See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340157321

Categorizing environmental knowledge using a classification table based on

median score

Chapter · June 2019

DOI: 10.1201/9780429461903-64

CITATIONS READS

0 94

3 authors, including:

Bagus Sumargo Yiu Fai Tsang

Universitas Negeri Jakarta The Education University of Hong Kong
16 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS    216 PUBLICATIONS   5,944 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cultivation of Microalgae for Feed Supplement/ Biofuel Production and Carbon Dioxide Fixation View project

Inhibition Mechanisms of CO2 Fixation in Non-photosynthetic Microbial Community by the Typical Soil Organics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bagus Sumargo on 10 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Categorizing Good Environmental Knowledge Criteria Using
a Classification Table based on The Median Score
B. Sumargo
Statistics Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri jakarta, Jakarta
13220, Indonesia

W. Mardiyah
Statistician, Statistics-Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Sutomo 6-8, Jakarta 10010, Indonesia

Y. F. Tsang
Department of Science and Environmental Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, New
Territories, Hong Kong; tsangyf@eduhk.hk

ABSTRACT: Categorizing environmental knowledge is important to know how many people are
environmentally friendly, and have environmental awareness, so that sustainable life can work
well. This study aims to determine which person (population) is categorized as knowledgeable
about a good or bad environment, and determines factors that are significant to the need to care
about the environment. The data used is secondary data obtained from the Environment Caring
Attitude Survey (ECAS). The analytical method used is a table of classification of median scores
as critical points for distinguishing categories of good / bad knowledge, and Binary Logistic Re-
gression to determine good environmental care behavioral factors. The analysis shows that 67.8
percent of the population is well-informed about the environment, and the classification of resi-
dence, gender, age, education, employment status, household income, information facilities,
sources of information, and socialization / training significantly affect knowledge about environ-
mental awareness behaviors in Indonesia. Therefore, it is recommended that the Government must
pay attention to the availability of education and the implementation of education/training related
to the environment (environmental education)

1 INTRODUCTION

Environmental damage, such as water pollution, air pollution, and deforestation, is widespread
in Indonesia. River water in Indonesia is generally polluted, air quality is worsening, and forest
performances are being damaged (KLH, 2015a). Indonesia used Environmental Performance In-
dex (EPI) for measuring environmental performance in Indonesia. The EPI developed and
adopted by Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) basically measures trends in quality or
environmental conditions of water, air, and land media, toxic pollutant loads, biodiversity (i.e.
breeding of birds), and population growth. The EPI in Indonesia decreased from 65.76 in 2011 to
63.96 in 2012, and became 63.20 in 2013, thus indicating the environmental quality was deterio-
rating from 2011 to 2013 (KLH, 2015b). Environmental issues are commonly caused by a com-
plicated interaction between human and the environment.
Some studies show a reciprocal relationship exists between human and the environment (i.e.
man effects the environment and the environment affects human behavior) (Kollmuss & Agye-
man, 2002; Kitzmuller, 2013; Sastrawijaya, 1991; Frick, 2004; Kaiser, 2002). However, the en-
vironmental awareness in Indonesia remains low (Kutanegara, 2014). The lack of knowledge
about the environment is one of the major factors resulting in low environmental awareness and
concerns (Fransson & Gärling, 1999; Mifsud, 2011).
Every individual should have knowledge about the environment to preserve it in the long term.
Communities with this type of knowledge can realize the importance of the environment and
strive to preserve it (Iskandar, 2013). Knowledge can be regarded as a basic capital to be more
concerned about the environment as knowledge is a collection of information that is held by a
person as an incentive to behave and act (Kutanegara, 2014). Understanding the environment
means comprehending the elements or aspects of life shaped by the environment (Arjana, 2012).
Knowledge about the relationships among the types of environment is important to alleviate en-
vironmental problems, and it can be obtained in an integrated and comprehensive manner (Slamet,
1994).
Knowledge comprises the facts gathered by a study, observation, or experience and the con-
clusions drawn based on these facts (Aune, 2008). Many demographic variables, such as gender
and age (Koivisto, 2008; Iniesta-Arandia, 2015; Birhanu, 2013; Pablo Diaz et al., 2015) can affect
an individual’s knowledge. Educational level is an important variable that influences knowledge
about the environment (Adusnaw, 2013; Aminrad, Zakaria & Hadi, 2011; Bailey, 1971; Baris,
2011). Another important factor is source of information (BPS, 2013a). Knowledge about the
environment can be obtained from counseling or training. By following environment counseling
or training, individuals can enhance their knowledge and change their behavior to become envi-
ronment friendly (Kollmus, 2002; Kitzmuller, 2013; Dverden & Witt, 2010; Liefländer, 2015;
Zsóka, Szerényi, Széchy & Kocsis, 2013; Vaughan, Gack, Solorazano & Ray, 2003). Economic
conditions or income can also affect a person's knowledge (Mamady, 2016; Notoatmodjo, 2003;
Cynthia, 2013; Lyons & Breakwell, 1994). There are few studies using the variables partially-
there has been limited use of consistency.
The way in which knowledge about the environments developed and organized (i.e., the pro-
cesses of environmental cognition) is also considered, and affective and evaluative responses as
mediators of behavior are discussed. Finally, because cognitive, affective, and behavioral re-
sponses to the environment can all be incorporated in the concept of attitude. In other hands, we
can say that knowledge close with cognitive aspects, and humans are cognitive beings and thus
define and give meaning to environments with respect to their behavior of environmental concern
role in them.
This study aims to describe and investigate the behaviour of environmental awareness and con-
cerns, especially demographic, and socio-economic factors. Using dummy and numerical varia-
bles. Namely: residence classification (Huddart-Kennedy, Beckley, McFarlane, & Nadeau, 2009),
age ((Rebolj & Devetak, 2000), gender ((Zafeiroudi & Hatzigeorgiadis, 2014), education level
((Rodrigues, 2014), information source (CÔRTES et al., 2016). information facility, counselling
or training (Cushman, 1971), work status, and income (Power & Elster, 2005). This study also
intends to identify and evaluate the Indonesian profiles of good environmental knowledge.

2 METHOD
This study covers the entire territory of Indonesia, and the unit of analysis is the Indonesian
population aged 15 and older in 2013. The researchers used secondary data obtained from the
Environment Caring Attitude Survey (ECAS) in 2013 conducted by Statistics-Indonesia (BPS).
ECAS 2013 is the first survey conducted by BPS to gather information on caring behaviors related
to the environment using a household approach. ECAS aims to obtain data describing the behavior
of households toward the environment, whether friendly or destructive behavior that directly and
indirectly affects the environment.
The population sample used in ECAS comprised 75,000 households in Indonesia that were
interviewed, and data on 70,406 households were obtained. Conversely in this study, the target
population comprised the population of those aged 15 years and above that was obtained from a
household sample in ECAS: in this sample, only one person in every household could be the
informant (BPS, 2013b).
Categprizing categorizing population with good (bad) environmental principles based on vari-
ables: Burning garbage pollutes the air; Waste disposal; Waste containing chemicals; Motor ve-
hicle fumes; waste of water; water catchment area; Save electricity; Using public transportation;
maintenance of motorized vehicles; alternative energy (sunlight); and save fuel. Each question is
given a value of 0 for those who answered incorrectly and did not know and value 1 for those
who answered correctly. In this study knowledge is divided into two categories, namely good
knowledge and bad knowledge. A person is categorized as having bad knowledge if he can answer
correctly from 0 to 6 questions. While a person is categorized as having good knowledge if he
can answer correctly 7 to 11 questions. This categorization is based on the 2-level categorization
that divides variables into 2 categories (Azwar, 2007).
 Tabel 1. Environmental Knowledge Classifications
Category Measurement Range
Good Knowledge X ≥ Median 7-11
Bad Knowledge X < Median 0-6
noted : X = Score of Knowledge by Respondent

The analytical method used was the binary logistic regression analysis. Binary logistic regres-
sion analysis (Hosmer, Lemeshow & Sturdivant, 2013) was adopted to check for whether a sig-
nificant effect could be between the explanatory variables and the response variable. Variables
used consisted of nine explanatory variables and one response variable. The explanatory variables
were residence classification, gender, age, education, work status, household income, information
facility, information source, and education/training. Respondents have been asked environmental
knowledge by way of answering true (code 1) or false (code 0) at eleven questions about environ-
mental caring behavior that are about: (1). burning garbage pollute the air; (2). Plastic waste, food
waste, paper waste, and other waste do not need to be sorted before disposal; (3). Waste containing
chemicals (such as spray cans, batteries, light bulbs, insecticides, etc., preferably buried; (4). Mo-
tor vehicle fumes cause the earth to warm up; (5). Allowing water to flow unused has the oppor-
tunity to cause wastage of water; (6). Households need to provide water catchment areas; (7).
Saving electricity means saving fuel; (8). Using public transport when traveling means saving
fuel; (9). Doing motor vehicle maintenance has nothing to do with maintaining the environment;
(10). Sunlight can be a source of alternative electrical energy; (11). Closing the pot when cooking
can save fuel. The response variable used was knowledge about the behavior of environmental
concern. Respondents who correctly answered 0-6 questions were considered to have poor
knowledge, and those who correctly answered 7-11 questions were considered to have good
knowledge.
The equation of binary logistic regression : g(D) = β0 D1 + β2 D2 + β3 X3 + β4 D4 + β5 D5
+ β6 D61 + β7 D62 + β8 D63 + β9 D64 + β10 D65 + β11 D7 + β12 D81 + β13 D82 + β14 D9
Notes: the response variables: g(D) = 1. good; 0.poor of environmental knowledge variables; and
the explanatory variables: D1= dummy variable of residence classification (1. rural; 2. urban); D2
= dummy variable of gender (1.female; 2. male); X3 = variable of age (numeric); D4 = dummy
variable of education level (1.< junior high school; 2. > junior high school); D5 = dummy variable
of work status (1.no; 2.yes); dummy variable of income (IDR) D61= < 500,000; D62= 500,000 –
1 million; D63= 1.1 million-2.5 million; D64=2,6 million-5 million; D65= 5.1 million-10 million;
D7= dummy variable of information facility (1.no; 2.yes); D81 = dummy variable of source of
information otherwise media; D82= dummy variable of source of information mass media, D9=
dummy variable of source of information counselling or training (1.no; 2.yes). Based on the value
of odds ratio in binary logistic regression of each explanatory variable affecting response variable
knowledge about environmental cares behavior, hence known comparison of dummy in one
explanatory variable. For example, whether urban residents have approximately a few times
higher or lower for good living on environmental concerns than those living in rural areas, and so
forth the same for each of the other dummy variables.

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

According to ECAS data in 2013, about 60.3% of people aged 15 and older have good
knowledge about the behavior of environmental concern. This percentage is already high as more
than half of the population has good knowledge. Nevertheless, 39.7 % still have poor knowledge.
Table 2. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics.
Variable Good Knowledge (%) Poor Knowledge (%)
Residence
Rural 51.3 48.7
Urban 72.7 27.3
Gender
Male 61.8 38.2
 Female 59.0 41.0
Education
Primary 51.0 49.0
Secondary 81.2 18.8
Work Status
Employed 61.0 39.0
Unemployed 59.2 40.8
Household Income
< 500 thousand rupiah 40.0 60.0
500 thousand – 1 million rupiah 51.4 48.6
1.1 – 2.5 million rupiah 63.6 36.4
2.6 – 5 million rupiah 77.4 22.6
5.1–10 million rupiah 86.9 13.1
> 10 million rupiah 91.2 8.8
Facilities
Yes 65.7 34.3
No 37.1 62.9
Sources
Mass Media 62.6 37.4
Other Media 42.9 57.1
Both Media 70.7 29.3
Socialization/Training
Yes 81.5 59.4
No 18.5 40.6

Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of demographic and socio-economic characteristics.

Percentage of population with better knowledge on environmental caring behavior in urban areas
(72.7%) bigger than those living in rural areas (51.3%). On the contrary, for knowledge about the
behavior of environmental awareness that is not good: in rural area (48.7%) bigger than in urban
(27.3%). The percentage of the population of male sex (61.8%) who had better knowledge of
environmental care behavior was almost the same relative to women (59%), equally over 50 per
cent. The percentage of population with better knowledge about environmental behavior in sec-
ondary education (81.2%) is bigger than those with basic education (51%). Percentage of people
who have knowledge of environmental caring behavior on working people (61%) have environ-
mental knowledge bigger than those who do not (9.2%).
The percentage of people who have good knowledge increases with the increase in household
income. Conversely, the percentage of people who have poor knowledge decreases with the in-
crease in household income (IDR). The highest percentage of residents who have good knowledge
exists in the population group with a household income of >10 million, and the highest percentage
of residents who have poor knowledge is found in the population group with a household income
< 500 thousand. People with information facilities with information facilities (65.7 %) have big-
ger knowledge than those who do not (37.1 %). The opposite case is found in people with poor
knowledge. The population group that received two information both from the mass media and
other media (70.7%) had bigger percentage of knowledge on environmental cares than those who
received information from mass media (62.6%) or other media (42, 9%). The total percentage of
the population who participated in the socialization / training (81.5%) had bigger knowledge than
those who did not (18.5%).
Table 3. Regression Binary Output
Variable Odds Ratio P-value
Residence
Urban 1.645 0.000
Rural Reference Reference
Gender
Male 1.215 0.000
Female Reference Reference
 Age 0.991 0.000
Education
Primary 2.227 0.000
Secondary Reference Reference
Work Status
Employed 1.089 0.000
Unemployed Reference Reference
Household Income (IDR)
< 500 thousand Reference Reference
500 thousand – 1 million 1.109 0.000
1.1– 2.5 million 1.370 0.000
2.6 – 5 million 1.881 0.000
5.1 –10 million 2.931 0.000
> 10 million 3.924 0.000
Facilities
Yes 1.561 0.000
No Reference Reference
Sources
Mass Media 1.337 0.000
Other Media Reference Reference
Both Media 1.746 0.000
Socialization/Training
Yes 2.041 0.000
No Reference Reference

All the explanatory variables significant affect knowledge about the behavior of environmental
concern (Table 3). People who live in urban areas have 1.6 times better knowledge about the
behavior of environmental concern than those who live in rural areas. The difference between
urban and rural residents is not large. People who live in urban areas have more access to various
sources of information than rural residents, thereby increasing their knowledge (Blum, 1987; Bai-
ley, 1971; Rickison, 2001; Iskandar, 2013). Despite having fewer resources, the rural population
usually upholds the values of local knowledge in preserving nature, and doing so also increase
their knowledge. Local knowledge is all forms of knowledge, beliefs, understanding, insights,
customs, and ethics that guide human behavior in life in ecological communities. An understand-
ing of local knowledge is an important asset in the management of natural resources and the
preservation of the environment (Ariyanto, Rachman & Toknok, 2014). Communities adapt to
the environment by developing environmental knowledge (ideas, norms, customs, and cultural
values) so that it becomes knowledge for society (Kutanegara, 2014).
Better educated populations have 2.2 times better knowledge about the behavior of environ-
mental concern than less educated populations. People with high education have great knowledge.
including that about the behavior of environmental concern (Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys, 2000;
Rickison, 2001; Johanto, 2010).
The tendency of good knowledge about the behavior of environmental concern increases along
with the increase in household income. People with a household income of > 10 million rupiah
have 3.9 times better knowledge about the behavior of environmental concern than those with a
household income < 500 thousand rupiah. Income does not directly influence a person's
knowledge. People who earn sufficiently can obtain facilities or buy resources. thus indirectly
increasing their knowledge (Lyons & Breakwell, 1994; Notoatmodjo, 2003).
People with information facilities have 1.5 times better knowledge about the behavior of envi-
ronmental concern than those without. Ease of obtaining information can help individuals acquire
new knowledge. Therefore, through information facilities, people can have better knowledge than
those with no access to information facilities (Bailey, 1971; Mubarak, 2007).
Residents with access to information from mass media and other media have 1.3 times better
knowledge about the behavior of environmental concern than those who received information
from mass media only and have 1.7 times better knowledge than those who receive information
through other media only. The presentation of information by mass media can be conducted
quickly, and information can be disseminated to many people simultaneously. Media other than
the mass media in this study includes people or scientific books that can provide detailed infor-
mation: erroneous information can be confirmed directly by the recipient of the information.
Therefore, people who obtain information from the combination of these media sources have
more knowledgeable about the behavior of environmental care than those who receive infor-
mation from one media type only (Rickison, 2001; Bailey, 1971). People should not only know
about the behavior of environmental concern but should also have correct knowledge related to
it.
Residents who follow socialization/training in the last three years have two times better
knowledge about the behavior of environmental concern than those who do not. The provision of
short-term socialization/training offers good knowledge of the behavior of environmental con-
cern. The reason is that with the development of the condition of the population and technology,
the environment also changes and thus conservation efforts must also be continuously adjusted.
According to the odds ratio results in regression binary output can be stated that Men have 1.2
times better knowledge about environmental cares behavior than women (reference). In other
words, that a good knowledge of environmental concerns between men and women is relatively
similar. This finding corrects the claim that men have better environmental knowledge than
women (Adusnaw, 2013, Daleo, 1999, 2010, Demilew, 2007; Getaye, 2007; Roberta, 2009;
Bogner, 2010; Arcury, 1993 Coyle, 2005; KEEC, 2005, 2009, 2002, 2004, 2004; White, 2006;
Arbuthnot, 1977; McElls, 1972; Anderson, 2007; Ewert, 2001; Mainiery, et al., 2006; Olofsson,
2006; Tikka, et al, 2000).
4 CONCLUSIONS
1) This study shows that the Indonesians who have good environmental knowledge about envi-
ronmental concern are more than half of the population aged 15 years and older. The remain-
ing 40 % have poor knowledge about environmental concern. Classification of residence,
gender, age, education, work status, household income, information facilities, resources, and
socialization/training significantly affect knowledge about environmental concern. The odds
ratio indicates that the population with the following characteristics is likely to be knowledge-
able about environmental concern: living in urban areas, educational level of junior high
school and above, household income (IDR) > 10 million, features information, obtains relia-
ble information from the mass media and other media, and follows socialization/training.
2) The comparison of residents with good environmental knowledge is 1.5 times that of people
who are knowledgeable about the bad environment.
3) Rural people (male and female) and communities with a low economic status (< 2,5 million
IDR) are expected to increase their accessibility of information related to the environment.
The less educated population should continue to increase their knowledge about the environ-
ment, especially through socialization and training. Moreover the intensity and scope of so-
cialization / training related to the environment should be increased.

5 REFERENCES
Adusnaw Birhanu. 2013. “Factor influencing environmental knowledge, attitue, and participatory behavior
towards land degradation. The acse of Injibara secondary and preparatory school. North western Ethio-
pia. Star Journal, 2013. 2(2), 140-147
Aminrad, Z., Zakaria, S. Z. B. S., & Hadi, A. S. 2011. Influence of age and level of education on environ-
mental awareness and attitude: case study on Iranian students in Malaysian Universities. The Social Sci-
ences, 6(1), 15-19.
Anderson, M. W., Teisl, M., Criner, G., Tisher, S., Smith, S., Hunter, M. & Haggard, S. 2007. Attitude
changes of undergraduate university students in general education courses. The Journal of General Ed-
ucation, 149-168.
Arbuthnot, J. 1977. The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environmental
behavior and knowledge. Environment and behavior, 9(2), 217-232.
Arcury, T. A., & Christianson, E. H. 1993. Rural-urban differences in environmental knowledge and ac-
tions. The Journal of Environmental Education, 25(1), 19-25.
Aune, B. 2008. An Empiricist Theory of Knowledg. New York: Createspace Independent Pub.
Birhanu, A. 2013. Factors Influencing Environmental Knowledge, Attitude and Participatory Behavior to-
wards Land Degradation. The case of Injibara Secondary and Preparatory School, North-Western Ethi-
opia. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 2(2), 140-147.
Blum, A. 1987. Students' knowledge and beliefs concerning environmental issues in four countries. The
journal of environmental education, 18(3), 7-13.
Coyle, K. 2005. Environmentally literacy in America; What ten years of NEETF/Roper research and re-
lated studies say about environmental literacy in the U.S. the national environmental education & Train-
ing foundation. Retrieved from http://www/neetf_org/pubs/Elr2005.pdf
Cynthia, L.B, D. 2013. The influences of socio-demographic factors, and non-formal and informal Learning
Participation on Adult Environmental behaviors. International Electronic Journal of environmental ed-
ucation, 3(1), 37-55.
Daleo, A. 1999. The state of the environment in Ethiopia and the introduction of environmental Education.
The international journal of environmental education and information, 18(4), 295-308.
Demilew, A. 2007. The contribution of environmental education in raising students knowledge, attitude,
and practice in selected first cycle secondary schools. M.A. Thesis. Addis Ababa University
Dverden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. 2010. The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of
environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 379-
392.
Ewert, A., & Baker, D. 2001. Standing for where you sit: An exploratory analysis of the relationship be-
tween academic major and environment beliefs. Environment and Behavior, 33(5), 687-707.
Fransson, N., & Gärling, T. 1999. Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods,
and research findings. Journal of environmental psychology, 19(4), 369-382.
Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. 2004. Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Explor-
ing prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual differences, 37(8),
1597-1613.
Getaye, A., 2007, Learners and academic staffs knowledge, attitude, intension behavior (the case of Adama
University), Unpublished, M.A, The Abddis Ababa University
Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S. & Sturdivant, R.X. 2013. Applied Logistic Regression. New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Iniesta-Arandia, I., Del Amo, D. G., García-Nieto, A. P., Pineiro, C., Montes, C., & Martín-López, B.
(2015). Factors influencing local ecological knowledge maintenance in Mediterranean watersheds: in-
sights for environmental policies. Ambio, 44(4), 285-296.
Kitzmuller, C. 2013. Environmental knowledge and willingness to change personal behavior, An Ameri-
can-Austrian Comparisons of energy use. Retrieved from www.Uni-muenstede/imperia/ind/con-
tent/transpose/kitzmuller.pdf
Koivisto, M. 2008. Factors influencing environmentally responsible behavior in the Finnish service sector.
Teknillinen korkeakoulu.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the
barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental education research, 8(3), 239-260.
Kutanegara, et al., 2014, Membangun Masyarakat Indonesia Peduli Lingkungan, GadjahMada University
Press, Yogyakarta.
Liefländer, A. K. 2015. Effectiveness of environmental education on water: connectedness to nature, envi-
ronmental attitudes and environmental knowledge. Environmental Education Research, 21(1), 145-146.
Lyons, E., & Breakwell, G. M. 1994. Factors predicting environmental concern and indifference in 13-to
16-year-olds. Environment and Behavior, 26(2), 223-238.
Mainiery, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. 1997. Green buying: The influence
of environmental concern on consumer behavior. The Journal of social psychology, 137(2), 189-204.
Mamady, K. 2016. Factors influencing attitude, safety behavior, and knowledge regarding household waste
management in Guinea: a cross-sectional study. Journal of environmental and public health, 1-9.
 Mc. Evey, J. III, 1972, The American concern with the environment: In W.B. Burch, N.H. Cheek, & L.
Taylor (Eds.). Social Behavior Natural Resources and the Environment (pp.XX-XX). New York: Harper
and Row Limited.
Mifsud, M.C. (2011). An Investigation on Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior of Maltese
Youth.US-China Education Review, 413-422.
Rickison, M. 2001. Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evi-
dence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207-320.
Tikka, P. M., Kuitunen, M. T., & Tynys, S. M. 2000. Effects of educational background on students' atti-
tudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. The journal of environmental educa-
tion, 31(3), 12-19.
Vaughan, C., Gack, J., Solorazano, H., & Ray, R. 2003. The effect of environmental education on school-
children, their parents, and community members: A study of intergenerational and intercommunity learn-
ing. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(3), 12-21.
White, L. A. 2006. Environmental literacy and distance learning: A window to the future of education in
Ontario (Doctoral dissertation).
Zsóka, Á., Szerényi, Z. M., Széchy, A., & Kocsis, T. 2013. Greening due to environmental education?
Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of
Hungarian high school and university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 126-138.

View publication stats