| Literature DB >> 30871185 |
Francisco Javier Hinojo Lucena1, Inmaculada Aznar Díaz2, María Pilar Cáceres Reche3, Juan Manuel Trujillo Torres4, Gerardo Gómez García5.
Abstract
Pollution is shown as the environmental challenge, which has the greatest impact on global climate change. Faced with this situation, numerous environmental summits agree on the fact that Environmental Education needs to be implemented within the different disciplines and educational institutions. Therefore, Further Education must foster the research and management of environmental education with the aim of developing responsible citizens with sustainable attitudes. Based on this idea, this paper aimed to analyse the attitudes in Further Education students towards different situations and habits linked to pollution, as well as some of its varied typologies (chemical pollution, acoustic pollution and management of solid urban waste and rubbish). To achieve this, a sample of 307 students from different degrees of Preschool and Primary Education was included, using a questionnaire as a measuring instrument. The methodology of the study was both descriptive, through the analysis of its measures, and inferential, with the preparation of a confirmatory conceptual model through the structural equation model (SEM). Results revealed that students are highly concerned about the different situations proposed, and that the predictive model forges strong correlations between the four variables of the study. Hence, the study focused on the idea of trying to enhance environmental awareness in the groups of students from different educational phases, to subsequently foster the implementation of specific actions aimed at preserving and conserving natural resources, and to guide society towards sustainable development.Entities:
Keywords: Further Education; attitudes; environmental education; pollution; sustainable development
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30871185 PMCID: PMC6466236 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16060905
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Relationship between items and the descriptive category of the scale it belongs to [36].
| Items | Subscale |
|---|---|
| 1. The planet is so polluted by chemical products that it has become a threat for health. | Chemical pollution |
| 2. People surrounding me use plenty of products that pollute the environment. | |
| 3. Every year new chemical products are released without prior analysis of their effects. | |
| 4. I do not buy organic food (without fertilisers/pesticides), since they are more expensive, or more difficult to find. | |
| 5. I feel guilty for using non-biodegradable cleaning products, given that I contribute to polluting the environment. | |
| 6. People around me only protest regarding the environment when ecological disasters happen. | Attitudes regarding pollution |
| 7. The increase in the atmospheric temperature is caused by the increasing and continuous use of fossil fuels (coal, oil …). | |
| 8. I would be inflexible concerning punishing environmental pollution offences. | |
| 9. To me pollution seems to be the most serious environmental issue. | |
| 10. It is really hard to reduce pollution to protect the environment. | |
| 11. There is no capacity nowadays for an integrated management of solid urban waste. | Rubbish and solid urban waste management |
| 12. People throw rubbish on the ground when nobody is watching. | |
| 13. I do not know how to generate less rubbish. | |
| 14. When I see someone dropping rubbish, I feel like reprimanding that person. | |
| 15. The waste accumulation from cities is a really serious issue. | |
| 16. Administrations lack adequate means to reduce city noise. | Acoustic pollution |
| 17. Acoustic pollution in cities is damaging for human health. | |
| 18. When I hear very noisy motorists, I feel like reprimanding them. | |
| 19. Local governments should put greater emphasis on noise reduction and restriction. | |
| 20. Locals in my area frequently complain about noise. |
Statistical descriptions of responses collected.
| Items | Mean | Mode | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I.CP.1 | 3.57 | 4 | 0.586 | −1.219 | 1.509 |
| I.CP.2 | 3.01 | 3 | 0.685 | −0.78 | −0.676 |
| I.CP.3 | 3.11 | 3 | 0.711 | −0.333 | −0.439 |
| I.CP.4. | 2.47 | 3 | 0.997 | 0.015 | −1.05 |
| I.CP.5. | 2.96 | 3 | 0.801 | −0.433 | −0.271 |
| I.A.1. | 3.13 | 3 | 0.796 | −0.641 | −0.119 |
| I.A.2. | 3.48 | 4 | 0.628 | −1.060 | 1.177 |
| I.A.3. | 3.31 | 4 | 0.849 | −1.081 | 0.346 |
| I.A.4. | 3.47 | 4 | 0.606 | −0.891 | 0.705 |
| I.A.5. | 2.77 | 3 | 0.867 | −0.177 | −0.709 |
| I.USW.1 | 3.13 | 3 | 0.796 | −0.066 | −0.488 |
| I.USW.2 | 3.53 | 4 | 0.622 | −0.991 | −0.062 |
| I.USW.3 | 2.49 | 2 | 0.961 | 0.025 | −0.944 |
| I.USW.4 | 3.31 | 4 | 0.849 | −1.081 | 0.346 |
| I.USW.5 | 3.67 | 4 | 0.533 | −1.527 | 2.175 |
| I.AP.1 | 2.52 | 3 | 0.977 | −0.039 | −0.911 |
| I.AP.2 | 3.54 | 4 | 0.566 | −0.894 | 0.416 |
| I.AP.3 | 3.19 | 4 | 0.971 | −0.924 | −0.319 |
| I.AP.4 | 3.44 | 4 | 0.651 | −0.835 | −0.053 |
| I.AP.5 | 1.89 | 1 | 0.950 | 0.646 | −0.745 |
Note: SD = Standard deviation. CP: Chemical pollution; SUW: Solid urban waste; AP: attitudes towards pollution; AP: Acoustic pollution.
Figure 1Detection of outliers in the answers collected.
Conduction of non-parametric tests item-sex and its level of significance.
| Item-Gender | Average Range | Sum of Ranges | U Mann-Whitney | W. Wilcoxon | Z | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I.1 | Male | 150.11 | 11,859 | 8699 | 11,859 | −0.531 | 0.596 |
| Female | 155.35 | 35,419 | |||||
| I.2 | Male | 150.67 | 11,903 | 8743 | 11,903 | −0.428 | 0.669 |
| Female | 155.15 | 35,375 | |||||
| I.3 | Male | 159.99 | 12,639 | 8533 | 8533 | −0.746 | 0.456 |
| Female | 151.93 | 34,639 | |||||
| I.4 | Male | 154.31 | 12,190.50 | 8981 | 8981 | −0.039 | 0.969 |
| Female | 153.89 | 35,087.50 | |||||
| I.5 | Male | 150.90 | 11,921 | 8761 | 8761 | −0.376 | 0.707 |
| Female | 155.07 | 35,357 | |||||
| I.6 | Male | 146.39 | 11,564.50 | 7804 | 7804 | −2.007 | 0.044 |
| Female | 156.64 | 35,713.50 | |||||
| I.7 | Male | 142.85 | 11,285.50 | 8125 | 8125 | −1.419 | 0.156 |
| Female | 157.86 | 35,992.50 | |||||
| I.8 | Male | 164.47 | 12,993 | 8179 | 8179 | −1.265 | 0.206 |
| Female | 150.37 | 34,285 | |||||
| I.9 | Male | 154.58 | 12,212 | 8960 | 8960 | −0.078 | 0.938 |
| Female | 153.80 | 35,066 | |||||
| I.10 | Male | 150.37 | 11,879 | 8719 | 8719 | −0.489 | 0.625 |
| Female | 155.26 | 35,399 | |||||
| I.11 | Male | 137.35 | 10,851 | 7691 | 7691 | −2.103 | 0.035 |
| Female | 159.77 | 36,427 | |||||
| I.12 | Male | 146.36 | 11,562.50 | 8402 | 8402.50 | −0.958 | 0.338 |
| Female | 156.65 | 35,715.50 | |||||
| I.13 | Male | 145.40 | 11,486.50 | 8326 | 8326.50 | −1.123 | 0.261 |
| Female | 156.98 | 35,791.50 | |||||
| I.14 | Male | 172.63 | 13,638 | 7534 | 7534 | −2.261 | 0.024 |
| Female | 147.54 | 33,640 | |||||
| I.15 | Male | 172.85 | 13,655 | 7517 | 7517 | −2.325 | 0.020 |
| Female | 147.47 | 33,623 | |||||
| I.16 | Male | 129.81 | 10,255 | 7095 | 7095 | −3.099 | 0.002 |
| Female | 162.38 | 37,023 | |||||
| I.17 | Male | 141.65 | 11,190 | 8030 | 8030 | −1.631 | 0.103 |
| Female | 158.28 | 36,088 | |||||
| I.18 | Male | 167.56 | 13,237 | 7934 | 7934.50 | −1.680 | 0.093 |
| Female | 149.30 | 34,040 | |||||
| I.19 | Male | 151.94 | 12,003 | 8843 | 8843 | −0.254 | 0.800 |
| Female | 154.71 | 35,275 | |||||
| I.20 | Male | 144.32 | 11,401.50 | 8241 | 8241.50 | −1.419 | 0.156 |
| Female | 157.35 | 35,876.50 | |||||
Note: Z = Wilcoxon statistic; P: p value.
Figure 2Structural equation model with regression weights. Note: CP: Chemical pollution; SUW: Solid urban waste; ATT: Attitudes towards pollution; AP: Acoustic pollution.
Weights and standardised regression weights.
| Items | R.W | SRW | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimations | SE | CR | Estimations | ||
| ICP1 | 1.00 | 0.539 | |||
| ICP2 | 0.857 | 0.170 | 5.053 | 0.395 | *** |
| ICP3 | 0.960 | 0.180 | 5.347 | 0.426 | *** |
| ICP4 | −0.112 | 0.214 | −0.522 | −0.035 | 0.042 |
| ICP5 | 1.119 | 0.204 | 5.475 | 0.441 | *** |
| ISUW1 | 1.00 | 0.117 | |||
| ISUW2 | 1.936 | 1.153 | 1.679 | 0.296 | 0.039 |
| ISUW3 | 0.806 | 0.800 | 1.008 | 0.080 | 0.032 |
| ISUW4 | 3.477 | 2.009 | 1.731 | 0.389 | 0.047 |
| ISUW5 | 2.764 | 1.572 | 1.758 | 0.492 | 0.019 |
| IA1 | 1.000 | 0.300 | |||
| IA2 | 1.446 | 0.359 | 4.026 | 0.551 | *** |
| IA3 | 0.711 | 0.290 | 2.447 | 0.197 | 0.022 |
| IA4 | 1.316 | 0.332 | 3.970 | 0.519 | *** |
| IA5 | 0.507 | 0.271 | 1.872 | 0.140 | 0.041 |
| IAP1 | −0.324 | 0.848 | −0.382 | −0.027 | 0.044 |
| IAP2 | 4.198 | 3.319 | 1.265 | 0.600 | *** |
| IAP3 | 5.719 | 4.546 | 1.258 | 0.477 | *** |
| IAP4 | 5.875 | 4.636 | 1.267 | 0.730 | 0.022 |
| IAP5 | 1.000 | 0.085 | |||
Note: RW = Regression Weights, SRW = Standardised Regression Weights; SE = Estimation of Error; CR = Critical Ratio. ICP: Item chemical pollution; ISUW: Item solid urban waste; IA: Item attitudes towards pollution; IAP: Item acoustic pollution.