looked at from a geographical point of view.
The environmental knowledge test consisted of 80 items.
The distribution of items across the various themes and
;ireas was as follows’: Eleven of the 30 items dealt with soil,
water. iind air pollution; 6 were about waste processing and
recycling: 4 about farming and market gardening; 4 about
transportation, tourism, and recreation; 3 about energy us-
age: and 1 about government regulations; the distribution
across the three regions-the Netherlands, Europe, and the
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011
world-comprised 12, 3, and 14 items, respectively.
Each item was a statement about an environmental prob-
lem. The student had to indicate whether or not the state-
ment was true. From a pilot study carried out in 88 schools
(SSO students), it was evident that the environmental knowl-
edge of many ninth-grade students was poor. That justified
the addition of a third response category: I really do not
h ~If ,a student
. really did not have any idea about the cor-
rcctncss of ;I statement, the third response category could be
chosen. Three characteristic items read as follows: “Widely
purchased potato types such as binrje and eigenheimer are
usually cultivated without chemical pesticides,” “The water
o f the Rhine i n the Netherlands has become somewhat
clcaner in recent years.“ and “Most cars consume the same
quantity of petrol at a velocity of 90 kilometers per hour as
;it I20 kilometers per hour.”
Attitirdr and Willingness to Make Sac,rijkes
I~ii~~ir(itiiii~Jiitci1
We measured attitudes toward the environment and the
willingness to make personal sacrifices by means of an adapt-
ecl version of questionnaires developed by Maloney and Ward
( 1973). Maloney, Ward, and Braught (19751, and Nelissen,
Pcrcnbooni. Peters. and Peters ( 1987). The instrument con-
s i s t h ol‘ 2 0 Likert-type statements. Each of the subscales-
environmental attitude and willingness to make sacrifices-
is represented by 10 statements. The students indicated on a
4-point scale their agreement with each of the statements.
The subscale rnvironmrntal uttitude included statements
that pertain to the degree of environmental inclination
(environment-mindedness), environmental concern. envi-
ronmental indifference, and denial of environmental prob-
Icms. Two characteristic statements were “Things will sure-
ly not take that turn with the pollution of the environment”
;incl “Owing to pollution of the environment, the world
threatens to become unfit to live in for future generations.”
The subscale rc*illingness t o make sucrt~cesconcerns
rcudiness to make an extra effort for the environment, to
take extra pains, or to make extra sacrifices. Two character-
istic statements were “I would not mind sacrificing a little
spare time for the environment” and “I am prepared to pay
a little more for an environmentally friendly product.”
Etivitonmentally Responsible Behavior
The domain of environmentally responsible behavior is
very broad and heterogeneous (Schahn & Holzer, 1990:
Ungar, 1994). We measured the degree to which studcnts
behave in an environment-friendly or -unfriendly way i n
daily life by using a questionnaire containing 20 questions.
Eight were Likert-type questions, and 12 allowed the stu-
dent to choose more alternatives simultaneously. The
behavioral items related to behavior relevant to ninth-grade
students. We chose those items from various environment
guides, some of them specifically intended for secondnry
school students (e.g., Reijnders, 1991: Silver & Vdlcly.
1991). We were also guided by information from the
instructional campaign of the government (Ministcrie,
1991). The focus of the questions was on environmentally
friendly or unfriendly behavior that has a certain reality f o r
students, that could really be exercised by them in daily life.
and in which environmental considerations can play ;I role.
For instance, no questions pertained to the purchase o r thc
use of phosphate-free detergents, dishwashers, tumble dry-
ers, cars, and other consumer goods that are indicative o f
the ecological behavior of adults. The questions pertained
only to the environmentally responsible behavior of the s t u -
dent, as an energy user, a consumer, or a garbage produccr.
Only observable, concrete behavior was chosen. The stu-
dents’ underlying motives were left out of consideration. N o
questions were asked about the environmental considern-
tions that might be taken into account when students pur-
chase or use certain products, such as (disposable) batteries
or (recycled) paper. We did that to avoid contamination by
socially desirable responses as much as possible.
Reliability
Before describing our findings, we review some tiic;i-
surement properties (see Table I ) .
The reliability* of the environmental knowledge test was
.73, which is reasonable for a test consisting of 30 items.
The internal consistency of the environmental attitude
scale in its entirety was 3 5 . The estimates for the’separiite
subscales of environmental attitude and willingness to makc
sacrifices were obviously a little lower because of the sninll-
er number of statements: .75 and .79. respectively.
The internal consistency of the environmentally respon-
sible behavior scale was .7 1. That value is not unsatisfacto-
ry for a scale with 20 widely divergent behavioral items
(van der Meer, 1980, 1981). In a reasonably reliable way.
one can measure the degree to which students exhibit envi-
ronment-friendly behavior in their daily life by using that
brief questionnaire. The question of validity-the extent t o
which we truly measured environmentally responsible
behavior with a paper-and-pencil test-is, of course. c o n -
pletely different and can be answered only in part on thc
basis of our study.
 Kuhlemeier, van den Bergh, and Lagenveij
TABLE 1. Some Descriptive Statistics for Environmental Knowledge, Attitude,
Willingness to Make Sacriflces, and Behavior
Possible
Scale M sn range
Knowledge 17.91 4.53 0 to 30
Attitude 31.15 4.36 10 to40
Sacrifice 28.89 4.64 10 to40
Behavior 6.82 5.47 -20 to 20
The scores on the 30 questions were recoded in such a
way that the score 1 represented environmentally friendly
hehavior; the score 0, neutral behavior; and the score -1,
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011
environmentally unfriendly behavior. The range of scores
possible. in theory, was therefore between -20 and 20,
where the scores -20 and 20 indicated extremely environ-
mentally unfriendly and extremely environmentally friend-
ly behavior, respectively. The center of the scale (the score
0) was considered neutral.
I t should be noted that we proceeded with caution in
defining environmental friendliness. We counted even rela-
tively polluting behavior as an indication of environmental
friendliness. For instance, in the questions regarding eco-
nomical energy usage, only those students who declared
that they (almost) never use tap water, lighting, or heating
economically were counted among the environmentally
unfriendly. In the question on the packaging of milk, soft
drink\, and so on, we considered not only the use of glass
hottlts as environmentally friendly but also the use of paper
cartons ( i n contrast to plastic bottles and cans).
A behavioral index may become invalid if not all of the
hehavorial activities included are accessible to all respon-
dents (Scott & Willits, 1994). Some questions in our study
were not applicable for a substantial number of the students.
I f a student never goes shopping, for instance, he or she, of
course. cannot behave in an environmentally friendly or
unfriendly way with respect to that activity. In instances in
which the behavioral activities were inaccessible, the stu-
dents concerned were not counted among the environmen-
tiilly unfriendly but were assigned to the neutral category.
Analysis
One can study the relations between knowledge, attitude,
willingness to make sacrifices, and behavior in a multivari-
ate multilevel model (Goldstein, 1987; Goldstein &
McDonald, 1988; Longford & MuthCn, 1992) by using the
ML3 program (Prosser. Rasbash, & Goldstein, 1991). The
cluster effects caused by the sampling procedure are taken
into account explicitly. A two-level variance component
model, with students nested within schools, was fitted to the
data. I n the fixed part of the model, the mean scores on the
four instruments were estimated. At the student level, the
Observed No. of No. of Reliability
range students items
0 to 30 5,803 30 .73 .03
10 to40 5,778 10 .75 .03
10 to 40 5,739 10 .79 .02
-18 to 20 5,173 20 .71 .02
deviations of the students' scores from the school means
were estimated in a between-students covariance matrix.
Because four instruments were used, four variances and six
covariances were estimated. The covariances at the student
level represented the correlation between the scores of mi-
dents within schools. At the school level, the deviations of
the school means from the population mean were estimated
in a between-schools covariance matrix. That matrix also
contained 10 elements. The covariances at the school level
provided insight into the correlation between the school
means for the four instruments. By dividing the estimate of
the between-schools variance by that of the total varianct..
an intraclass correlation rho was obtained (Kish, 1965) that
signified how large or small the differences between
schools were proportionally. For the sake of the comparn-
bility of the effect estimations, the scores were standardized
for each instrument separately, with a zero mean and unity
variance.
Results
Environmental Knowledge
The students' environmental knowledge is shown i n Table
I . The average student selected the correct answer for I X 01'
the 30 items. When the third response category (I red/! dolt 'I
know) was counted as wrong, the degree of difticulty of thc
items varied from .I7 to .92. with a mean of .60.The distrib-
ution of the test scores is shown in Table 2. The 15% highest
scoring students achieved a score of 23 or higher. The 17!1
lowest scoring students answered, at most, I 3 of the 30 item
correctly; scores such as those would be expected i t the stu-
dents selected the answers randomly. From that finding, we
tentatively concluded that the environmental knowledge 01'
many students left much to be desired.
That conclusion became more forceful when the degree
of attraction of the third response category was scrutinized,
It amounted to .18. on average, over all 30 items. Only 13%
of the students did not select I real/? do not k n o w a single
time, 76% selected it I to 10 times, and the rest ( I 1%') did
so at least 1 I times. Apparently, many of the ninth-grade
students were uncertain whether or not the statements on
environmental topics presented to them were correct.
The knowledge of the students varied quite a hit betwc.cn
 S The Jourtial of Environmental Education

very positive. whereas the environmental attitude 01' 47'

'IAB1.E 2. Distribution of Scores for Environmental could be characterized as neutral. According to o u r delitii~
Knowledge tion. only I% of the students had a weakly t o very wcabl!
developed negative environmental attitude. They did not ( ;it
K'lllp! (11 N o . of Percentage of all), for example. agree with the statcment, "Polluting
\LXIlC\ ktudents students industry should be dealt with more harshly." whereah t h q
did agree (entirely) with "Acid rain is receiving an exccssi\~*
0 I0 33 I ti amount of attention" and "That species of plants ;ire hcconi
I I I3 ti27 II
ing extinct is all the same to me."
I4 I6 1.126 19
17-10 1,387 26 When we looked at the distribution of the scores for will-
20-22 I3 5I 2.3 ingness to make sacrifices. the second scale. we found t l i i i t
23 3 0 xx I 15 60%.of the ninth-grade students scored somewhere neiir thc
center of the scale. That group appeared to be little prep;ireii
to make an extra effort for the environment. That tinding
was true to an even greater extent for the 4%. who scored i t 1
'IAHLE 3. Distribution of Scores for Environmental the lower reaches of the scale: Probably n o willingnchx
Attitude and Willingness to Make Sacrifices
whatever to contribute to the environment can be assumccl
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011

for them. For 3S% of the students, o n the other hand. the
Kaiipc (11' bcorc\ No. of Percentage of willingness to make sacrifices was strongly to very strong-
students students ly developed. They agreed entirely with statements such ;ix
"1 do not mind sacrificing a little spare time for the cn\i-
thirontiit'ntal ronment," "I want to use electricity o n l y when i t is re;iIl!
;iltitudc
11-20 75 I
necessary," or "1 am quite prepared to pay ii little tnort' I O I
2 1-30 2.4OX 42 an environmentally friendly product."
.1 I -4 ) 3.295 57
Williiigiiess lo Environmentally Responsible Behavior
iii;ihe s x r i lice\ The data on environmentally responsible behat.J I O I ;Ire
I0 - 2 0 24 1 3
? I 30 3.464 ti0 presented in Table I. The mean score on the environmental
3 I -40 2,034 35 ly responsible behavior scale amounted to nciirly 7 (on ;I
scale that ranged from -20 to 20). That mean lay too 1;ir
beyond the center of the scale (the score 0) to be consicleretl
as neutral. We therefore could have concluded that the eco-
itenis. I n Appendix A several items that were mastered rel- logically responsible behavior of the students was not s o
ati\,cly well iind several i t e m that were mastered relatively bad after all. However, it is noteworthy that the mean was
~ x ) o I l y;ire discussed. obtained after recoding the scores to the 20 questions and
that we proceeded with caution in defining environnient;il
Environmental Attitude and friendliness. The distribution of the scores is shown i n Tahlc
Willingness to Make Sacrifices 4.In that table, one finds that 4% of the students were i n ttw
A student could score a minimum of 10 and a maximum lowest reaches of the scale (a scorc of 4 or lower). 'They
of 40 points on the scales for environmental attitude and stated that they paid little attention to the enviroiitnetit.
u-illingncss to make sacrifices.>Assuming that a mean score More than one fifth of the students werc somewhcrc ne;ii'
of 15. corresponding to the center of the scale, represented the center of the scale (range of scores -3 to 3). Their znvi-
;I iicutral attitude. the data certainly did not allow us to con- ronmentally responsible behavior could be chnructerixd ;I\
clude that the average student in our study had a negative neutral, in the sense that environmentally friendly behnvior
attilude toward the environment. On the contrary. when we and environmentally unfriendly behavior were rensonahly
considered the nieans in Table I , we noted that these were well balanced. Nearly half of the students were i n the catc-
diatiiiclly higher than the middle score category (31 and 29, gory 4 to 10. For those students, environmentally fricndly
rL-xpcctivcIy 1. behavior was exhibited more often than envirotimcn~nll~
What proportions of our students had a negative, neutral, unfriendly behavior. According t o our standard. the hchnv-
or positive environmental attitude'? To answer that question, ior of approximately a quarter of the students c;in I>c
w e \cp;ir;ited the distribution of scores into three categories: described as (extremely) environmentally friendly. I n ;it
htudcnts who scored 20 or lower, students who scored least I I of the 20 environmentally responsible form\ ol
hctween 21 and 30, and those who scored higher than 30 behavior, they opted. either consciously or not, for il nioclc
( ~ L YTable 3). of behavior that taxes the environment relatively less. That
From Table 3. one can see that S7% of the students had does not alter the fact that a lot of things still need i n l i m n -
; i n attitude toward the environment ranging from positive to ing i n the environmentally responsible behavior o f large
 Kuhlemeier, van den Bergh. and Lagenveij
TABLE 4. Distribution of Scores for Environmentally
Responsible Behavior
Range of No. of Percentage of
scores students students
-18 to -4 I98 4
-3 to 3 1,145 22
4 to 10 2,468 48
I I to IS 1,136 22
I6 to 20 226 4 the case (pc .001). Not every paired comparison was signif-
groups of students. Only 4% achieved the maximum possi-
ble score or the score directly below that.
In the context of this article, we did not consider it useful
to discuss at length the responses to all the questions on the
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011
environmentally responsible behavior scale. For a descrip-
tion of the findings that were most conspicuous, refer to
Appendix B.
Differences Between Schools and Between Students
The between- and within-school variances of environ-
mental knowledge, environmental attitude, willingness to
make sacrifices, and ecologically responsible behavior are
shown on the diagonals of Table 5 .
The between-schools variances deviated from zero sig-
nificantly for both environmental knowledge, environmen-
tal attitude, willingness to make sacrifices, and environ-
mentally responsible behavior. Schools differed greatly in
average knowledge of environmental problems (p = .21).4
The differences, in terms of environmental attitude, willing-
ness to make sacrifices, and environmentally responsible
behavior, may well be significant, but were of less impor-
tance here (ps = .09, .07, and .09, respectively).
Correlation Between Knowledge,
Attitudes, and Behavior
The correlations between environmental knowledge,
environmental attitude, willingness to make sacrifices, and
environmentally responsible behavior at the school and stu-
dent level are also shown below the diagonals in Table 5.
The correlations at the student level are presented in the
lower part of the table. All the correlations between the stu-
dent scores were significant and in the expected direction.
When evaluating the magnitude of the correlations in the
light of our first hypothesis, we observed that not all rela-
tions were substantial. The relations assumed by many
between the knowledge of environmental problems, on the
one hand, and environmental attitude (r = .26), willingness
to make sacrifices (r = .21), and environmentally responsi-
ble behavior ( r = .20), on the other, were so low that no
practical meaning could be attached to them5 Students who
possessed a great deal of environmental knowledge hardly
seemed to be distinguishable by attitudes and behavior from
other students.
9
In conformance with the second and third hypotheses.
aspects between which a direct relation is postulated should
be correlated at least equally highly or more highly with one
another than with other, only indirectly related aspects. The
correlations in Table 5 should exhibit a so-called simp/i~.r
structure (Guttman, 1954). In other words, they ought to
become lower as one moves further away from the diagonal.
We explored by means of a multiple comparison procedure
(Goldstein, 1987, p. 29) whether the correlation matrix in its
entirety showed such a pattern. That indeed appeared to be
icant, however. Corresponding with the second hypothesis,
environmental knowledge did not have a lower correlation
with environmental attitude (r = .26) than with the willing-
ness to make sacrifices ( r = .21) or with environmentally
responsible behavior ( r = .20). The third hypothesis, howev-
er, according to which immediate relations should he
stronger than indirect ones, was not confirmed here. Emi-
ronmental knowledge did not have a higher correlation with
environmental attitude than with willingness to make sacti-
fices or with environmentally responsible behavior.
In accordance with the third hypothesis, willingness to
make sacrifices was more strongly connected with environ-
mental attitude (r = .54) than with environmental knowl-
edge (r = .2 I ) . Finally, environmentally responsible behav-
ior had a significantly stronger correlation with willingness
to make sacrifices (r = .56) than with environmental attitude
(r = .36) or with environmental knowledge (r = .20). C h i
average, the correlation between directly related aspects
was .20 higher than that between the indirectly related
aspects. In short, apart from the relatively weak relations
with the knowledge test, the correlational pattern appeared
to be roughly in accordance with predictions of the theory
on the effect relations between knowledge, attitude, behav-
ioral intention, and behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fish-
bein & Ajzen, 1975). Thus, support was obtained for thc
(discriminant) validity of using the four instruments tor
measurements with students.
The correlations between the school means are presented
in the upper part of Table 5 . All correlations deviated from
zero significantly. The correlation, which can be described.
without exception, as high to very high, provided contirma-
tion for our first hypothesis: A more positive environmental
attitude (r = .88), greater willingness to make Sacrifices 0.=
34). and environmentally friendlier behavior ( r = .78) were
found in schools whose students knew relatively more about
environmental problems than in schools whose students
were less knowledgable. At schools whose students indiciit-
ed that they take the environment into account to a greater
extent, on average, more willingness to make sacrifices ( r =
.91). a more positive environmental attitude (I’= 8 I ), and
more knowledge of environmental problems ( r = .78) were
also expressed, Note that that correlation profile does not
seem contrary to the effect relations between knowledge.
attitude, behavioral intentions, and behavior postulated hy
Fishbein and Ajzen (1980; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975). On
 The Journal of Environmental Education

TABLE 5. Between- and Within-School Variances and Correlationsfor

Environmental Knowledge, Attitude, Willingness to Make Sacrifices, and Behavior

Variance Knowledge Attitude Sacrifice Behavior

Between-schools (N= 206)

Knowledge 4.46
Attitude .88 (.12) 1.65
Sacrifice 3 4 (.12) .91 (.14) 1.55
Behavior .78 ( . I 1) .81 (.12) .91 (.13) 2.83
Between-students (N= 9,422)
Knowledge 16.52
Attitude .26 (.02) 17.54
Sacrifice .21 (.02) .54 (.02) 20.05
Behavior .20 (.02) .36 (.02) .56 (.02) 27.30
lntraclass correlation Rho .21 .09 .07 .oo
Note. Observed variances are on the diagonal. Below are correlations, and standard errors are between
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011

brackets.

TABLE 6. Correlations Before and After Correction for Unreliability

Knowledge Attitude Sacrifice Behavior

r SE r SE r SE r SE

Knowledge .33 .02 .25 .02 .27 .02

Attitude .44 .02 .55 .02 .40 .02
Sacrifice .32 .02 .69 .o 1 .58 .02
Behavior .36 .02 .53 .02 .76 .o 1
Note. Correlations before are shown above the diagonal, and correlations after are shown below.

average, the correlation was .09 higher between directly
related aspects than between indirectly related aspects. On
the surface, the expected simplex structure was apparent:
The further away from the diagonal, the lower the correla-
tions appeared to be. We used significance testing to deter-
mine whether the correlation matrix at the school level did
indeed exhibit such a structure. This time, however, it did
not (p = .986): The differences between the correlations
were not significant. Thus, partial support was found for the
validity of using the four environmental instruments in the
measurement of schools.
Discussion
In this study, we have shown that the environmental
knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of ninth-grade students
in secondary education can be measured in a relatively reli-
able way. Furthermore, the pattern of correlations gave us
no reason to seriously question the validity of the instru-
ments. Apart from the near absence of a relation between
environmental knowledge and the other instruments, all
relations were substantial and certainly not contrary to what
might be expected on the basis of relevant theories.
Actual Environmental Knowledge,
Attitudes, and Behavior
Knowledge of environmental problems seemed to be
weakly developed in many of the students. Large groups of
students lacked knowledge regarding environmental topics
such as energy usage; soil, air, and water pollution; recy-
cling; agricultural activities; tourism; transportation; and
recreation. Many also seemed to be badly informed about
the minor successes of the environmentalist movement in
Western Europe. For instance, very few students were
aware that the water of the Rhine has become a little clean-
er in recent years, that the emission of sulfur dioxide has
decreased in the Netherlands, and that the use of lead-free
gasoline is beginning to bear fruit. That is regrettable,
because such information can help reduce attitudes of envi-
ronmental powerlessness and environmental defeatism.
The lack of environmental knowledge did not seem to pre-
vent students from caring about the environment. Given their
scores on the environmental attitude scale, 57% of the stu-
dents had, according to our definition, a positive to very pos-
itive environmental attitude. They agreed on the seriousness
of the environmental problems, expressed concern about
 Kuhlemeier. van den Bergh, and Lagerweij
endangered plant and animal species, and had a positive atti-
tude toward the protection of nature reserves, among other
things. The conclusions to be drawn about their willingness
to make sacrifices are a little less favorable. According to our
definition, there appeared to be a reasonable to very high
degree of willingness to take extra pains for the environment
in 3S% of the students, indicated by their willingness to make
iin extra effort and to make financial sacrifices. They
expressed, for example, the intention to deal with energy
more economically (more often), to collect paper for recy-
cling, to pay a little more for environmentally friendly prod-
ucts, and to work harder for a cleaner environment.
The average ninth-grade student achieved a score of 7 on
the environmentally responsible behavior scale, with a
range of scores from -20 to 20. According to our standard,
the behiivior of approximately a quarter of the students can
be described as (extremely) environmentally unfriendly to
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011
neutral. In about half of the environmentally responsible
forms of behavior investigated, they selected, either con-
sciously or not, a mode of behavior that burdens the envi-
ronment to a relatively large extent. After comparing the
observed environmentally responsible behavior with the
recommendations of the Dutch government (Ministerie,
1991), we concluded that there is still much room for
improvement.
Differences Between Schools
The schools differed in terms of the average knowledge
of environmental problems of the students. Various expla-
nations can be given for those differences, for example, the
composition of the student population (prior achievement,
family background); the enthusiasm, experience, and com-
petence of the team of teachers; the cumcular offering; the
quality of instruction; and the school climate (Gamoran &
Nystrand, 1994; Kreft, 1987; Willms, 1992). The fact that
the differences between schools were greater for environ-
mental knowledge than for environmental attitude, willing-
ness to make sacrifices, and environmentally responsible
behavior requires an explanation. Because environmental
problems are never taught or are seldom dealt with in Dutch
secondary education, it is unlikely that the between-schools
differences in environmental knowledge were the result of
differences in instructional quality. In the Netherlands, the
allocation of students to school types and tracks during and
after the transition from primary to secondary education
largely takes place on the basis of the knowledge and skills
of the students (aspects that correlated more strongly with
environmental knowledge than with environmental attitudes
and behavior). The type of school is consequently partly a
surrogate (proxy) for differences between schools in the
selection of their students. One could then perfectly well
interpret the relative magnitude of the between-schools dif-
ferences on the knowledge test as an effect of differences
between types of training in the cognitive level of the stu-
dent population, partially as a consequence of differential
enrollment (selection).
II
Relations
A substantial relation between knowledge of environ-
mental problems, on the one hand, and attitudes and behuv-
ior, on the other, could not be demonstrated in our study.
That finding is somewhat surprising, for what is more PliiLt-
sible than the assumption that students with more knowl-
edge of environmental problems care about the environ-
ment more, are more prepared to put up with financial
sacrifices, and take the environment into account more i n
everyday life? Various explanations can underlie thiit find-
ing. Possibly there was indeed no clear relation in our pop-
ulation between knowledge, on the one hand, and attitude
and behavior, on the other, or perhaps environmentally
responsible behavior cannot be measured properly by
means of a questionnaire. It is difficult to give 11 clciir
answer to these questions on the basis of our exploratory
study. For that, further research is necessary. In addition. wc
should not be too optimistic about the correspondence
between what people say and what they really do. Scott and
Willits (1994) put it this way: “The observed low a t t i -
tude-behavior linkage may be less a result of questioning
wording or measurement error than a real disparity betwccn
words and deeds” (p. 255).
In our study, evidence was found for another comnion
sense opinion-that environmental attitude, willingness to
make sacrifices, and environmentally responsible behavior
are correlated. Although the relations found were stronger
than in most other studies (Hines et al., 1986-1987). the
correlation pattern raises a number of questions. For exani-
ple, why was the correlation between willingness to make
sacrifices and environmentally responsible behavior s o
low-no higher than .56? Why didn’t students with a posi-
tive attitude and a high degree of willingness to make sacri-
fices put their behavioral intentions into practice more
often? One of the many possible explanations is that they
just do not have sufficient knowledge of the consequenccs
of their actions on the environment (Barry, 1990; Ungilr.
1994). Were they willing but lacking the know-how’?Envi-
ronmental education might help the students by providing
them with knowledge of and skill in using environmental
action strategies (Sia, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1985- 1986).
It is particularly important to stress the link between envi-
ronmental problems and students’ personal lifestyles
(Gigliotti, 1992) and to raise the students’ awareness of the
environmental choices they face as residents, consumers,
garbage producers, and travelers.
A second partial explanation for the absence of a perfect
correlation between willingness to make sacrifices and
environmentally responsible behavior was found in the
dependency relation generally found between school-age
students and their parents. For instance, students who do the
shopping for their parents are not, of course, entirely at lib-
erty to buy those products that involve the least damage to
the environment. They might be willing but not allowed to
purchase appropriate products.
 12 The Journal of Environmental Education
A third possible explanation can be inferred from the pat-
tern of correlations between attitude, willingness to make
sacritices, and behavior. Environmental attitude was more
highly correlated with willingness to make sacrifices ( r =
5 4 ) than with actual environmentally responsible behavior
i n day-to-day life ( r = .36). Many students seemed to man-
age reasonably well in translating a high environmental atti-
tude into environmentally friendly behavioral intentions.
When it came to putting behavioral intentions themselves
into practice, however, a part of the noble but noncommittal
environmental motives diminished rather soon (Gigliotti,
1994).In principle, a individual might truly want to take the
environment into account, but that person might prefer not
to be one of the first to do so, particularly if others do not,
if he or she has to make a great effort, or if that effort
entails extra expenses. In short, in addition to environmen-
tal knowledge and concern, psychological, social, and eco-
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011
nomic considerations appear to play a part in the realization
of environnientally responsible behavior (e.g., Hines et al.,
19116- 1987).
Limitations of the Study
In the present study, we measured, by means of question-
naires, environmental attitude, willingness to make sacri-
tices. and environmentally responsible behavior. We realize
that findings may be biased by the way they have been col-
lected. The estimate of the mean and the variance of the
measurement, in particular, appears to depend on the mea-
suring technique employed (Heidelberg, van den Bergh,
Kuhlemeier, & Hoeks, 1993; Otter, Mellenbergh, Blok, &
vim den Bergh, 1992). That very variance is essential when
one studies relations among variables. In their meta-analy-
sis of research on responsible environmental behavior,
Hines et al. (1986-1987) reported higher correlations
hctween environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
i n situations in which actual behavior was assessed than in
situations in which behavior was self-reported. We recom-
mend that the extent to which findings such as ours depend
on the measuring technique be checked. To what extent do
other techniques, such as observations, logbooks, or inter-
views, result in other outcomes? In short, the findings of our
investigation need to be interpreted with some caution.
NOTES
I . One item. which concerns an evidently nongeographical topic. was
;iLuirdingly excluded from the classification.
7 . We determined the reliability (internal consistency) by using a boot-
strap procedure. The mean correlations. corrected for test length, between
randomly combined but parallel test halves are reported.
3. To study the distinguishability of the scales for environmental atti-
tude and willingnesa to make sacrifices, we conducted an exploratory fac-
tor analysis. When we imposed a two-factor structure upon the data in a
principal component analysis with varimax rotation. 18 of the 20 state-
ments appeared to load higher on their “own” subscale than on the other
one. In addition. we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis by using
LISREL (Jiireskog & Sorbom. 1989). A model with separate factors for
environmental attitude and willingness to make sacrifices was found to fit
the data extremely well (GFI = ,993); moreover, that model fit significant-
ly better than a model with only one indivisible environmental attitude fac-
tor. In that way, empirical support was found for the a priori arrangement
of the statements and the distinguishability of environmental attitude arid
willingness to make sacrifices.
4. For the subject of geography, the intraclass correlation, based o n cur-
riculum-valid tests of more than 600 multiple choice and constructed
response items, was 5 1 (Kuhlemeier el al.. 1994).
5. The correlations reported in Table 5 were not corrected for unrelia-
bility. In that connection. it is not inconceivable that the correlation wil\
higher in reality. The correlations, after correction for unreliahility, per-
formed by means of LISREL (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989) on the total
covariance matrix. were indeed higher, but the pattern of correlationa re-
mained roughly constant (Table 6).
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding urtitudes and prdit.tiir,q
social behavior: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barry. J. M. (1990). Environmental awareness: How green must we he”
Journal of Environmental Health, 53(2). 62.
Cooper, J.. & Croyle, R. T. (1984). Attitudes and attitude change. Atrriictrl
Review of Psychology, 35,395426.
Eberg, J. W., Eijkelhof. H. M. C., Kortland. J., & Stokking, K. M. ( 199 I ).
Naar een didactiek voor natuur- en milieu-educ~utiein the undenrij.\
[Toward an approach for science and environmental education]. Utrrcht.
The Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit. ISOWCentruni voor Didactiek vim
Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen.
Fishbein. M.. & Ajzen, 1. (1975). Belief; altitude, intention und hch\ior:
An introduction to theory and research. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Gamoran, A., & Nystrand. M. (1994). Tracking, instruction and achieve-
ment. International Journal of Educational Resecrrrh. 21. 2 17-23 I .
Gigliotti, L. M. (1992). Environmental attitudes: 20 years of change’! Tho
Journal of Environmental Education. 24( 1). 15-34.
Gigliotti, L. M. (1994). Environmental issues: Cornell students’ willing-
ness to take action, 1990. The Journal of‘Enrimnmental Edirc~terioti.
26( I ), 34-42.
Goldstein, H. ( 1987). Multilevel models in edrcc~crtional crnd socitrl
research. London: Griffin.
Goldstein. H., & McDonald. R. P. (1988). A general model lor the analy-
sis of multilevel data. Psychometrika, 53,455-467.
Guttman, L. A. (1954). A new approach to fiictor analysis: The radex. I n f?
F. Lazersfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the ,w(iul scienc.rs (pp.
258-348). New York: Columbia University Press.
Hausbeck. K. W.. Milbrath. L. W., & Enright. S. M.(1992). Environmeri-
tal knowledge, awareness and concern among 11th-grade students: New
York State. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 27-34.
Heidelberg. J.. Bergh. H. van den, Kuhlemeier, J. 8.. & Hoeks, J. (1Y93).
Tijdsbesteding van docenten in het voortgezet ondenvijs op verschil-
lende manieren gemeten: Een validatiestudie (Measuring time spent it1
secondary education: A validation study 1. Tjdschrifr w o r Ondenm~ijsr+
search. 18, 306-316.
Hendriks. H.. & Zande, P. van der (1991 ). Vakdeelleerplun ~~irtrcc~r- (‘II
milieu-educatie in de basisvonning biolugie IA curriculum for science
and environmental education in basic education biologyl. Enschede. The
Netherlands: SLO.
Hines. J. M.. Hungerford, H. R.. & Tomera. A. N. (19861987). Analysih
and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A
meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education. IX(2). 1-8.
Joreskog, K. G.. & Sorbom. D. (1989). LISREL 7: U.wrs’.y reference jirtitlc
(1st ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: Wiley.
Kreft. G. G. (1987). Models and methods for the iiirasurement of s t . h o o l
eflects. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Kuhlemeier, J. B.. Bergh. H. van den. NottC. H.. Wagenaar, H.. Verstralen.
H.. & Cappers, R. ( 1994). Balans van her aardrijkskunde-ondernrj.y i r i
her derde leerjaar van her voortgezet ondenvijs IReport on the state of
the art of geography in the third year of secondary education]. Arnhem.
The Netherlands: Cito.
Longford, N. T..& Muthbn, B. 0. (1992). Factor analysis for clustered
observations. Psychometrika. 57, 58 1-597.
Maloney, M. P.. & Ward, M. P. (1973). Ecology: Let’s hear from the p c i -
ple. An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitutles and
knowledge. American Psvchologist, 28, 583-586.
 Kuhlemeier, van den Bergh, and Lagerweij
Maloney, M. P., Ward, M. P.. & Braucht. G. N. (1975). Psychology in
action: A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and
knowledge. Anierican Psychologist, 30, 787-79 1 .
Meer. E van der ( 1980). Arhtergronden van milieugedrag [Backgrounds
ot‘ environmental behavior]. Leiden, The Netherlands: Universiteit
I .eiden.
Meer, F. van der ( 1981). Environmental attitude and behavior [Attitude en
inilieugedragl. Leiden. The Netherlands: Universiteit Leiden.
Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting. Ruirntelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
( / Y Y l J . Zestig dingen die u voor het milieu kunr doen [Sixty things one
can do for the environment]. ‘s-Gravenhage, The Netherlands: Minis-
tcrie van VROM.
Munaon. 6. H. (1994). Ecological misconceptions. The Journal of Envi-
ronmmlul Educution, 24(4). 30-34.
Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan (1989). Kiezen of verliezen [Choosing or los-
ing]. ’s-Gravenhage. The Netherlands: SDU.
Nelissen, N..Perenboom, R.. Peters, P., & Peters, V. (1987). De Neder-
Irrndrrs cn hun milieu [The Dutch and their environment]. Zeist. The
Netherlands: Kerckebosch.
Otter. M.. Mellenhergh, G. J., Blok, H.. & Bergh. H. van den (1992). Mea-
suring time spent on teaching native language. Journul of Experimentol
b.d~l(.~iIioti, 60. 28 1-287.
Proser. R., Rashash. J.. & Goldstein, H. (1991 ). M U : Softwarefijr three-
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011
Iri~rluntrlwis. User’i guide. London: Institute of Education.
Reijnders. L. ( I99 I ). Help her milieu: War elke Nederlander kan doen
[Helping the environment: What each Dutchman can do]. Amsterdam:
Van Grnnep.
Ryan. M . J.. & Bonfield. E. H . (1975). The Fishbein extended model and
consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research. 2. 118-136.
Schahn. J . . & Holzer. E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental con-
cern. The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Envi-
ronnient und Behat1i06 22, 767-786.
Scott. D.. & Willits. E K. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior. A
Pennsylvania survey. Environment und Behavior. 26, 239-260.
Sia. A. P.. Hungerford. H. R.. & Tomera. A. N. (1985-86). Selected pre-
dictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. The Journal
of Enidronmm~ulEducation, /7(2), 3 1-40.
Silver. D., & Vallely, B. (1991).Her milieu jduw zaak! 101 tips voorjon-
,gurtn om zelfiets uun her milieu IY doen [The environment your case!
101 tips for adolescents]. Amsterdam: Veen.
Ungar. S. ( 1994). Apples and organges: Probing the attitude-behaviorrela-
tionship for the environment, Cunadian Review of Sociology and
AnthropriloKy, 3 1 , 288-304.
Willms. J . D. (1992).Monitoring school perjormunce. A guide for educu-
Ior.7. Easingstoke. United Kingdom: Burgess Science Press.
Appendix A: Some Items That Were Relatively Well
Mastered and Some That Were Relatively Poorly Mastered
Practically all the students (91%) recognized the concepts of
recycling, chemocar (86%). and small chemical waste (86%). In
addition, at least three fourths (77%) knew that most cars consume
less gasoline at 90 k d h than at 120 k m h , that the exhaust gases
of cars do not become totally clean with a controlled three-way
catalyzer (74%), that chlorine is less environmentally friendly than
vinegar (77%), that the greenhouse effect causes the icecaps to
melt (82%), that refuse incinerators have been closed at times in
the Netherlands because too many toxic gases were released
(72%). and that it is better for the environment if individuals buy
soft drinks. milk, or yogurt in a large bottle or pack than in a small
one (78%).
Some relatively difficult items were mastered by less than half
of the ninth-grade students. Nearly half knew that Dutch potato
species such as hinrje and eigenheimer are usually not cultivated
without chemical pesticides (44%), that cut flowers from the
florist’s are usually not grown without poison (39%). that heavy
metals are not radioactive substances used in nuclear power sta-
tions (4 I %), that more chemical pesticides and fertilizer are used
in regular agriculture than in alternative agriculture (47%). and
that an E number (e.g., E 330) does not indicate how much nutri-
13
tional value (energy) a particular product possesses (49%).
Approximately one third of the students were aware that tourism
on the Italian coast has decreased greatly in local areas as a result
of the growth of algae in the Adriatic Sea (36%). that the water in
the Rhine has grown cleaner in recent years (34%), that there is
less lead pollution (34%). and that the emission of sulfur dioxide
(37%) has decreased in the Netherlands. A quarter of the students.
at the most, knew that photochemical air pollution occurs espe-
cially when there is a hot layer of the atmosphere over a cold layer
of the atmosphere (25%), or were acquainted with the concept ot
environmental impact reporting ( 17%).
Appendix B: A Description of the Environmentally
Responsible Behavior of Ninth-Grade Students
in the Netherlands
Student as Consumer
In reply to the question, “How often do you use more tap wilier
than is strictly necessary (e.g., take a long shower, let the w;iier
run continually when brushing your teeth or doing the dishes)?”
10% of the students said they hardly ever use more tap wiiter than
is strictly necessary; however, another 10% of them said that they
do that (nearly) always. In response to a similar question regard-
ing leaving the lights on unnecessarily, I in 3 students responded
“hardly ever”; yet a quarter answered “often” or “(nearly)
always.” Well over 40% claimed that they put on a sweater often
or (nearly) always when it is cold at home instead of turning u p
the heat.
In response to the question about the purchase of soft drinks or
fruit juice, well over one third of the students claimed they usual-
ly buy those products in glass bottles ( 2 1 8 ) or in cartons ( 14%’);
the others said they usually buy cans (14%). plastic bottles (43%),
or never buy soft drinks or fruit juice (8%).
When asked about the size of the packaging of soft drinks, milk,
or yogurt, nearly all the students (88%) stated that they usually buy
those articles in large packs of 1 L or more.
Food that had not been sprayed and on which no fertilirer had
been used was hardly ever bought by one third ofthe students.
No less than 59% of the students claimed hardly ever to take a
look at the packaging of a product to see what harmful sub-
stances it contains.
Two-thirds of the students said that they make use of a shop-
ping bag, plastic bag, or carrier bag to transport the shopping.
Seven percent, however, usually took nothing to put the shopping
in. Those students buy a new plastic bag each time. The rest.
nearly a quarter of the students, indicated that they never do any
shopping.
Recycling
Nearly 60% of the students said that they usually take nonde-
posit glassware to the bottle bank, whereas 6% said they usu;illy
dump it in the dustbin or rubbish bag. Three percent usually leave
it where it is most convenient for them. That question had little rcl-
evance for 32%: Someone else, such as the father or the mother,
takes care of all nondeposit empty bottles. For the analogous ques-
tion with regard to the way empty deposit bottles are dealt with,
the percentages were 68, 2, 2. and 28, respectively.
Three quarters of the students claimed they usually returned
empty or broken (disposable) batteries to the shop or placed them
into the batteries compartment of a bottle bank. Nine percent of’
the students said they usually dispose of batteries in the garbage:
They dump their batteries in the dustbin or rubbish bag.
The students were asked where they leave their used writing
papers, magazines, newspapers, and such when they are no loiieer
 I4 The Journal of Environmental Education

needed. More than half (55%) of the students said that most paper
1;inds i n the dustbin or rubbish bag. Less than half (45%) separat-
ed il for recycling.
Of the students who claimed to come across old medicines once
i n a while. 77% usually took them back to the chemist’s, 18% usu-
ally put them in the dustbin or rubbish bag, and 5% usually flushed
tlieiii down the toilet.
More than half of the students put litter from fruit or vegetables,
lor example, potato, orange, and banana peels, with the other
household garbage (dustbin or refuse bag); the others placed it
elsewhere (e.g.. compost pile, compost bin, waste food collector,
iii the street).
Downloaded By: [2009 Universiti Putra Malaysia] At: 14:31 14 March 2011
Foodstuffs and Refuse
How did the students take food to school’?More than half o f t h r
students usually used a sandwich box or a plastic sandwich hag.
One third took it to school in a plastic bag or in foil. Some IS1
claimed they never take foods to school. Asked the question. “How
often do leave your litter behind when you are outside (e.g., throw
candy wrappers, cans, or chewing gum out on the street)?” 17% ol
the students declared they hardly ever leave litter behind; 61% said
they sometimes do that. On the basis of that question, one fifth ol
the students could be counted among the notorious polluters. They
claimed that they leave litter behind often or nearly always wheii
they are outside.

ERRATUM
I n the article “Evaluating Adult Groundwater Education,” by Argyrios Gerakis. which
appeared in Volume 30, Issue 1 (Fall 1998), a figure was printed incorrectly. The correct
figure is shown below. The editors of The Journal of Environmental Education regret the
error.

Experimental Group Control Group

Morning (Pretest)

Pretested Pretested

D B
Afternoon (Posttest)

Pretested Nonpretested Pretested

FIGURE 1. The modified separate-sample pretest-posttest control group quasi-

experimental design.