Embed Size (px)
MEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY
IN FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA, AND MOORHEAD, MINNESOTA
A Paper Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the North Dakota State University
of Agriculture and Applied Science
By
Ruth M. Lewis
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Major Program: Natural Resources Management
Major Department: Communication
March 2008
Fargo, North Dakota
ii
Spacer for graduate school signature form – remove before printing
iii
ABSTRACT
Lewis, Ruth M., M.S., Program of Natural Resource Management, College of Graduate and Interdisciplinary Studies, North Dakota State University, March 2008. Measuring Environmental Literacy in Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota. Major Professor: Dr. Mark Meister. Environmental literacy has been a topic of discussion among educators and
natural resource managers since the late 1960s. The topic has encompassed many
perspectives about how to define the term, how to teach it, and how to measure it. This
research surveyed randomly selected residents from Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead,
Minnesota. The survey measured the participants’ knowledge of general environmental
issues from a local, regional, and national perspective. The study found that survey
participants were somewhat aware of environmental issues, as well as displayed attitudes
and behaviors similar to other measures of environmental literacy. This study provides a
summary of findings regarding how the respondents learn about the environment and how
they would prefer to learn. The information gathered through this survey will be useful for
public agencies and organizations in developing and maintaining public outreach
programs.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank John Reber, NDSU Graduate Student who assisted me with
the statistic calculations and his time in helping me develop the questions for this survey. I
would also like to thank Linda Charlton of the Group Decision Center for her time and
effort in developing and managing the on line survey.
I would also like to extend a special thanks to the members of my graduate
committee: Dr. Charles Okigbo, Dr. Carolyn Grygiel, Dr. Gary Goreham, and my advisor,
Dr. Mark Meister. They have each in their own way helped me through this endeavor to
pursue my degree and I appreciate their enthusiasm for this particular research.
v
DEDICATION
To my husband and son
Who have stood by me in this long pursuit and who also believe –
The development of an environmentally conscious society is necessary
for the good of the Earth and humankind.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... iv
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE.......................................................... 1
Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 4
The Evolution of Environmental Literacy ......................................................................... 4
Environmental Literacy Theory ........................................................................................... 5
Public School Education ..................................................................................................... 8
Barriers to Public Education ............................................................................................... 9
The Need for Environmental Education ........................................................................... 10
Environmental Literacy versus Conservation Literacy ..................................................... 11
Measuring Environmental and Conservation Literacy ..................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 16
Data Collection.................................................................................................................. 16
Identifying the Survey Participant Pool ............................................................................ 17
Survey Instrument ............................................................................................................. 19
Development of Survey Questions ................................................................................... 19
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS ................................................................................................ 21
Demographic Questions ................................................................................................... 21
vii
Environmental Education .................................................................................................. 21
Level of Contact with Agency or Organization Personnel and how Environmental Information is Received .................................................................................................... 23 Knowledge of Agency/Organization Presence ................................................................. 25
Basic Knowledge of Water Quality Issues ....................................................................... 27
Questions Regarding the Red River................................................................................. 29
Land Conservation Questions .......................................................................................... 31
General Knowledge of the Fargo Area ........................................................................... 313
Recycling Questions ......................................................................................................... 34
Saving Resources ............................................................................................................. 35
Outdoor Activities .............................................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 38
Refined Responses for Attitudes Toward Environmental Education ............................... 38
Refined Responses to Receiving Information and Preferences ...................................... 40
Refined Results Regarding Factual Knowledge .............................................................. 46
Refined Results for Recycling and Saving Resources .................................................. 477
Discussion of Results Related to Environmental Literacy ............................................... 49
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 54
Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 54
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 54
Utility and Prospects for Future Research ....................................................................... 55
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 57
APPENDIX 1. SURVEY ANNOUNCEMENT ................................................................. 61
APPENDIX 2. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ........................................................................ 62
APPENDIX 3. WRITTEN RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS ............................. 70
viii
APPENDIX 4. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD ........................................................ 79
APPENDIX 5. DATA TABLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND RECYCLING ......................................................................................................... 80
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Responses to demographic-related questions ................................................... 22
Page
2. Respondents’ perspective about environmental education and their
own level of participation.................................................................................... 23 3. Level of contact with agency or organization staff .............................................. 24 4. Measurements of current and preferred ways of receiving
environmental information .................................................................................. 25 5. Respondents' awareness of what agencies exist in Fargo-Moorhead ................ 26 6. Local recognition of organizations and agencies in Fargo-Moorhead ................ 27 7. Level of knowledge of local water quality issues ................................................ 28 8. Level of knowledge of local and national water quality issues ........................... 29 9. Level of knowledge of the Red River .................................................................. 30
10. Measurement of understanding about land conservation techniques ................. 31 11. Level of knowledge of general environmental information in Fargo-
Moorhead .......................................................................................................... 33 12. Level of knowledge of general environmental information in Fargo-
Moorhead .......................................................................................................... 34 13. Measurement of recycling attitudes and efforts .................................................. 35 14. Measurement of action and attitude of personal conservation of
resources ........................................................................................................... 36 15. Level of participation in selected outdoor activities ............................................. 37 16. Measurement of responses relating to having received environmental
education and support of environmental education in K-12 schools ................... 39 17. Refined measurement relating to receiving information based on
gender and age ................................................................................................. 41 18. Refined measurement relating to receiving information based on
gender and age as a separate analysis ............................................................. 42 19. Refined measurement relating to preference for receiving information
based on gender and age .................................................................................. 43
x
20. Refined measurement relating to preference for receiving information based on gender and age as a separate analysis .............................................. 44
21. Gender and age scores for Questions 57-69 (ELScore 1) and
Questions 73-94 (ELScore 2) ............................................................................ 82 22. Combined information for recycling responses based on gender and
age .................................................................................................................... 83
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. What educational components may affect a person’s life (Roth, 1992 p. 38) ...... 45
Page
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
The residents of Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, reside in the
bottom of a 10,000-year-old glacial lake bed. The historic and current wealth of this area
comes from the productive glacial sediment that has been farmed since the mid to late
1800s. The area of the Red River Basin was once dominated by pothole wetlands; mixed,
tall, and short grass prairies, and mixed forests. To a farmer, these lands were only suited
to plowing and draining (Krenz & Leitch, 1998). To the ecologist, these were lands that
provided diverse flora and fauna. The “prairie pothole” region has historically been a major
breeding area for waterfowl and shorebirds along the central flyway. The tall grass prairie
supported abundant populations of unique wildlife species. The riparian areas along the
myriad perennial streams supported abundant fisheries, including the primitive Lake
Sturgeon, that were almost exterminated by loss of habitat and over fishing.
Upon moving to Fargo in 2002, I became aware of a lack of environmental
awareness from the citizens of the community, public schools, and higher education
institutions. I found that there were limited natural resource agency offices located in the
area as well as limited conservation or environmental organizations. The local newspaper
and television stations rarely reported on any environmental issues, especially local
issues.
As you read this comprehensive paper, I am sure that you can tell that I am
concerned about the environment. My upbringing, education, experiences, and personal
philosophy have developed a deep concern for educating myself, my family, and others
about the environment. To the extent possible, my family and I practice environmental
awareness and action in our daily lives. Much of my reason for developing this
comprehensive paper and the survey is because of my concern for the lack of
environmental consciousness in the Fargo-Moorhead area.
2
Part of my perception I am sure stemmed from my experience of working and living
in Colorado and Alaska. By education I am a Wildlife Biologist, by experience I have held
many positions working for the United States Forest Service (USFS) while in college and
after graduation in temporary capacities; as a biologist and wildlife officer for the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, and as a habitat biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. I had always lived in communities that had a greater sense of the environment, and
I detected a void in Fargo.
Based on my observations, I considered that perhaps a community could not
develop an environmental awareness if they were not exposed to conservation or
environmental issues from locally active agencies or organizations. I also considered that
if the local mass media does not provide information to the public, then the public stays
unaware of issues. It is important for the public to have the opportunity to go to an agency
office to talk about local environmental or conservation concerns. If the public has the
opportunity to meet with agencies and organizations then the media would also realize
that there is a need to keep the public informed of issues because of public interest.
As I became more aware of my observations I discussed this issue with agency
officials. Overwhelmingly, agency personnel indicated that residents not only in Fargo, but
across the state of North Dakota were very apathetic or unknowledgeable about the
environment. Agency officials in Minnesota also felt that there was a lack of understanding
about water quality issues along the Red River and also about soil conservation and
farming. I felt validated that my concerns were real, but the question was, how to identify
where the problem of this lack of environmental literacy stems from?
3
Assumptions
This study is grounded in four assumptions. These assumptions provide a
necessary exploratory perspective from which to evaluate and assess the information
contained in this project.
1) Exploratory research, according to Reinard (1998), is often characterized by
recruiting participants to complete a survey or questionnaire and then the results of the
survey or questionnaire are evaluated using only descriptive statistics that show amount,
frequency, or quantity. This project could also be described as a non-experimental survey
design study.
2) I am an advocate of environmental education and environmental literacy. The
teaching of environmental education is a necessity in all K-12 schools; as well,
environmental education should be supported in higher education as general education
coursework in order to continue the awareness and understanding of the environment.
Environmental literacy should be something that humankind is engaged in to become
more aware of the environmental issues at all levels that affect their own person as well as
the sustainability of the planet.
3) This paper will show how the lack of understanding about environmental issues
prohibits humankind from engaging as change agents of environmental action.
Specifically, this paper measures awareness of environmental issues in Fargo-Moorhead,
and in doing so it points out that awareness does not necessarily mean environmental
action.
4) This paper uses environmental literacy in a broad construct as a means to
investigate local environmental awareness. The survey instrument used in this study
includes items that when analyzed do not show direct representations. Rather, this paper
descriptively measures and illustrates environmental literacy awareness.
4
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to report the results of a survey conducted on how
residents become educated or informed about environmental issues in the Fargo, North
Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota area. This paper will show how informed the
participants are about some generalized environmental issues and if they have taken
steps to adopt a lifestyle that minimizes their impact to the Earth’s resources. This paper
will also identify the participants’ knowledge base about local, regional and national
environmental concerns. This paper will not determine if global issues or politics are right
or wrong. Ultimately, the conclusions of this paper will provide agencies and organizations
with information that would be useful to them in determining if their education and
outreach programs are reaching the residents of the Fargo-Moorhead area. It is
anticipated that the outcomes of this research will show a need for more research on a
larger scale so that environmental education programs can adapt to the learning styles of
the public. Because of the assumptions and stated purpose of this project, I will
investigate the following research question related to environmental literacy:
RQ: How knowledgeable are residents of Fargo-Moorhead about environmental
issues and what cultural conditions are absent or present that may impact their
environmental literacy?
The Evolution of Environmental Literacy
In order to proceed with the discussion and subsequent research I will look at the
evolution of environmental literacy in the United States; as well as how the idea of
environmental literacy spawned environmental education in the public school system. I will
cover some of the barriers identified concerning the effectiveness of environmental
education which affects the level of environmental literacy, and the need for environmental
literacy. I will also describe some of the prominent measurements which have been
conducted in the United States.
5
The 1960’s was an era of new awareness of human impacts on the environment
(Eccleston, 1999). For example the fire on the Cuyahoga River in Ohio in 1969 (United
States Geologic Survey, 2008); the book by Rachel Carson Silent Spring published in
1962 which raised public awareness concerning negative impact of pesticides on the land
and water; and of course the “death” (Miller, 1975) of Lake Erie because of eutrophication
from too many nutrient pollutants. These were a few of the noteworthy environmental
problems which led the public and political leaders to realize that there was a need to
place the environment on the forefront of concern and to implement policies to change the
course of events. In 1970 the National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190, 42
U.S.C.) was authorized by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon, and the first
“Earth Day” was celebrated (Cox, 2006). The quality of the environment and the effort
toward getting citizens involved in understanding the environment was now encouraged.
The term “environmental literacy” was first coined by Charles Roth
Environmental Literacy Theory
1 (1992) by his
own admission through his essay for the Massachusetts Audubon
1 Charles E. “Chuck” Roth was admitted into the Massachusetts Hall of Fame for Science Educators(MHFSE) in 1997 and held a long time career in environmental education in New York, Massachusetts as well as around the world; and is a leader in the realm of environmental literacy. (MHFSE, 2008)
magazine in 1968. In
that essay he stated that citizens who were illiterate about the environment, could become
environmentally literate, just as a person could become literate, in the sense of being able
to read and write, through being educated. Roth (1968) initially identified the
environmentally illiterate as the person who is the litterbug or the person who buys non-
returnable bottles. He also identified the environmentally illiterate as the person who
dumps sewage or industrial waste in rivers and builds noisy polluting machines. He states
that the “results of such illiteracy are rivers and lakes polluted beyond use; air rapidly
becoming a hazard to health and in places a periodic threat to life” (pg39).
6
I will begin discussion of Environmental Literacy as a theory from the perspective
that it is a concept which has overarching utilization by many different fields. “The essence
of environmental literacy is our response to the questions we learn to ask about our world
and our relationships….environmental literacy demands understandings, skills, attitudes,
and habits of mind ….”(Roth, 2008, pg 5). “Environmental literacy is the goal of
environmental education. Environmental education is the processes by which people gain
environmental literacy” (Roth, 2008, pg 5). I doubt that Roth considered his idea of
environmental literacy as being a hypothesis to be tested and develop as a theory; yet, it
would seem that Roth’s idea and definition has tested time and in that sense has become
theory.
The term environmental literacy as defined in the late 1960s continues today with
the latest of uses by the federal government; as an example, the U.S. Forest Service
(2007) published the Conservation Education Strategic Plan to Advance Environmental
Literacy
Roth (1992) writes that the term, environmental literacy, was used by President
Nixon during speeches to promote the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act
in 1970. Roth continues that as the term became popular it also took on many different
definitions, as those who were using it defined it for what they needed at the time. Disinger
. This strategic plan will be used by the agency to guide the conservation
education program across the nation. The opening paragraph of this document supports
that the agency has a “role and responsibility to educate people…increasing youth and
adult knowledge of – and environmental literacy about – forests and natural resources …”
(pg 1). The Forest Service document quotes the definition of environmental literacy as
given by the National Environmental Education Training Foundation and Environmental
Literacy Council: “a person is environmentally literate when they have the knowledge of
environmental processes and issues needed to make informed decisions and participate
in civic affairs” (pg 2).
7
and Roth (1992) suggest that since 1968 the term’s use has taken on an “action”
orientation by many agencies and organizations and should be defined in terms that
measure observable behaviors. Disinger and Roth suggest that environmental literacy is
essentially the “capacity to perceive and interpret the relative health of environmental
systems and take appropriate action to maintain, restore or improve the health of those
systems…” (pg. 3). They also describe that there are levels to environmental literacy: 1)
nominal, which refers to the ability to recognize environmental terms, 2) functional, where
there is a better understanding of the interactions between nature and humans, and lastly
3) operational, where the person has a deeper understanding and skill level of the
environment.
Stapp (1969) and colleagues at The University of Michigan discussed similar ideas
as Roth about the “Concept of Environmental Education.” The discussion related the
concern that most of the U.S. population would be concentrated in urban areas, and there
would be a disconnection by the urban population to the rural areas. The increasing
urbanized population would also increase environmental problems in the cities. Stapp, et
al. believed that there needed to be an increase in conservation education as a means to
have increased understanding of issues so that the citizens could appropriately direct their
elected officials to make sound decisions regarding environmental concerns.
Stapp, et al. (1969) identified that a “new approach, designed to reach citizens of
all ages, is called environmental education and defined it as: producing a citizenry that is
knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems,
aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated
Roth (1968) identified that there should be an effort to educate and develop an
environmentally literate citizen. He identifies that an environmentally literate citizen should
to work toward a solution” (pg.
31). Both Roth (2008) and Stapp (1969) show the evolution of the literate citizen as one
who learns and then proceeds to understanding, belief and action.
8
be able to identify, understand and recognize when and where there are environmental
problems. The citizen should be able to make an educated decision about how his action
will affect the environment. Roth continues that the environmentally literate citizen will
determine how to use his time and money to support local and national efforts to take
action on environmental issues. Roth concludes his 1968 essay with a challenge to all
levels of educators, from families to universities, that action to educate the citizenry about
the environment must happen, and there should be a concerted national effort for
environmental education.
Different groups rose to Roth’s challenge. Federal, state and local conservation
and environmental agencies developed Environmental Education programs; teachers
either found their own sources of information, or pursued training, so as to provide their
students with reliable environmental education.
The educational community became highly involved in enhancing this new arena of
environmental literacy.
Public School Education
Science News (1974, March) reported that “environmental
education is coming into its own as a force for educational reform and environmental
conservation” (pg. 145). The article discusses how students of all ages are leaving the
classroom and heading outside to learn first hand about the environment. The article
suggests that environmental education will become a “movement” through the efforts of
federal programs available from the 1970-1975 Office of Environmental Education (OEE).
(NOTE: The first Office of Environmental Education was created through the National
Environmental Education Act of 1970, under the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. The OEE was only funded through 1975, and was eliminated by Congress in
1981. However, Congress passed the National Environmental Education Act of 1990
which authorized a new Office of Environmental Education through the Environmental
Protection Agency (McCrea, 2006)). The significance of students learning about the
9
environment as this article points out is “whether or not a generation of concerned and
technologically informed citizens can be trained in time to meet the grave challenges of
environmental survival that will surely arise within the lifetimes of those concerned” (pg.
145).
Environmental education programs became a new emphasis in public K-12
schools as well as higher education programs with the establishment of the Office of
Environmental Education. One of the earlier groups to organize was the Western Regional
Environmental Education Council (WREEC) which formed in 1970 (McCrea, 2006). This
group developed a partnership between natural resource professionals and public
schools. One of the outcomes of the partnership was the development of interdisciplinary
materials provided to K-12 teachers, along with training, to supplement the education
curriculum. These early program materials developed between 1976 and 1987 were
Project Learning Tree, Project Wild and Aquatic Wild (McCrea, 2006).
Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and into the 1990s, groups emerged to fill niches to
ensure that environmental education continued. Project WET (Water Education for
Teachers) was developed in 1990 through partnerships between the Council for
Environmental Education and The Watercourse Group. To sum up the attitude of the
various groups that were developing programs, the emphasis was on educating the
younger generations in hopes of “developing awareness, knowledge, skills and
commitment to result in informed decisions, responsible behavior and constructive actions
concerning wildlife and the environment upon which all life depends” (WREEC, 1985, pg.
vii).
Braus (1995) suggests that in 25 years of developing environmental education
programs, the world has experienced more environmental degradation rather than less.
She suggests that there are seven barriers to explain why; and most of these barriers
Barriers to Public Education
10
have to do with the formal public education programs. First, lack of acknowledged priority
– the school systems, university systems and most adult education curriculums do not
emphasize environmental education. There was also a lack of priority from federal and
state agencies to include environmental education in their reforms. Secondly,
environmental education is an interdisciplinary curriculum and therefore does not have a
“home” in a defined education field and lacks measurable assessments. Many schools
incorporate environmental education under their science curriculum, which leads to the
third barrier, and that is a curriculum that is teaching too much in too short a time. The
fourth barrier is lack of continued education training for teachers in environmental
education. The fifth and sixth barriers are concerned with teaching to predominantly
younger students about the environment and less to older students, college students and
adults. It is the older segment of society that makes informed choices and creates the
political atmosphere which leads to better decisions for the environment. The seventh
barrier she identified is lack of communication and collaboration among the public, elected
leaders and agencies that are charged with oversight of environmental issues. Agencies
need to communicate to the public the problems that are occurring, elected officials need
to make sure that there are laws in place and see to it that the laws are enforced, and the
public needs to communicate their need for more information.
In the United States, public education is provided to children generally from ages 5
to 18, or kindergarten through high school. Education beyond those years is up to each
individual’s personal pursuit. Some individuals will continue on into traditional college
structure, others into technical vocations, and others will not pursue additional formal
education. Individualized or personal education of the environment can happen at the
adult level through means other than formal education.
The Need for Environmental Education
11
St.Clair (2003) writes that there are important reasons for educating adults. He
cites five reasons from a 1993 report produced by the National Institute of Adult
Continuing Education. Of those five reasons, the foremost reason for educating adults is
1) because it is the decisions by adults which affect what children learn, and 2) there is
insufficient time to wait for the maturing of younger generations before action is taken. St.
Clair suggests that environmental education, and thus literacy, is a social context as well.
Social because people tend to become active about issues that are local and which they
are culturally sensitive to. He also suggests that utilizing environmental education that is
experiential will lead to action, which supports Roth (1968) and Stapp et al. (1969) in their
argument that the environmentally literate person will be knowledgeable and motivated to
action.
Brewer (2001) became the education editor for the Conservation Biology
publication. In her inaugural editorial she describes that conservation education must be
taken out of the realm of only teaching to classrooms of students. Conservation education
must also be taken to the general public. If policy makers do not understand basic
environmental processes how can they create policy that will be effective? Brewer
challenges the profession to think more creatively when it comes to finding ways to
effectively translate hard science which “stimulates the attention, imagination and action of
the general public” (pg. 1204). Brewer suggests that conservation literacy must be
conveyed to all segments of society and it is also important for scientists to understand
how best to inform and educate the public.
The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) developed a working document to
serve as a guideline for increasing conservation literacy (Trombulak, 2004). The term
“conservation literacy” supports the principles, central concepts and values that are
inherent to the field of conservation biology. The SCB supports the intent of conservation
Environmental Literacy versus Conservation Literacy
12
literacy as the same which other scientific professions have adopted as literacy guidelines
for their specific areas of interest. These guidelines were developed so that any audience
seeking to develop a conservation education program would have a structure to follow.
The end result of addressing conservation literacy for the Society is their cornerstone
ideal, that to be a good citizen of any nation, that citizen should understand the human
impact on the Earth’s processes.
The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF)
conducted surveys to measure environmental literacy in the U.S. over the last century. In
May 2001, NEETF published the
Measuring Environmental and Conservation Literacy
Ninth Annual National Report Card on Environmental
Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior
In September 2005 the National Environmental Education & Training Foundation
published
. This particular issue of the annual report card was
titled “Lessons from the Environment: Why 95% of Adult Americans Endorse
Environmental Education.” The opening statement of the Executive Summary, reads
“Although there is a persistent and troubling lack of environmental knowledge among
Americans,…..Fully 95% of adult Americans (including parents) feel that environmental
education should be taught in our K-12 schools” (NEETF 2001, pg. ii). When surveyed, the
adults responded positively that environmental education is a major influence on children
attending schools. Unfortunately, only 50% of the communities where the survey
respondents lived provided environmental education, and 41% of the respondents did not
know if the schools in their community taught environmental education. Additionally, the
report showed that adults want to have environmental education available to them as well.
Overall, 86% of the respondents wanted government agencies to support adult oriented
environmental educational programs. The NEETF 2001 survey identified that of the adults
responding, environmental education was not offered during their formative school years.
Environmental Literacy in America. This was a 10 year summary of the
13
NEETF/Roper Research studies concerning environmental literacy in the U.S. The report
summarized that in the last 30 years professional environmental education has swelled so
that 30 million K-12 students and over 1.2 million teachers participate in some form of
environmental instruction. Additionally, colleges and universities have environmental
programs and adults have access to post high-school education programs. The study also
supports that the media, internet, conservation centers as well as zoos and museums all
offer ways to learn about the environment. The report identified that after three decades of
environmental education being taught in K-12 schools, only 30% of American adults can
attain a “C” grade or above on basic questions of environmental knowledge. The report
also concluded that adults graduating from high school prior to 1970 had a better
understanding of the environment than did graduates post 1990.
The NEETF (2005) report suggests that environmental knowledge is gained over a
lifetime rather than through what is taught in schools. However, this also raised the
question, as supported by Braus (1995) in her discussion of barriers, that environmental
education taught in the public schools is too scattered and is not taught well enough to
provide a knowledge base for children to grow from. The NEETF (2005) report suggests
that older adults may learn from many sources including jobs, television, as well as
interactions with family and friends. The report also found that 83% of children get their
environmental information from the media and that for adults the media is the only regular
source for environmental information. The problem with relying on the media to spread
environmental awareness is that often the information is provided in sound bites and not
in-depth; so that unless the recipients continue to do their own research, they may only be
getting a very small piece of information that may not be wholly accurate.
The 2005 NEETF report concludes with recommendations including: establishing
better state standards for teaching environmental education; providing a progression of
environmental education for students as they proceed from year to year; providing the
14
influential community leaders with better environmental understanding; developing and
expanding education learning centers at zoos, natural areas, refuges, etc.; and lastly
maximizing the use of information technology so that environmental education has a
presence on the internet.
The state of Minnesota conducted two environmental literacy surveys of its
residents and reported the results in 2002 and 2004 (Minnesota Report Card on
Environmental Literacy, 2002 & 2004). The 2004 survey predominantly measured
environmental knowledge and the level to which the respondents accurately identified their
perceived understanding compared to their actual understanding of environmental issues.
The 2002 survey report measured from which sources Minnesota residents received their
environmental knowledge as well as their knowledge level. The 2004 report did not identify
where the residents learned about the environment. For the purposes of this
comprehensive study paper, it is important to note that the responses to the 2002 survey
identified television and newspapers equally at 91%, Environmental Learning Centers
77%, magazines at 71% and environmental groups at 67%; only 31% of the respondents
used the internet as their source for environmental education. The report did not separate
whether the magazines used as a source of information were magazines provided as a
benefit of membership to environmental groups or other types of subscriptions. Higher
income residents (>$75,000) also utilized environmental groups and government agencies
as sources of information at a higher rate than did lower income (<$30,000) residents. The
2002 report identifies that the high response to using Environmental Learning Centers is
because Minnesota has many state parks, refuges and other public lands that provide
environmental education.
The previous surveys were carried out as a way to measure environmental literacy
based on the survey participants’ understanding of ecological terms; behaviors toward
recycling; as well as understanding environmental consequences. Another aspect of
15
measuring environmental literacy was conducted by Pergams and Zaradic (2006) when
they identified the reduction of nature-based recreation at federal and state public lands
and the increased use of electronic media. Through their studies, they showed a
consistent downward trend in visitation of United States and Japanese national parks
since the late 1980s. They also saw an upward trend for youth and adult use of electronic
media. Pergams and Zaradic coined the term “videophilia.” They defined videophilia as
“the new human tendency to focus on sedentary activities involving electronic media” (pg
392). The concern expressed in their research was that people were becoming less in
touch with the natural world and, through loss of contact, were becoming less concerned
with the well-being of nature. Although this particular research did not look specifically at
the level of environmental literacy, the research clearly demonstrates that environmental
education needs to incorporate hands-on learning experiences.
This comprehensive paper proceeds with Chapter 2 covering the design of the
survey. Chapter 3 will present the Results, and Chapter 4 will provide Discussion and
comparison of this research with results from the surveys and other information referenced
in Chapter 1. Chapter 5 will provide Conclusions and Recommendations for agencies and
organizations.
16
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY
Typically a master’s comprehensive study paper would not carry out independent
research, but would instead review the literature and establish conclusions about the
subject. However, the purpose of this paper is to first, identify the level of environmental
literacy of the residents from the Fargo-Moorhead area; secondly, how do they receive
their environmental information and finally, how would they like to receive their
environmental information. To the best of my knowledge and research, I found no formal
survey or reported survey that answers these questions. Upon review of surveys from the
National Environmental Education Training Foundation and the State of Minnesota, I
developed a survey that would capture similar information for comparison, as well as
developed survey questions which pertained solely to the Fargo-Moorhead communities
and the Red River Valley.
This chapter will provide the reader with information about how the data collection
was designed for use as an electronic survey and how the survey participant pool was
developed. This chapter will also provide an overview of the development of the survey
instrument and questions. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of how the results
were developed in Chapter 3.
Data Collection
Prior to any survey collect for this research, approval was requested and provided
by the North Dakota State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) on January 23, 2008
(Appendix 4). As a matter of practicality, convenience and expense, the Group Decision
Center at North Dakota State University was utilized for the survey aspect of this research.
The Group Decision Center is designed to assist in the development of online web
surveys, collate the survey returns and provide basic statistics of the returned survey
responses as well as provide data in an exportable file for further statistical analysis. The
electronic survey was available through a web-link. When the participant went to the web-
17
link they first read the “welcome” letter which provided the participant with a brief review of
the survey and protections they were guaranteed as a participant; then they proceeded on
to the survey with a second electronic link. At the end of the survey the participants clicked
on “submit” which prompted a “thank you for participating” message to indicate that the
survey had been completed.
Identifying the Survey Participant Pool
The largest problem encountered with trying to do an electronic survey of a
community of this size (>100,000) was to advertise the survey expeditiously and
economically. The survey participants needed to be random and convenient. Ideally, the
random nature of the survey would provide the greatest cross-section of the community,
but the convenience aspect was also important for the sake of timeliness and economy.
Utilizing different types of advertising, the generated sample of Fargo-Moorhead residents
responding to the survey also utilized a snowball type of sampling method. There were
five types of advertising methods used to generate survey responses for this research.
1) Mail out advertising
Since North Dakota does not have a voter registration data base, the Fargo City
Auditor’s office was contacted about the availability of addresses for Fargo residents. The
Auditor assisted in this research by providing 24,000 names and addresses of Fargo
residents who receive city water and sewer utilities. Of these 24,000 names, 600 were
randomly selected to receive post cards regarding the survey. The database from the City
was provided as a Microsoft Excel database. John Reber, a NDSU graduate student in the
statistics consulting office, converted the Excel data into a SAS 9.1.3 database which
generated the random sample. This sample was reformatted to an Excel spreadsheet and
mailing labels were developed through use of Microsoft Word.
The postcard announcement mailed to the residents prompted them to read the
back of the card by asking “What’s your EQ?” near the return address. The back of the
18
card continued with “What’s your Environmental Quotient?” and then briefly encouraged
the postcard recipient to find out how much they knew about the environment in the Red
River Valley by going to the website to take the survey (See Appendix 1). Flyers,
business cards, e-mail and word of mouth were also used to advertise the survey to
residents of the greater Fargo–Moorhead area.
2) Posted announcements
Flyers, which utilized the same announcement information as the postcard, were
posted at local coffee shops, lunch/break rooms of businesses and other random locations
that appeared to be attractive and highly public locations. The flyers had tear off tabs
which contained the web link so that interested individuals did not have to copy the
information. Flyers were also given to various individuals at meetings and were asked to
take them back to their place of employment to post.
3) Personal hand delivered media
Two sided business cards were developed that had the same message as the
postcards and flyers. The business cards were given to individuals to use and pass along.
4) Electronic media
Electronic mail (e-mail) was also used to advertise the survey. E-mails were sent
to local residents using the same announcement language as the other printed media. The
individuals receiving the e-mail were given a short personal explanation of the purpose for
the e-mail and asked to participate in the survey as well as forward the announcement to
their electronic contacts in the Fargo-Moorhead area.
5) Traditional media advertising
Classified advertisements were purchased in the Forum newspaper on February
16 and 17, 2008. The advertisements were simultaneously placed in three locations of the
classifieds: snowmobiles, pets and household items, as a last effort to announce the
survey to more residents with various interests. These classified advertisements were also
19
available on the electronic version of the newspaper at http://www.in-forum.com for the
same time period.
Survey Instrument
Overall, the survey questions identified the level of local, regional and national
understanding of environmental issues, programs and causes. The survey also identified
how the survey audience currently receives their environmental information and how they
would prefer to receive information concerning environmental issues. The survey had
some questions that were similar in nature to the NEETF and Minnesota surveys so that
comparisons of national environmental issues can be made; however, this was not the
emphasis of this research. Yet, having these similar questions could allow this research
and subsequent research to monitor the attitudes and understanding of issues by Fargo
area residents.
Development of Survey Questions
The survey which was provided to the Group Decision Center contained 89
questions (See Appendix 2). The questions included traditional measures of
environmental literacy and were developed so that the answers required only a relatively
quick response. The answers were predominantly True or False, Yes or No, check all that
apply, or scale: much-some-very little. There were a few questions that provided space for
written answers. Within the demographic portion of the survey, the respondents were
asked to type in their state, or country (other than the USA) where they had their primary
education. They were also asked to type in their current U.S. mail zip code.
The questions were grouped into eleven sub-headings so that the participant could
identify the change in subject matter. Sub-headings included: demographics, attitude
about environmental education, level of contact with agencies and organizations,
knowledge of agency/organization presence, water quality issues, questions related to
water issues in the Red River Basin, land conservation, general knowledge issues in or
20
near Fargo-Moorhead, recycling, saving resources and lastly what types of outdoor
activities do they participate in.
Data Analysis
When the Group Decision Center converted the survey instrument generated in
Microsoft Word, the number of questions increased, from 89 to 112, because of the way
the software program, Group Systems, tracked the answers for generating the final report.
The final survey report provided by the Group Decision Center was provided as a
Microsoft Word document and the raw data was provided as a Microsoft Excel database.
The survey information was gathered from the Group Decision Center on February 22,
2008. The survey had been available to the public for up to 21 days from the time that
initial contact was made with potential respondents. The Group Decision Center reported
154 completed surveys in that time period.
Chapter 3 will provide the results of the survey using traditional methods of
descriptive statistics. The information provided by the Group Decision Center was hand
quantified which were then turned into tables based on the eleven sub-headings of the
survey questions. After the initial hand processing of the results the services of John
Reber were requested to refine the results. These refined results came from using SAS
9.1.3 Means and Frequency Procedures to query demographic information with other
survey results. The purpose was to be able to have these research results comparable to
Minnesota and NEETF survey results.
21
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS
This chapter displays and discusses the results of the survey conducted between
February 1 and February 22, 2008. The results are presented using descriptive statistics
which are consistent with the exploratory nature of this study. Specifically, the results
presented focus on demographic information, environmental education, contact with
agencies and organizations, receiving environmental information, knowledge of agency
presence, basic knowledge of water quality, questions regarding the Red River, land
conservation, knowledge of the Fargo area, recycling and saving resources and lastly
participation in outdoor activities.
Demographic Questions
Table 1 summarizes the first set of survey questions which were demographic and
included age, sex, level of education; whether the respondent grew up in the United States
or outside of the United States; if the community that they grew up in was smaller than
Fargo-Moorhead area, and if so, was the predominant economy agriculture based or
natural resource based. Fargo-Moorhead and the surrounding area sit in the bottom of
ancient Lake Agassiz. Due to the nature of the Red River of the North, the river frequently
floods and has water quality issues. Question 9 was developed to determine how the
length of residency in the Fargo-Moorhead area may influence the responses to the
remaining questions in the survey.
Environmental Education
The second sub-group of questions related to the respondents attitudes toward
environmental education. The answers are summarized in table 2. Questions 11 through
13 related specifically to whether the respondent had received environmental education in
school or if they had children, if their children received environmental education in school
between kindergarten and 12th grade. Another aspect of environmental education is
22
Table 1. Responses to demographic-related questions Demographic questions 1- 9 Question Gender N %
Q1 Female 77 51.0 Male 74 49.0 Total 151 100
Q2
Age 18 -24 25 16.4 25 -30 18 11.8 31 – 40 39 25.6 41-50 36 23.8 51-60 25 16.4 61-70 9 6.0 Total 152 100
Q3
Education level HS Grad 19 12.5 GED 2 1.2 Bachelor 67 44.1 Master 29 19.1 PHD 10 6.7 Other 25 16.4 Total 152 100
Q4
Country of primary K- 12 education
USA 149 98.7 outside USA 2 1.3 Total 151 100
Q6
Size of community where you grew up- compared to Fargo-Moorhead
< Fargo-Moorhead 102 67.5 >Fargo-Moorhead 49 32.5 Total 151 100
If smaller than Fargo, was the community economy:
Q7 Agriculture based? 73 73.7 Q8 Natural Resource based? 26 26.3
Total 99 100
Q9
How many years have you lived in F-M area?
1-5 years 35 23.4 6-10 years 31 20.6 11-15 years 19 12.6 >15 years 65 43.4 Total 150 100
23
through participating in community events. Question 14 asked if the respondent has
participated in any Earth Day celebration. The question was not specific to time frame or
location. Question 15 asked whether the respondent had participated in a hunter
education program either as a participant, or with their children. Hunter education not only
teaches firearm safety but also teaches outdoor safety, wildlife conservation and outdoor
ethics.
Table 2. Respondents’ perspective on environmental education and their own level of participation.
Questions 11 - 15 Yes No Don’t know Total N % N % N % N %
Q11. Did your children receive environmental education in K-12 schools?
76 50.7 48 32.0 26 17.3 150 100
Q13. Did you receive environmental education? 68 44.7 58 38.2 26 17.1 152 100
Q14. Have you participated in an Earth Day event? 84 56.8 64 43.2 148 100
15. Have you attended a hunter education class? 61 42.4 83 57.6 144 100
Not important
Moderately important Important
Q12. Should environmental education be taught in K-12 schools?
3 2.0 30 19.7 119 78.3 152 100
Level of Contact with Agency or Organization Personnel and How Environmental Information is Received
Environmental education does not always happen in the formal classroom. The
purpose of this survey was to determine how individuals learn about the environment. .
Table 3 summarizes the answers for questions 16 – 19. One aspect of learning is by
having the ability to meet with staff or representatives of agencies and organizations
through a variety of other public means. It was important for this research to determine
how the contacts were initiated. If they were initiated by the respondent, it would indicate
that they were seeking information. If the contact was initiated by the agency or
organization it was important to determine if it was because of a legal nature.
24
Table 3. Level of contact with agency or organization staff. Questions 16 – 19 Has the respondent had contact with personnel from an agency or organization? N %
Q16
Within last month 35 36.8 Within last 3 months 18 18.9 Within last 6 months 10 10.6 Within last year 13 13.7 Over one year 19 20.0
Total 95 100
Q17
Contact was initiated by: Respondent 61 64.9 Agency/organization 33 35.1
Total 94 100
Q18
Was contact because of a legal matter? Yes 5 5.4 No 88 94.6
Total 93 100
Q19
Was contact through a workshop or other public venue? Yes 28 31.5 No 61 68.5
Total 89 100
Hunters who are contacted by agency personnel can become educated about the
laws as well as other environmental or conservation topics. Landowners who are
contacted by agency personnel because of laws can also learn about the regulations that
protect land and water. Question 20 allowed the respondents to classify their contact
experience. These answers are found in Appendix 3.
One of the main purposes of this research was to determine how the public
currently receives environmental information, and secondly how they would prefer to
receive information about the environment. As was described in Chapter 1 environmental
literacy needs to go beyond the formal K-12 classroom. The public must have access and
the ability to continue learning about the environment in order to enhance their level of
literacy. The next two sections of questions provide important information for discussion
regarding how the respondents get their environmental information and how they would
prefer to receive their information. Questions 21-29 asked how the respondents get their
25
information and were given choices including the television, newspaper, internet,
magazines, friends and family, attending public events or workshops. Questions 31
through 40 asked how the respondents would prefer to learn about the environment. The
responses are summarized in Table 4. They were also provided space to write responses
for both sets of questions which are found in Appendix 3.
Table 4. Measurement of current and preferred ways of receiving environmental information Questions 21-29: How respondents receive environmental information.
Very little Some Much Total Mean
N % N % N % N %
Local newspaper 50 33.8 78 52.7 20 13.5 148 100 1.79 Local television news 50 33.1 89 58.9 12 8.0 151 100 1.74 National television news 43 28.7 89 59.3 18 12.0 150 100 1.83 Internet 37 24.7 57 38.0 56 37.3 150 100 2.12 Magazines 48 32.2 69 46.3 32 21.5 149 100 1.89 Friends 43 28.7 77 51.3 30 20.0 150 100 1.91 Family 63 42.0 68 45.3 19 12.7 150 100 1.71 Public events 84 60.9 46 33.3 8 5.8 138 100 1.45 Workshops 86 64.7 40 30.0 7 5.3 133 100 1.40 Questions 31 -40 How do respondents prefer to receive information?
Weekly news column 24 16.1 77 51.7 48 32.2 149 100 2.16 Daily news column 58 41.1 52 36.9 31 22.0 141 100 1.81 Television 30 20.5 70 48.0 46 31.5 146 100 2.10 Internet 24 17.1 59 41.8 58 41.1 141 100 2.23 Magazines 36 25.0 80 55.6 28 19.4 144 100 1.95 Community education 45 31.5 65 45.5 33 23.0 143 100 1.92 Office contact 64 45.1 59 41.5 19 13.4 142 100 1.68 Workshops 62 43.7 52 36.6 28 19.7 142 100 1.76 Conferences 62 47.7 48 36.9 20 15.4 130 100 1.63 Public open house 55 38.2 60 41.7 29 20.1 144 100 1.82 Mean was derived by SAS 9.1.3 Means Procedure
Knowledge of Agency/Organization Presence
The next section of questions 42-47 and 55 & 56 related to the respondent’s
knowledge of which agencies are located in the Fargo-Moorhead and what those agencies
26
responsibilities entailed. There were correct and incorrect answers and a “don’t know”
answer was available. Table 5 summarizes the responses.
Question 48 provided the respondent space to name up to three conservation
organization affiliations that they either were members of or had knowledge of. These
typed answers are found in Appendix 3. Questions 49 through 54 pertained to knowledge
of some local organizations in the Fargo-Moorhead area as well as having a presence in
the Red River Valley. The responses are summarized in Table 6.
Table 5. Respondents’ awareness of what agencies exist in Fargo-Moorhead Questions 42 – 47, 55 & 56: Knowledge of agency or organization presence in Fargo - Moorhead
Yes No Don’t know Total N % N % N % N %
Q42. Is there a ND state water specialist in Fargo? 54 * 35.8 23 15.2 74 49.0 151 100
Q43 Is there a MN state water specialist in Moorhead? 20 13.6 35 * 23.8 92 62.6 147 100
Q44. Is there a Federal agriculture agency in Fargo? 69 * 46.6 17 11.5 62 41.9 148 100
Q45. Is there a Federal agriculture agency in Moorhead?
29 * 19.3 38 25.3 83 55.3 150 99.9
Q46. Is there a ND Fish & Game staff person in Fargo? 73 * 48.7 17 11.3 60 40.0 150 100
Q 55 & 56: Which agency monitors water quality in each state? Minnesota: 72 48.3 Board of Water & Soil resources 28 18.8
Pollution Control Agency 26 * 17.7 Dept. of Natural Resources 20 13.4 Department of Agriculture 3 2.0 Total 149 100 North Dakota 70 46.3 Department of Health 38 * 25.2 Water Resources Board 32 21.2 State Soil Cons. Committee 11 7.3 Department of Agriculture 0 Total 151 100
Q47. Are you a member of a conservation organization?
Yes % No % Prev % Nev. % 45 29.6 65 42.8 9 5.9 33 21.7 Total N= 152 Total %=100
* Correct answer. Prev= Previously. Nev. = Never.
27
Table 6. Local recognition of organizations and agencies in Fargo-Moorhead Questions 49-54 Do you know who the following organizations are?
Yes No Don’t know Total
N % N % N % N %
River Keepers 111 73.0 37 24.3 4 2.7 152 100 Red River Basin Commission 53 35.1 85 56.3 13 8.6 151 100 US Bureau of Reclamation 99 65.1 49 32.2 4 2.7 152 100 US Geologic Service 131 87.3 16 10.7 3 2.0 150 100 US Fish & Wildlife Service 145 96.7 3 2.0 2 1.3 150 100 International Water Institute 29 19.1 108 71.1 15 9.8 152 100
Basic Knowledge of Water Quality Issues
Questions 57 through 66 related to water quality issues in the Red River Basin, as
well as federal water quality laws that all states must administer, so the questions, and
answers are pertinent to both the states of North Dakota and Minnesota. Questions 57
through 61 are directly related to a major problem in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Lake
Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada. This major problem concerns increased nutrient loading
which causes eutrophication of lakes. The level of eutrophication in Lake Winnipeg has
been compared to that of Lake Erie pollution in the 1970’s (Lake Winnipeg Implementation
Council, 2005). The State of Minnesota has declared Lake Winnipeg to be the litmus test
for successful clean up of the Red River from Minnesota’s contribution of phosphorus and
sediment to the Red River, which terminates in Lake Winnipeg (Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, 2006). Question 60 asked “do you use dishwasher detergent with
phosphorus content less than 4%?” The significance of this question relates to the fact
that dishwasher detergent is one of the only household cleaning agents that still has
phosphate content at some level because many states have banned, or restricted the level
of phosphate in cleaning products. Most city sewage treatment facilities do not clean
phosphorus from the sewage, thus adding a significant amount into the Red River or any
other tributary. The answers to questions 57–62 are summarized in Table 7. Questions
63-65 covered topics that are used on a national basis to describe the legal administration
28
of the Clean Water Act. The final question number 66 in this section pertained to a chronic
problem in the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Questions 63-66 are summarized
below in Table 8.
Table 7. Level of knowledge of local water quality issues Questions 57–62 Basic knowledge of water quality issues Question N %
Q57
The term eutrophication is the process of increased nutrients in a water body: True? * 86 77.5 False? 25 22.5 Total 111 100
Q58
Eutrophication means the process of a lake dieing as it gets older: True? 41 38.7 False? * 65 61.3 Total 106 100
Q59
Which fertilizer is banned in Minnesota residential areas? Phosphorus * 78 51.7 Nitrogen 19 12.6 Lime 4 2.6 Don’t know 50 33.1 Total 151 100
Q60
Do you use dishwasher detergent with less than 4% phosphorus content? Yes 37 24.7 No 17 11.3 Don’t Know 96 64.0 Total 150 100
Q61
Is your storm sewer drain marked with an emblem which states that the water flows to a river? Yes 55 37.9 No 39 26.9 Don’t know 51 35.2 Total 145 100
Q62
Fecal coliform comes from which primary source? Failed septic system 8 5.4 Livestock 24 16.1 Stagnant storm water 4 2.7
All of the above * 89 59.7 Don’t know 24 16.1 Total 149 100
* Correct answer.
29
Table 8. Level of knowledge of local and national water quality issues Questions 63-66 Basic knowledge of water quality issues continued Question N %
Q63
The term “impaired water means? A level of water quality…. Below safe to drink 22 14.8 Above toxic to humans 6 4.0 Fails to meet standards * 121 81.2 Total 149 100
Q64
The state of Minnesota lists “turbidity” as an impairment on the Red River? True? * 51 34.2 False? 10 6.7 Don’t know 88 59.1 Total 149 100
Q65
The term “maximum daily load” is used in which context for water quality? How much laundry can be put in washer 1 0.7
Legal level of pollutant in water body * 142 96.6
Number of cattle which can be grazed 5 3.4
Total 148 100
Q66
Gulf-Hypoxia is caused by too much nitrogen entering the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi R. True * 61 40.7 False 18 12.0 Don’t Know 71 47.3 Total 150 100
* Correct answer.
Questions Regarding the Red River
Questions 67 through 72 measured how well the respondents have kept up with
local news reports about the cause of flooding and solutions being proposed for floods in
Fargo-Moorhead. Question 69 was developed to see if the local residents understood the
dynamics of the river system that causes the flood events for the Red River. Question
number 70 asked if the respondent had lived in the Fargo area during the 1997 flood.
Questions 71 and 72 asked the respondents opinion about solutions to reduce flooding in
Fargo. These questions were developed from the proposal to build dikes at the south end.
30
of the City of Fargo and/or to store flood waters in the upper reaches of the watershed.
There was one person who provided negative response to both of these questions (71 &
72) by writing a response in the area provided with question 48. This person felt that this
type of question was biased and unfair and was not a “yes or no” question. The responses
to this section of questions are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9. Level of knowledge of the Red River Questions 67-72 Pertain to knowledge regarding the Red River Question N %
Q67
A watershed is where all the water flows to a low point True? * 111 84.1 False? 21 15.9
Total 132 100
Q68
How long ago did the glacier retreat that created Lake Agassiz? 1 million years 20 13.6 300,000 years 18 12.2 50,000 years 9 6.1 10,000 years * 43 29.2 Don’t know 57 38.9 Total 147 100
Q69
The flooding that occurs in the Red River valley primarily occurs because of : Ice jams 2 1.3 Spring thaw 12 8.0 Flat gradient 9 6.0 All of the above * 127 84.7 Total 150 100
Q70
Did you live in Fargo during the 1997 flood? Yes 89 59.7 No 60 40.3 Total 149 100
Q71
Do you believe the solution to reduce flooding in Fargo is to build more dikes? Yes 35 25.9 No 100 74.1 Total 135 100
Q72
Do you believe the solution to reduce flooding in Fargo is to store water in the upper reaches? Yes 78 66.1 No 40 33.9 Total 118 100
* Correct answer.
31
Land Conservation Questions
Questions 73 through 76 were developed to see how much residents understand
maintaining the integrity of the native vegetation and soils along the Red River and other
tributaries. Questions 77–82 measured the understanding of residents to effective
protection of soil and water through the use of vegetation. The final set of questions for
this section measured the understanding of the survey audience regarding the impacts to
water quality from urbanization. Questions 73–85 are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10. Measurement of understanding about land conservation techniques Questions 73–85 Understanding land conservation Question N %
Q73
Native grasses should be used near the rivers edge to reduce soil slumping? True * 132 94.3 False 8 5.7 Total 140 100
Q74
All vegetation should be mowed/grazed up to the rivers edge to reduce soil slumping? True 7 5.0 False * 132 95.0 Total 139 100
Q75
Concrete should be dumped along river banks to protect if from erosion? True 11 7.8 False * 130 92.2 Total 141 100
Q76
Trees and shrubs can be used to protect river banks from eroding? True * 133 95.0 False 7 5.0 Total 140 100
Vegetative buffer strips are used for: Answer true or false for each statement
Q77
Uncropped grassy vegetation along field edges to stop soil loss from fields. True * 121 93.1 False 9 6.9 Total 130 100
32
Table 10. (continued) Question N %
Q78
Are found within farmed fields and along roads to reduce gully erosion True * 112 88.9 False 14 11.1 Total 126 100
Q79
To create visual barriers so people cannot see into home-owners yards. True 33 26.2 False * 93 73.8 Total 126 100
Tree and shrub windbreaks are most commonly used for? True or False
Q80
In agricultural land to reduce soil erosion and trap snow. True * 139 97.9 False 3 2.1 Total 142 100
Q81
In agricultural land to act as fences to control livestock. True 21 15.1 False * 118 84.9 Total 139 100
Q82
Along highways to reduce blowing snow across roadway. True * 113 81.3 False 26 18.7 Total 139 100
Changing land use patterns from agriculture to urban causes what problems for storm water runoff? True or False
Q83
Decreases water infiltration to soil & increases runoff from impervious surfaces. True * 126 97.7 False 3 2.3 Total 129 100
Q84
Creates cleaner, less polluted water to enter the storm water sewer systems. True 16 12.6 False * 111 87.4 Total 127 100
Q85
Creates the need for retention ponds to reduce surges in runoff. True * 118 93.7 False 8 6.3 Total 126 100
* Correct answer.
33
General Knowledge of the Fargo Area
This section of the survey was intended to measure how well the residents keep up
with local news, events and general knowledge of the area. Questions 89 and 90
measured the respondent’s understanding of geographic area and administration of public
lands in the Red River Basin and North Dakota. These questions are summarized in Table
11.
Table 11. Level of knowledge of general environmental information in Fargo-Moorhead Questions 86-95 Ask about general knowledge of the Fargo area Question N %
Q86
The Red River is primarily known as a fishermen’s paradise for which species of fish? Rainbow trout 11 7.6 Catfish * 133 92.4 Total 144 100
Q87
Which fish has had a concerted effort to re-introduce it back to the Red River? Walleye 63 46.7 Lake Sturgeon * 52 38.5 Carp 20 14.8 Total 135 100
Q88
Which species of raptor nests in a downtown Fargo building? Peregrine Falcon* 126 87.5 Bald Eagle 18 12.5 Total 144 100
Q89
Which agency manages the Sheyenne National Grasslands, 50 miles SW of Fargo? ND State Parks 17 12.0 Nat’l Park Service 56 39.4 US Forest Service* 69 48.6 Total 142 100
Q90
North Dakota is situated in the “prairie pothole” region: this is considered critical habitat for which species? Choose one Ducks * 124 86.7 Red-winged black birds 17 11.9 Mink 2 1.4 Total 143 100
* Correct answer.
34
Questions 91–94 were specific to understanding the use of xeriscaping. Question
95 pertained specifically to the study conducted by the US Bureau of Reclamation
regarding future water supply for Fargo and other Red River Valley communities. These
survey questions are summarized in Table 12.
Table 12. Level of knowledge of general environmental information in Fargo-Moorhead Questions 86 – 95 general knowledge of the Fargo Area continues with questions 91 through 95
Xeriscaping is a form of landscaping that uses:
True False Total N % N % N %
Q91 No Plants 9 8.0 104 92.0 113 100
Q92 Uses plants that need little water * 109 95.7 6 5.3 114 100
Q93 Is only used in Arizona 8 7.3 101 92.7 109 100 Q94 Can be used in the FM area 105 94.6 6 5.4 111 100
Q95 Have you heard of the Red River Valley Water Supply Project?
Yes No Total N % N % N % 38 28.3 96 71.7 134 100
* Correct answer.
Recycling Questions
Questions 96–103 measured the actions of residents toward recycling. The
questions not only pertained to personal household activities, but also asked whether or
not recycling was available at their work place. The responses are summarized in table
13. Question 97 asked if the survey participant used centralized recycling centers in
addition to curbside recycling. There were 20 respondents who indicated that they used
both forms of recycling collection. Question 103 provided three choices for the participants
to indicate why they did not recycle. However, during data analysis it was determined that
25 of the 48 respondents actually did recycle. Of the respondents who indicated cost for
curbside, nine used central recycling centers; 12 used central recycling and 3 of the 5 who
indicated they “did not want to” actually used the central recycling centers. Table 13 also
includes the additional data analysis for question 97 and 103.
35
Table 13. Measurement of recycling attitudes and efforts Questions 96 -103 pertain to attitude and behavior of recycling
Personal recycling habits Yes No Total N % N % N %
Q96 Do you use curbside? 44 30.6 100 69.4 144 100
Q97 Do you (also) use central collect? 97 67.8 46 32.2 143 100
Respondents who use both curbside and central collect 20 14.0 143
Total number who recycle 121 84.6 22 15.4 143 100 Is there recycling at work for? Choose all that apply 98 Plastic bottles 52 39.1 81 60.9 133 100 99 Aluminum 92 69.7 40 30.3 132 100 100 News paper 59 44.4 74 55.6 133 100 101 White paper 94 70.7 39 29.3 133 100 102 Glass 25 19.4 104 80.6 129 100
103 Respondent does not recycle because : Time Cost Desire Total 29 60.4% 14 29.2 5 10.4 48 100 Of respondents’ who indicated they do not recycle – behavior indicated in Questions 96 and 97
Use Curbside (also) use Central collect Total
N % N % N %
Time 2* 8.0 12* 48.0 13* 52.0 Desire 0 3 12.0 3 12.0
Cost 0 9 36.0 9 36.0 Total 2 8.0 24 96.0 25 100
* One respondent who indicated that they use both curbside and central collect.
Saving Resources
Nearing the end of the survey, questions 104 through 111, asked the respondents
about their personal actions and attitudes toward saving resources. Table 14 summarized
the responses for this set of questions. Question 110 provided space for a written answer
regarding how long of a commute the respondent had to travel for work The result to
Question 110 regarding commute time, ranged from 1 minute to 2 hours, as well as “over
the road sales” driver. The average commute time was 14 minutes for the 137 responses
which gave time estimates.
36
Table 14. Measurement of action and attitude of personal conservation of resources
Questions 104-109, 111 Actions and attitudes to saving resources: water/electric/gasoline Q # N % of 139
104
To save water do you? choose all that apply Turn off water when brushing teeth 116 83.5
Wash full dish loads 105 75.5 Use appliances with 5 star rating 86 61.8
Use washer with adjustable water level 78 56.1
Reduce shower time 65 46.7 Reduce toilet tank water level 41 29.5
Reduce bath frequency 30 21.6 Total N = 139
105
Do you use CFL light bulbs? Yes 98 68.1 No 46 31.9 Total 144 100
106
Do you turn off lights when you leave a room? Yes 139 95.9 No 6 4.1 Total 145 100
107
Do you consciously make an effort to reduce water and save electricity because: It saves money 31 21.4 It saves the Earth 15 10.3 Both money and Earth 99 68.3 Total 145 100
108
What do you do if you see litter: Pick it up if feasible 131 91.6 Ignore it 12 8.4 Total 143 100
109
For getting to work do you mostly: Drive alone 112 78.3 Car pool 10 7.0 Walk 8 5.6 Bike 3 2.1 Bus 0 0 other 10 7.0 Total 143 100
111
Do you own a hybrid car? Yes 19 13.6 No 121 86.4 Total 140 100
37
Outdoor Activities
The final question of the survey asked the respondents to select which outdoor
recreation activities they participated in. They were provided a list of 10 activities as well
as the ability to write in their own answer. Table15 provides the results of the activities
with the number of respondents; 130 respondents answered one or more of the choices
available or wrote in a response. Some of the “other” written responses included
gardening, walking, running, snowshoeing which can be found in Appendix 3.
Table 15. Level of participation in selected outdoor activities
The fifteen tables provided in this result section show that Fargo-Moorhead
residents who participated in this survey are aware of environmental issues in varying
degrees; they receive their information about environmental issues from several sources;
and they display attitudes and behaviors toward supporting environmental literacy in
various degrees. In the next chapter I will provide a more refined discussion of the results
by looking at how the Fargo-Moorhead respondents compare with the Minnesota and
NEETF surveys. I will also discuss in more detail the ways that the respondents receive
their environmental information and their preferences.
Questions 112 What type of outdoor activities do you participate in? Choose all that apply N % of 130 Nature study 38 29.2 Hunting 36 27.7 Fishing 70 53.8 Snowmobiling 21 16.1 Cross-country skiing 22 17.0 Downhill skiing 27 20.7 Camping 79 60.7 Hiking 70 53.8 ATV riding 21 16.1 Horseback riding 12 9.2 Other 43 33.0 Total N = 130
38
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION
Measuring the environmental literacy of residents in the Fargo, ND and Moorhead,
MN area was directed at identifying the literacy of certain facts pertinent to the local area,
region and nation. It was also directed at identifying how the residents learn about the
environment and how they prefer to learn about the environment. The results of the survey
also provided information into the attitudes of a small portion of residents from the Fargo-
Moorhead area. The statistical analysis program SAS 9.1.3 was used to further refine the
analysis of four question areas: 1) environmental education; 2) receiving information; 3)
saving resources; and 4) factual knowledge. These four areas were contrasted with
Minnesota and NEETF surveys.
The refined results are descriptive statistical analysis incorporating SAS 9.1.3 to
address how age and gender impacts generalized environmental literacy in Fargo-
Moorhead. This level of analysis is consistent with the exploratory nature of this project
and was measured so to provide further information about the demographic make-up of
the survey participants.
Refined Responses for Attitudes Toward Environmental Education
Questions 12 and13 were analyzed to determine how the attributes of gender and
age, or how having received environmental education may have influenced the
respondents in their answers relating to supporting environmental education. Question 12
asked whether it is important, somewhat important or not important to have environmental
education in public K-12 schools. Question 13 asked if the respondent had received
environmental education when they were in school. Table 16 provides analysis for these
two questions based on gender and age and provides the number of and frequency of the
responses. Frequency can be interpreted as percentage of responses. These results were
then compared with the Minnesota and NEETF surveys, both which asked similar
questions. The 2005 NEETF survey further reported that 85% of the respondents
39
supported the government to fund environmental education. The 2002 Minnesota Report
Card on Environmental Literacy
Table 16. Measurement of responses relating to having received environmental education and support of environmental education in K-12 schools
reported that 90% of the Minnesotans’ polled support
environmental education in schools. The Minnesota report further showed that the female
respondents supported environmental education by 96%, while males supported
environmental education by 90%.
Questions 12 – 13 How gender and age affect responses of receiving and supporting environmental education Q13 Did you receive environmental education in K-12 schools Yes No Don’t Know (DK) Total Gender N % N % N % N % Female 37 48.0 26 33.8 14 18.2 77 100 Male 30 40.5 32 43.2 12 16.2 74 100 Age 18-24 16 64.0 6 24.0 3 12.0 25 100 25-30 13 72.2 3 16.7 2 11.1 18 100 31-40 13 33.3 15 38.5 11 28.2 39 100 41-50 15 41.7 16 44.4 5 13.9 36 100 51-60 9 36.0 13 52.0 3 12.0 25 100 61-70 2 22.2 5 55.6 2 22.2 9 100 Q12 Do you support environmental education in K-12 schools Important Some important Not important Total Gender N % N % N % N % Female 64 83.1 13 16.9 0 0 77 100 Male 55 74.3 16 21.6 3 4.1 74 100 Age 18-24 19 76.0 6 24.0 0 0 25 100 25-30 16 88.9 2 11.1 0 0 18 100 31-40 30 76.9 8 20.5 1 2.5 39 100 41-50 28 77.8 6 16,6 2 5,6 36 100 51-60 18 72.0 7 28.0 0 0.0 25 100 61-70 8 88.9 1 11.1 0 0.0 9 100 Q13 with question 12 based on responses without gender and age DK 21 80.8 5 19.2 0 0.0 26 100 No 39 67.2 1 27.6 3 5.2 58 100 Yes 59 86.8 9 13.2 0 0.0 68 100
40
The refined analysis (Table 16) for this research shows that 48% of the females did
receive environmental education, and 83% of the total number of female respondents
identified that teaching environmental education was important. Of the male respondents
that answered the questions, 41% indicated that they did have environmental education in
school and 74% identified that it was important to teach environmental education in
schools. The overall analysis showed that 87% of the respondents who had received
environmental education indicated that it was important to teach environmental education
in K-12 schools. The results also showed that 67% of the respondents had not received
environmental education also indicated that it was important to teach environmental
education.
Refined Responses to Receiving Information and Preferences
Questions 21 – 29 were further analyzed to determine how the attributes of age
and gender influence how the respondents receive their information. SAS 9.1.3. Means
Procedure was used for this analysis. Table 17 summarizes how the respondents receive
their environmental information for corresponding age and gender brackets; while Table
18 provides an overall summary for age and gender as separate groups. The predominant
current source for receiving information was through the internet by both men and women
and most age groups. The second and third leading methods of receiving information were
from friends, followed closely by magazines. The overall responses for the least desirable
way of learning included attending workshops or public events.
When asked about their preference for receiving environmental information, the
highest overall choice of the respondents was using the internet, followed by reading a
news story in a local paper on a weekly basis and from television. The two least preferred
means to learn for all respondents were attending conferences or going to an office to talk
with agency personnel. However, when provided the opportunity to interact with agency
41
personnel at community education events, this choice overall scored a higher response
than attending conferences or workshops.
Table 17. Refined measurement relating to receiving information based on gender and age Questions 21 through 29: How do respondents receive environmental information based on Gender and Age groups Gender Ages N Male 18-24 17 17 16 17 17 17 17 17 17
mean 1.76 1.82 2.25 2.52 2.23 2.23 1.82 1.52 1.47 Female 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
mean 2.00 2.00 1.71 2.14 1.85 2.00 1.71 1.85 1.42 Male 25-30 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 5 6
mean 2.00 2.14 1.83 2.42 2.50 2.14 1.71 2.00 1.66 Female 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 11
mean 1.63 1.72 1.81 1.90 1.54 1.63 1.63 1.30 1.45 Male 31-40 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 11 11
mean 1.27 1.36 1.54 2.18 1.54 1.45 1.70 1.36 1.27 Female 28 28 27 27 27 28 28 23 21
mean 1.75 1.92 1.70 2.14 1.85 2.28 1.78 1.52 1.38 Male 41-50 20 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 19
mean 1.65 1.68 1.80 2.05 1.85 1.70 1.45 1.30 1.36 Female 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 13 12
mean 2.00 2.06 2.00 1.68 1.81 1.81 1.75 1.38 1.33 Male 51-60 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12
mean 1.66 1.75 1.58 2.16 2.16 2.00 1.66 1.27 1.50 Female 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 8
mean 1.83 2.00 1.58 1.91 1.91 1.70 1.83 1.45 1.25 Male 61-70 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
mean 2.00 1.83 1.83 2.33 2.00 1.66 1.83 1.33 1.66 Female 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
mean 1.33 1.33 1.66 2.66 1.33 1.33 1.66 1.66 1.00
Local television new
s
National television
news
New
s Paper
Internet
Magazine
Friends
Family
Public events
Workshops
Mean was derived by SAS 9.1.3 Means Procedure
Table 19 summarizes the preference by respondents for receiving information also
from the perspective in corresponding age and gender brackets. Table 20 provides an
42
overall summary for preference in receiving information based on age and gender as
separate groups.
Table 18. Refined measurement relating to receiving information based on gender and age as a separate analysis Questions 21 through 29: Overall how do respondents receive environmental information based on Gender and Age in separated groups. Gender Ages N Overall male 73 72 71 73 72 73 72 70 71
mean 1.68 1.73 1.83 2.26 2.01 1.87 1.66 1.41 1.45 Overall female 77 77 76 76 76 76 77 67 61
mean 1.80 1.92 1.76 2.00 1.78 1.94 1.75 1.49 1.36 Overall age 18-24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
mean 1.83 1.87 2.08 2.41 2.12 2.16 1.79 1.62 1.45 25-30 18 18 17 18 17 18 18 15 17
mean 1.77 1.88 1.82 2.11 1.88 1.83 1.66 1.53 1.52 31-40 39 39 38 38 38 39 38 34 32
mean 1.61 1.76 1.65 2.15 1.76 2.05 1.76 1.47 1.34 41-50 36 35 36 36 36 36 36 33 31
mean 1.80 1.85 1.88 1.88 1.83 1.75 1.58 1.33 1.35 51-60 24 24 24 24 24 32 34 22 20
mean 1.75 1.87 1.58 2.04 2.04 2.86 1.75 1.36 1.40 61-70 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
mean 1.77 1.66 1.77 2.44 1.77 1.55 1.77 1.44 1.50
Local television new
s
National television
news
New
s Paper
Internet
Magazine
Friends
Family
Public events
Workshops
Mean was derived by SAS 9.1.3 Means Procedure C.E. Roth (1992) wrote that it takes many years for a person to develop a level of
“operational environmental literacy” and that in order to achieve a high degree of
competency is a life long effort. He contends that at any point in time that an individual is
learning about the environment they become more literate. Roth developed a chart (Figure
1) representing, what he describes as the various educational components that may affect
someone throughout a person’s life. Roth questioned whether or not the components of
the “educational system”, as represented in the chart, accepted the role to provide the
43
Table 19. Refined measurement relating to preference for receiving information based on gender and age Questions 31-40 How respondents prefer to receive environmental information - based on Gender and Age Gender Ages N Male 18-24 16 16 17 16 17 16 17 17 17 17
mean 2.00 2.06 2.17 2.00 2.05 2.50 1.94 2.11 2.11 2.05 Female 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6
mean 2.00 1.85 1.85 1.57 2.00 2.14 2.00 2.28 2.66 2.16 Male 25-30 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
mean 2.00 2.00 2.71 2.42 2.28 2.00 1.71 2.42 2.14 2.28 Female 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 9 10 10
mean 1.81 1.63 2.45 2.27 1.81 2.36 1.50 1.77 2.30 2.10 Male 31-40 11 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
mean 1.63 1.66 1.80 1.80 1.30 2.10 1.50 1.30 1.60 1.50 Female 26 26 28 27 26 27 26 26 28 25
mean 1.61 1.38 2.17 1.70 1.76 2.29 1.50 2.00 2.03 1.96 Male 41-50 19 19 20 19 20 19 19 20 20 20
mean 1.47 1.36 2.00 1.68 1.70 2.21 1.73 1.90 1.85 1.65 Female 14 14 15 14 15 14 15 16 16 15
mean 1.64 1.28 2.26 1.42 1.80 1.71 1.46 2.00 2.31 1.93 Male 51-60 11 11 12 11 12 10 11 12 12 12
mean 1.90 1.90 2.16 1.81 1.66 2.50 1.72 2.00 2.08 1.75 Female 11 10 12 10 10 11 11 11 11 12
mean 1.81 1.70 2.08 1.70 2.00 2.36 1.90 1.81 2.45 2.08 Male 61-70 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 5 5
mean 2.40 2.00 2.33 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.20 Female 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
mean 1.66 1.66 2.00 2.00 1.66 2.00 1.66 2.00 2.00 1.66
Workshops
Conferences
Weekly new
s-paper report
Daily new
s- paper report
Open house event
Internet
Talk with staff at
office
Magazines
Television
Com
munity
Education
Mean was derived by SAS 9.1.3 Means Procedure.
education for the stage of life. The consideration that agencies and organizations need to
take from this information is the understanding of how the age and sex demographics of
the audience influences how they want to learn about the environment. The second
consideration for agencies is how to teach to families and not just individuals, because
throughout this research in Fargo-Moorhead learning from family was a consistent variable
for all ages and gender.
44
Figure 1. What educational components may affect a person’s life (Roth, 1992, p. 38)
The Minnesota Report Card on Environmental Literacy (
literate, and were assessed an ‘A’ grade, identified that they gained their knowledge
through using environmental learning centers, environmental groups and magazines on
average 83%. Survey respondents who were most environmentally literate gained their
knowledge through radio, government agencies or the internet on average 64%. However,
the report identifies that the internet is an important source of information for all
demographic groups surveyed.
2002) asked how the
survey respondents receive their environmental knowledge. The sources of information
included: Environmental Learning Centers (ELCs), environmental groups, magazines, self-
taught, radio, government agencies and the internet. Individuals who were environmentally
45
Table 20. Refined measurement relating to preference for receiving information based on gender and age as a separate analysis Questions 31-40 Overall how respondents prefer to receive environmental information - based on Gender and Age Gender Ages N Overall male 69 67 72 68 71 67 69 72 71 71
mean 1.81 1.77 2.13 1.89 1.81 2.29 1.76 1.94 1.95 1.84 Overall female 72 71 76 72 72 73 72 72 74 71
mean 1.72 1.50 2.18 1.73 1.83 2.17 1.61 1.97 2.24 2.00 Overall age 18-24 23 23 24 23 24 23 24 24 23 23
mean 2 2 2.08 1.86 2.04 2.39 1.95 2.16 2.26 2.08 25-30 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 16 17 17
mean 1.88 1.77 2.55 2.33 2 2.22 1.58 2.06 2.23 2.17 31-40 37 35 38 37 36 37 36 36 38 35
mean 1.62 1.45 2.07 1.72 1.63 2.24 1.5 1.8 1.92 1.82 41-50 33 33 35 33 35 33 34 36 36 35
mean 1.54 1.33 2.11 1.57 1.74 2.00 1.61 1.94 2.05 1.77 51-60 22 21 24 21 22 21 22 23 23 24
mean 1.86 1.80 2.12 1.76 1.81 2.42 1.81 1.91 2.26 1.91 61-70 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 8
mean 2.12 1.87 2.22 2.00 2.00 2.25 1.87 2.00 2.00 2.00
Workshops
Conferences
Weekly new
s-paper report
Daily new
s-paper report
Open house
event
Internet
Talk with staff
at office
Magazines
Television
Com
munity
Education
Mean was derived by SAS 9.1.3 Means Procedure
The Environmental Literacy in America (NEETF, 2005) study reported where
adults acquire their environmental knowledge based on information gathered from surveys
in 2000 and 2001. The top three sources for information in 2000 and 2001 were television,
newspapers and environmental groups. Using the internet as a source was rated as 19%
in 2000 and increased to 23% within a year for the 2001 survey. The report goes on to
say that environmental education must be systematic in order to be effective. The
occasional media stories that do not give more than brief information do not promote
environmental literacy which would lead to changes of behavior.
46
Unfortunately, but it seems to corroborate this research, few adults go out of their
way to find out information on their own; they take in what is haphazardly given to them
from various sources – such as watching the news or incidentally reading a newspaper
report. Individuals who are inclined to do their own research about a topic utilize the
internet for this purpose.
Refined Results Regarding Factual Knowledge
To determine overall knowledge of the respondents SAS 9.1.3 Means Procedure
was used to look at two sets of questions. The first set included Questions 57 – 69; the
second set included Questions 73-94. Mean scores were developed for age and gender of
the respondents. Table 21 in Appendix 5 provides data from this analysis. For both sets of
questions males scored higher than females, 74% compared to 67%. The male score for
set-1 was 60% and for set-2 the score was 88%. The female score for set-1 was 49% and
for set-2 the score was 85%. When the overall scores were analyzed for the various age
groups, the 61-70 age group had the highest score (63%) for set-1 questions. For the set-
2 questions, the 51-60 age group had the highest score at 93%.
The disparity between the sexes and age groups are similarly reported in the
NEETF 2005 report. The report shows that in the 2000 survey men knew more than
women about basic environmental knowledge and the 2001 survey identified that men
knew more than women about energy subjects. The 2005 report suggests that part of the
reason for the disparity may include, that on average, twice as many men as women have
education and careers in science-related fields. When it comes to knowledge level of the
environment based on age, the older group (35-54) of survey participants knew more than
the younger age (18-34) in the 1997 and 2000 studies conducted by NEETF. If you
consider that the age group which participated in this Fargo-Moorhead based research,
the 45–64 year age participants would have been the 35-54 year olds in the NEETF
studies. From that standpoint the conclusions that NEETF developed are plausible to this
47
study – that “environmental knowledge is acquired over a lifetime and probably through
the media” (NEETF, 2005 pg 28).
The National Environmental Educational Training Foundation report Environmental
Literacy in America
Refined Results for Recycling and Saving Resources
(NEETF, 2005) states that for Americans it is not a lack of
environmental knowledge that is a problem; it is the understanding of causal relationships
between the facts and how an individual’s action may have an affect on clean water or
loss of species. Schultz (as cited in NEETF, 2005) analyzed responses of households
where educational materials had been provided which explained the need to recycle, and
then measured the effort of recycling by that household. The end results showed that little
more was recycled, and what action had been initiated by the households was short-term.
The research by Schultz determined that people want to do what others are doing.
Therefore, if someone sees someone else recycling or making an effort to reduce
consumption of water or electricity, or any other action, then they will be more likely to
change their behavior. Public campaigns to change behavior should show through media
or other venues what amount of change is occurring so that more individuals will
participate in the change event. In this way a person will be among the majority rather than
the minority.
Table 13 reported personal recycling efforts, which identified that 84.6% of the
respondents recycle (121 out of 143). Recycling behavior was also analyzed by gender
and age using SAS 9.1.3 Frequency Procedure. This analysis showed that men were
more likely to take their recyclables to community collection points, while women chose to
use curbside recycling. Looking at age preferences, age groups 31-40 and 41-50 were the
most frequent recyclers, followed by the 18-24 year old bracket. Table 22 in Appendix 5
provides the combined analysis of gender and age responses. The respondents for this
survey had a relatively high level of recycling. If one was to consider having a positive
48
attitude toward the environment the easiest way to demonstrate personal behavior I
contend would be through recycling. Per Schultz (as cited in NEETF, 2005) if someone
sees someone else performing the action, then they will be more inclined to follow.
Additionally, recycling is more economical than buying a hybrid car and easier than finding
someone to carpool to work with.
Regarding the saving resources section of the survey (refer to Table 14), the
greatest number of respondents (90%) indicated that they turn off their faucet when
brushing their teeth. However, the least frequently chosen option for reducing water use,
by 23% of the respondents, was to reduce the amount of toilet tank water. When
summarizing the remaining “saving resources” questions, I looked at Questions 104-111
as providing an attitude of the respondents toward changing their life styles to reduce their
impact. An overall average indicated that 57% of the respondents attempt to save
resources and do what they can to help the environment.
How do the Fargo-Moorhead residents compare with other survey respondents
regarding recycling and saving resources? According to the 2005 report by the National
Environmental Education Training Foundation the average national reduction in water use
in the home and yard was 61%, while reducing the use of transportation by car was 14%.
Reported averages for the mid-western region was 57% for reducing water use and 12%
for reducing use of automobiles. This research found that Fargo-Moorhead residents
reduce their use of water by 53% and reduce auto use by 14%. The NEETF survey
reported that 60% of the respondents in the Midwest recycle compared to this survey
which indicated that 84% of the respondents recycle. When it comes to reducing the use
of electricity, 82% of the respondents in the Fargo-Moorhead area take action to reduce
their electricity use, while the national average reported by NEETF was 85% and the
average for the mid-west was 83%.
49
The Minnesota Report Card on Environmental Literacy
Discussion of Results Related to Environmental Literacy
(2002) identified two
important facets of attitude and behavior of the public surveyed. The first being, that
respondents who showed the highest scores in environmental knowledge were
“significantly more likely to have a positive environmental attitude” (pg. 38). The second
correlation regarding behavior with level of knowledge was that residents “perform
environmental activities sometimes rather than frequently” (pg. 38). The Minnesota report
further identified that environmental education is important as a means to an end, namely,
if there is a desire to have more environmental literacy, there must be some form of
environmental education available to the public.
This research could take many forms of discussion about why the participants
answered the questions the way they did. There could be perspectives from the
sociological, psychological and biological disciplines. If we are to look at the pure aspect of
environmental literacy from the thesis perspective of Roth, Disinger and Stapp, then I must
look at the results based on what is the knowledge level of the respondents and what is
their action. I also want to look at the cultural aspects of the survey population as I believe
ones’ roots develop the person and unless one develops their own aspect of life beliefs,
they will continue to conform to their cultural roots. I will also look at how living in the
Fargo-Moorhead area has limited opportunity to actively learn about the environment due
to the limited resource agencies and active conservation and environmental organizations.
1) The culture of the respondents
A great percentage of the respondents for this research have lived in the Fargo-
Moorhead area over 15 years. The majority of the respondents moved to this area from
predominantly smaller agriculture based communities. The majority of the respondents are
highly active in outdoor recreation pursuits. If I were to categorize the respondents I could
say that they view the environment or the natural world to be used for their own purposes,
50
either to grow crops or to recreate. To fully understand the benefit of the natural world to
be conserved or preserved is not of primary importance.
One of the pastimes for Fargo-Moorhead residents not previously discussed in this
paper is the popular activity of “going to the lake”. This activity was foreign to me and my
family when we moved here in 2002. Going to the lake does not entail just going to one
lake for the day to fish or swim or lounge. Going to the lake usually means that they have
a cabin, which sometimes is a second home, or could be a camp trailer on a lot,
associated with one of many, many lakes in the lakes region of Minnesota. As I have
become more accustomed to hearing people say they are “going to the lake” I sense that
there is a long family history and images of the movie “On Golden Pond”2
Action toward wanting to know more about the environment and not having
complacency of issues requires more than just having knowledge. Action is shown through
development of self to know more than what can be learned through sound bites from the
media. Some may argue that searching on the internet for information is action, yet
internet information does not allow a person to ask questions and converse about a topic
with an expert. Information on the internet can be just as unreliable as the media
depending upon the source such as blogs or eye catching news flashes. Action which
could be measurable through this research would have identified more people willing to
emerge. I do
believe that it is this one aspect of summer lake activity that may provide the awareness of
the water quality issues that surround this region. Eutrophication is a known word in the
small communities that rely on the summer tourism and swell of summer residents. There
has also been outward public concern of threatened water quality of lakes because of
increased livestock containment areas.
2) The awareness of environmental issues lacks movement toward action
2 On Golden Pond. 1981 release by ITC Films Inc./IBC Films Production. Mark Rydell film.
51
attend conferences, workshops or public events. These activities take time and effort to
attend and perhaps a monetary outlay in the form of a fee.
The marginal knowledge level of most participants shows that they go little out of
their way to research information about environmental issues which may affect their health
or the health of the environment. They may understand about the need to save water or
electricity (questions which were not asked in this study) yet they only marginally act upon
what they have heard. If the same attitude is taken about their personal daily activities
then the outcome of this research may show that the decisions made at the voting booth
do little to conserve or protect the environment.
3) Lack of knowledge of agencies or organizations on the local level translates to
lack of connection with an information source
Questions within this survey tried to identify whether or not the participants were
interested enough in an issue that they recognized agencies or organizations so if they
were inclined, they could go to or call the appropriate agency to talk about the subject. In
trying to determine how the survey respondents receive their information or would prefer
to receive their information they were offered the opportunity to select meeting personnel
at various locations (public events, office, open house, workshops, etc). Having personally
worked in public agency offices and fielded numerous telephone calls or assisted walk-in
visitors, I can make a statement from professional experience, that when the public knows
that there is an agency in their community, they take advantage of having personal contact
with that agency.
Yet this survey found that having personal contact with an agency representative
was not a priority. I believe that this is where further research would show that in
communities where there are agencies compared with communities without agencies, the
public with access to local staff would prefer to individually talk with someone about an
issue. This survey provided the participants with the option to write about when they had
52
contact with agency personnel as well as why. These responses found in Appendix 3
show that in some instances it was to get information; some of the contacts were from
door-to-door petitioners. Even in the door-to-door contacts the individual must have
thought that they were becoming aware of an issue to have mentioned it in this survey. As
Roth (1992) described in Figure 1, learning is a life long endeavor and it takes many
components including family, organizations, formal schooling, the media and community.
4) Lack of environmental education in public schools
Finally, the question concerning the importance of environmental education is
saved for last. Respondents in this survey support environmental education to be taught in
K-12 schools. Many of the respondents acknowledged that they had received
environmental education, yet the learning process has not continued into their adult lives
as perhaps they think it has. In the Minnesota 2002 and 2004 as well as NEETF 2001 and
2005 surveys, the survey participants graded themselves higher in environmental
knowledge than was actually reflected in those surveys. The survey conducted for this
research did not ask the participants to grade themselves. However, some individuals who
took the survey contacted me later and stated that they thought they knew more than they
did.
If residents in Fargo-Moorhead truly support environmental education then they
must let their school administrators know that it is important. Governments must
collaborate with educators and citizens to provide outdoor learning centers. Children
deserve to have more than a once in a K-12 learning experience to go outside and get
muddy and hear the birds sing. Schools must be able to provide hands-on learning
experiences. These experiences do not have to mean leaving the school yard. Programs
are available through national organizations such as Audubon and The Wildlife Federation
as well as state and federal agencies to create outdoor learning centers on school
property. States must include environmental knowledge in their curriculum standards.
53
Environmental education should also be available to adults as well. Adults need to
keep current with what their children are learning in school so that educated conversations
can be held in the home about the environment. As Fargo-Moorhead and the nation
become culturally diverse, as rural residents move to urban areas and vice-versa,
education is essential to provide families with knowledge of the environment. As this
research has strived to point out, being environmentally aware is only the beginning of
being environmentally literate.
54
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter addresses the limitations, utility, and future prospects of this research
project.
Limitations
This survey was randomly advertised to approximately 1000 residents of the
Fargo, ND, and Moorhead, MN area. There were 154 respondents who participated in the
survey at some level. The survey was advertised to entice the residents to see how much
they knew about the environment: “What is your EQ?”. The biggest limitation of this
project is its limited response rate. It was hoped that residents’ curiosity about the survey
and environmental issues would prompt them to respond. I had hoped for 300 responses
as a way to have a larger response rate for interpretation. The lower than desired number
of responses may indicate that there is little interest in the environment from area
residents while those who did participate in the survey have a higher level of interest in the
environment.
Conclusions
The average knowledge score for all environmental questions was 70%. If this was
a standard grade in public education it would be considered a ‘C’. However, if the behavior
of respondents was graded for their recycling efforts they would receive a ‘B’. For the
respondents of this survey, recycling is the easiest and probably most rewarding
environmental behavior that they feel they can do to make a difference. The second
highest attitude and behavior by the respondents regarded litter; 92% indicated that they
would pick up litter if it was feasible to do so at the time. Therefore the results in some
areas of the survey, like recycling, seem skewed, while other areas of the survey show
that residents know little about certain environmental issues or programs that affect their
daily life.
55
A second conclusion could be drawn from the small number of responses, and
which is supported by the overall response to how the respondents receive environmental
information: from the internet. This survey utilized the ability of the respondent to have
access, knowledge of, and comfort using the internet. One downfall of this survey was that
it lacked an identifying question regarding how the individual learned about the survey.
Subsequent surveys should include additional methods to include phone, door- to- door
and mail out surveys. The number of survey questions would need to be reduced for those
methods.
The third conclusion from this survey should demonstrate that the response from
this small sample of residents support environmental education in public schools. This
conclusion was also supported by surveys from Minnesota and the National
Environmental Education Training Foundation (NEETF). Public education components
should be diversified. Even though the internet was ranked highest for means to learn
about the environment, the survey participants also utilized a diverse method of learning.
All people do not learn in the same way, so education methods must also be diverse.
Utility and Prospects for Future Research
Government agencies as well as private organizations must utilize the internet and
local media sources to get information to the public. Whether or not it is necessary to have
an office open in all communities was not important to the respondents of this survey.
However, considering that there are limited public agencies in this community (Fargo-
Moorhead) it may show a need to continue this survey in a community that does have
easy access to resource personnel in order to test the results.
This survey indicated that environmental education in schools was important. The
survey did not ask how that education should be provided. Should resource personnel be
available or should teachers be trained in environmental education? As discussed in the
Evolution of Environmental Literacy section, environmental education is necessary beyond
56
the K-12 education system in order for effective decision making by adults and elected
leaders. Agencies and organizations must become more effective in their environmental
education approaches to increase the environmental literacy of Americans.
This research needs to be replicated beyond the Fargo-Moorhead area to further
the question “how do people want to learn about the environment?” Research in
communities which have active conservation and environmental agencies and
organizations should be conducted. Countless hours and government documents are
spent to educate the public, but as Braus (1995) states, there is more environmental
degradation not less. Pergams and Zaradic (2006) show evidence that less personal
connection with the environment may mean that people have less interest in the
environment. Roth (1992), Braus (1995), St. Clair (2003) and Brewer (2001) all support
that environmental education does not end with the children in the K-12 schools.
Education must continue through all age groups, cultures and demographics; to
the common person and to the elected leaders. Agencies and organizations must work
toward developing an environmentally literate citizenry so that good decisions can be
made on a personal, community, state and federal level. Education must happen using all
forms of media as well as taking youth to experience the environment so they will not
become immune to the needs of the environment.
57
REFERENCES
Braus, J. (1995). Environmental education: Where we’ve been and where we’re going.
Supplement: Science and Biodiversity Policy. BioScience, 45, S45-S51.
Brewer, C. (2001). Cultivating conservation literacy: “Trickle-down” education is not
enough. Conservation Biology, 15, 1203-1205
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Cox, R. (2006). Environmental communication and the public sphere. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Disinger, J. F., & Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy. Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education
(ED351201). Retrieved October 24, 2007, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b
/80/12/f4/a7.pdf
Eccleston, C. H. (1999). The NEPA planning process. A Comprehensive guide with
emphasis on efficiency. New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Krenz, G. & Leitch, J. (1998). A river runs north: Managing an international river. Location
unknown: Red River Water Resources Council.
Lake Winnipeg Implementation Committee. (2005, November). Restoring the health of
Lake Winnipeg: Canada’s sixth Great Lake. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from
http://www.redriverbasincommission.org/lake_wpg_final.pdf
Massachusetts Hall of Fame for Science Educators. (2008). Charles E. “Chuck” Roth,
1997. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.bridgew.edu/MHFSE/roth.com
McCrea, E. J. (2006). The roots of environmental education: How the past supports the
future. Environmental Education and Training Partnership. Retrieved October
31, 2007, from http://www.naaee.org/about-naaee/history-final-3-15-06.pdf
58
Miller, Jr. G. T. (1975). Living in the environment concepts, problems and alternatives.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). (2006). State of the Red River of the
North: Assessment of the 2003 & 2004 Water Quality Data for the Red River and
its Major Minnesota Tributaries.
Minnesota Report Card on Environmental Literacy (2002). Hamline University, St.
Cloud, MN. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from,
http://www.seek.state.mn.us/publications/reportcard2002.pdf
Minnesota Report Card on Environmental Literacy. (2004). Hamline University, St.
Cloud, MN. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from
http://www.seek.state.mn.us/eemn_b.cfm
National Environmental Education & Training Foundation. (2001). Lessons from the
environment: The Ninth annual national report card on environmental attitudes,
knowledge and behavior. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from
http://www.neefusa.org/resources/publications.htm
National Environmental Education & Training Foundation. (2005). Environmental
Literacy in America: What ten years of NEETF/Roper research and related
studies say about environmental literacy in the U.S. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from
http://www.neefusa.org/resources/publications.htm
Pergams, O. R. W., & Zaradic, P. (2006). Is love of nature in the US becoming love of
electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching
movies, playing video games, internet use and oil prices. Journal of Environmental
Management. 80, 387-393.
Reinard, J. C. (1998). Introduction to Communication Research. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Roth, C. E. (1968). On the road to conservation. Massachusetts Audubon. LII, 4, 38-41.
Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the
59
1990s. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and
Environmental Education. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&ERICExtSearch_
SearchValue_0=Environmental+literacy%3A+its+roots+evolution+and+directions+i
n+the+1990s&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=kw&_pageLabel=ERICSearchResu
lt&newSearch=true&rnd=1193234895734&searchtype=basic .
Roth, C. E. (2008). A questioning framework for shaping environmental literacy. Retrieved
April 1, 2008, from http://www.anei.org/download/82_questioning.pdf
Science News. (1974). Environmental protection through education, Science News,
105, 9, 145-146.
Stapp, W. B., Bennett, D., Bryan, Jr. W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J. M., Nowak, P., Swan,
J., Wall, R., & Havlick, S. (1969).The Concept of environmental education. The
Journal of Environmental Education 1, 1,30-31.
St. Clair, R. (2003). Words for the world: Creating critical environmental literacy for
adults. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education. 99, 69-79.
Trombulak, S. C., Omland, K. S., Robinson, J. A., Lusk, J. J., Fleischner, T. L., Brown, G.,
& Domroese, M. (2004). Principles of conservation biology: Recommended
guidelines for conservation literacy from the education committee of the society for
conservation biology. Conservation Biology. 18, 5, 1180-1190
United States Geological Service (USGS). (2008). The Cuyahoga River Watershed:
Restoring an American Heritage River. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from
http://www.water.usgs.gov/owq/cleanwatersuccess/cuyahoga.html.
United States Forest Service. (2007). Conservation education strategic plan to advance
environmental literacy: 2007-2012. United States Department of Agriculture.
60
Forest Service. FS-879, March 2007. Retrieved October 22, 2007. from
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/ce/spring2007conference/materials/CE_strategic_plan
_FINAL.pdf
Western Regional Environmental Education Council. (1985). Project Wild. USA
61
APPENDIX 1. SURVEY ANNOUNCEMENT
What’s Your EQ?
What’s Your Environmental Quotient?
How smart are you about environmental issues
in the Red River Regions and Beyond?
You are invited to participate in a survey,
facilitated by a NDSU Department of Natural
Resources and Communications graduate student.
Go to this website link to learn more
and take the survey:
http://www.ndsu.edu/gdc/Surveys/gdc1509/welcome.htm
The survey should take less than 15 minutes and it collects
no data that can be used to identify you and will
greatly help this research.
Thank You for your interest and Participation
62
APPENDIX 2. SURVEY INSTRUMENT
NDSU RESEARCH STUDY
WHAT IS YOUR “EQ” – ENVIRONMENTAL QUOTIENT?
Dear Fargo resident,
My name is Ruth Lewis. I am a graduate student at North Dakota State University,
in the Natural Resources Management and Communications Departments. I am
conducting a research project to determine the level of knowledge and understanding of
environmental issues in the Red River Valley area. Results of this study will help resource
agencies and organizations determine how the public learns about the environment.
You are invited to participate in this research project. Your participation is entirely
voluntary, and you may decline or withdraw from participation at any time, without penalty.
If you decide to participate please click on the link
http://www.ndsu.edu/gdc/Surveys/gdc1509/welcome.htm to advance to the survey
questions.
It should take you less than 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The
questions are mostly True/False, Check all that apply and Yes/No. There are a few
questions where you have the opportunity to provide additional information. At the end of
the survey there will be a “submit” tab and the survey is completed.
This is an entirely anonymous survey however there area a few demographic
questions. If you have any questions about this project, please call me at 701-298-3579,
or call my advisor, Dr. Mark Meister, 701-231-7635 or [email protected] or my
email, Ruth[email protected]. If you have questions about the rights of human
participants in research, or to report a problem, contact the NDSU IRB Office, 701-231-
8908 or [email protected].
Thank you for your participation in this research. If you wish to receive a copy of
the results please email me – [email protected].
63
Demographic information is important to surveyors. It helps researchers identify
which public groups understands or pays attention to the respective issues. Since this is an anonymous survey, I hope you will provide information on? 1) Gender: Male__________ Female____ 2) Age: 18 to 24_____25-30____31-40______41-50______51-60______ 61- 70_____over age 70_______ 3) What is your highest education attainment? High school graduate _____ GED ______ College degree: Bachelor ________ Master _______PHD _______ or other level of education ______________ 4) Did you grow up in the United States _____ or outside of the United States ______? 5) Please provide which state or country your K-12 education primarily took place _________________state or, _______________________country 6) Did you primarily grow up in a community smaller than the Fargo-Moorhead urban area (pop. 100,000)? _______Yes _______No If smaller than Fargo-Moorhead - 7) Did you grow up in a rural agriculture community? _______Yes ______No 8) Did you grow up in a rural natural resource economy based community? (timber, fishing, mining, recreation, etc.) ______ Yes ______ No 9) How long have you lived in the Fargo-Moorhead area ________1-5years ________6-10 yrs _________ 11-15 years _____+ 15 yrs 10) Please provide your residential zip-code _______________ The following questions will identify your attitude toward environmental education. 11) Do you have, or have you had, children in K-12 schools that are/were taught environmental education as part of their curriculum? _____Y ____N _______don’t know 12) How do you feel about K-12 schools teaching environmental education? _____important ______moderately important ________not important 13) Did you receive any environmental education in K-12 schooling? _____ Yes ______ No ______ don’t know 14) Have you participated in any earth day celebration events since its inception in 1970? _____Yes _______No
64
15) Have you participated in, or attended with your children, in a Hunter Education Course? ______Yes ______No The following questions will measure your level of contact with agency/organizations and how you receive environmental information. 16) Have you had contact with personnel from a state or federal conservation or environmental protection agency or non-governmental organization? Check the most recent contact in: _______ the last month______ 3months_____6months _____ 1year ______ 1 year + If you checked any of the above please proceed to questions 17, 18 and 19, otherwise skip to question 20 17) Who initiated the contact __________yourself, or _________agency/organization? 18) Was the contact initiated because of a legal matter _____yes _____no? 19) Was the contact through a workshop or other (please name) public learning experience _____ yes ____no? 20) Other ___________________________________________________ How do you receive information concerning environmental and conservation topics? 21) - from local television news ______ much ______some ______very little 22) -from national television news _____ much _____some ______very little 23) -from local newspaper _______ much ______some ______very little 24) -from the internet ________ much _______some _________very little 25) -from magazines ________ much _______some _______very little 26) -from friends _______ much _______some _______very little 27) -from family _________ much _______some _______very little 28) -by attending public events such as home and garden shows/sportsmen shows/Big Iron _______ much _______some _________very little 29) -by attending workshops ________ much _______some _______very little 30) -other (please type answer) _______________________ How would you prefer to learn more about the environment ? 31) -attend workshops? ______much ________some _______very little 32) -attend conferences _____ much ________some _______very little -read an environmental report in the newspaper on a: 33) a) weekly basis ______ much ________some _______very little 34) b) daily basis ______ much ________some _______very little 35) -be able to meet with personnel from conservation agencies in your community at an open house event ______ much ________some _______very little 36) -have better access to internet information ____ much ____some ____very little 37) -be able to go to an office and talk with agency personnel ______ much ________some _______very little
65
38) -through magazines _______ much ________some _______very little 39) -from television ______ much ________some _______very little 40) -attend community education programs _____much _____some ______very little 41) -other _________________________________________________ The Following questions will identify your knowledge of agency/organization presence: 42) Do you know if there is a North Dakota state water quality specialist located in Fargo _____Y ______N ______don’t know 43) Do you know if there is a Minnesota state water quality specialist located in Moorhead ____Y____N _______don’t know 44) Do you know if there is a federal agency in Fargo that works with agriculture producers for land conservation programs? ____Y _____N ______don’t know 45) Do you know if there is a federal agency in Moorhead that works with agriculture producers for land conservation programs? ____Y ____N ______don’t know 46) Do you know if there is a North Dakota State Game and Fish Agency staff person in Fargo? _____Y _____N _____don’t know 47) Are you a member of any conservation or environmental organization? For example: Audubon, Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, Nature Conservancy….. Yes_____ No_______ in the past ________ Never _________. 48) Please name the organizations (max of three) ______________________________ 49) Do you know who the group “River Keepers is” ? _______Y ______ N 50) Do you know who the “Red River Basin Commission is”? _______Y______ N 51) Have you heard of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation? _______Y ______ N 52) Have you heard of the U.S. Geological Survey? _______Y ______ N 53) Have you heard of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? _______Y ______ N 54) Do you know who the “International Water Institute” is? _______Y ______ N Do you know which agency monitors the health of the surface and ground water quality? Please select one agency from the following: 55) Minnesota: MN Department of Natural Resources ______ MN Department of Agriculture _______ MN Pollution Control Agency _______ MN Board of Water and Soil Resources _______ Don’t know __________ 56) North Dakota: ND Department of Agriculture, ________ ND State Soil Conservation Committee ________ ND Department of health ________ ND Water Resources Board ______ Don’t know _______
66
The following questions will identify your basic knowledge of water quality issues in the Red River Valley and nation. The term eutrophication means? Answer True or False to each statement 57) A ______ the process of increased nutrients accumulating in a water body. 58) B ______ the process of a lake dieing as it gets older. 59) The State of Minnesota bans one of these common fertilizer elements for residential application. Do you know which one? (choose one) _______phosphorus ________nitrogen ________lime ________don’t know 60) Do you use dishwasher detergent with phosphorus content below 4%? ____Yes ____ No ______don’t know 61) Storm sewer drains, in residential areas with curb and gutter, flow directly to surface water channels such as the Red River. If you live in a residential area, is your storm drain marked with an emblem indicating this? ____Yes ____No ____don’t know 62) Fecal Coliform is a type of bacteria that comes from which primary source? (choose one) A ____ failed septic systems B ____Livestock C ____Stagnant water in storm sewer systems D ____ All of the above E ____ Don’t know 63) The term “impaired waters” means? – check the best answer A ____a level of water quality below a level that has been deemed safe to drink B ____a level of water quality above being toxic to human health C ____ a level of water quality that fails to meet one or more of standard for a certain pollutant 64) The state of Minnesota lists “turbidity” as an impairment on the Red River? _____T _____F ______ don’t know 65) The term Total Maximum Daily Load is used in which context? Choose one: A ______ to measure how much laundry can be put in a washer B ______ to determine how much pollutant can enter a water body and be legal C ______ to determine how many cattle can safely be in a pasture before overeating the grass? 66) Gulf -Hypoxia is caused by too much nitrogen entering the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River _________True ________False _______ don’t know The following questions regard the Red River 67) A watershed is an area of land where all the water flows to a low point ____True ___False? 68) The Red River Valley is the result of the waters receding from the ancient glacial
67
Lake Agassiz. Do you know how long ago the glacier retreated? Choose one: 1 million years_______300,000 years_____50,000 years_____10,000 years _______don’t know ________? 69) The flooding that occurs in the Red River Valley primarily occurs because of A _____ice jams B _____spring thaw C _____flat gradient D _____all of the above 70) Did you live in the Fargo area during the 1997 flood? Yes _____ No _____ 71) Do you believe that the solution to reduce flooding in Fargo is to build more dikes around the city _____Yes _______No 72) Do you believe that the solution to flooding is to contain water in the upper reaches of the watershed so that the rivers don’t flow as high _____Yes _____No The following questions pertain to land conservation A problem among some home owners is losing their homes and/or property to slumping soils along the Red River. The following questions pertain to probable causes for the problem. Please answer True or False to the following statements. 73) A ____ native grasses should used near the river’s edge 74) B ____all vegetation should be mowed or grazed up to the rivers edge 75) C ____ concrete should be dumped along the river bank to protect it from erosion 76) D____ trees and shrubs can be used to protect river banks from eroding Vegetative buffer strips are used for? Answer True or false for each of the following statements. 77) A _____ uncropped grassy vegetation along field edges to stop soil loss from agricultural fields 78) B _____ are found within farmed fields and along roads to reduce gully erosion 79) C _____ to create visual barriers, so people cannot see into home-owners yards Tree and Shrub wind breaks are most commonly used for? Answer True or False to each statement. 80) A _______in agricultural land to reduce soil erosion and trap snow 81) B_______ in agricultural land as fences to control livestock 82) C ______ along highways to reduce blowing snow across roadway Changing land use patterns from agriculture to urban causes what problems for storm water runoff? Answer True or False to each statement 83) A _____decreases water infiltration to the soil, and increases runoff from impervious surfaces such as roof tops and streets 84) B _____ creates cleaner, less polluted water to enter the storm sewer systems 85) C _____ creates the need for retention ponds to reduce surges in runoff from parking lots and streets The following questions ask general knowledge about the Fargo area
68
86) The Red River is primarily known as a fisherman’s paradise for which fish (check one) A _______Rainbow Trout B _______ Channel Catfish 87) There has been a concerted effort over the last few years to re-introduce which specie of fish into the Red River? (check one) A _____ Walleye B _____ Lake Sturgeon C ______ Carp 88) Which specie of raptor nests in a downtown Fargo building (check one)
A ____Peregrine Falcon B ____Bald Eagle
89) Which agency manages the Sheyenne National Grasslands, 50 miles SW of Fargo?
A ______ ND State Parks B ______ National Park Service C ______ U.S. Forest Service
90) North Dakota is situated in the “Prairie Pothole” region; this is considered critical habitat for which species? Choose one A ______ducks B ______ red-winged blackbirds C ______ mink Xeriscaping is a form of landscaping that uses: True or False for each statement 91) A _____no plants 92) B _____uses plants that need little water 93) C _____is only used in Arizona 94) D _____can be used in the FM area to reduce outdoor water needs 95) Have you heard of the Red River Valley Water Supply Project ______Yes _____No The following questions pertain to recycling: 96) Do you use curb side recycling _______yes _______no 97) Do you (also) take your recyclables to the centralized recycling centers ____yes ______no? (for instance, do you turn your aluminum cans in for money?) At your place of work are there recycling bins for: 98) plastic containers ____ Yes ______No 99) aluminum _____ Yes ______No 100) newspapers ______ Yes ______No 101) white paper_______ Yes ______No 102) glass _______ Yes ______No 103) If you don’t personally recycle is it because of: (choose one) time involved ______
69
don’t want to _______ cost for curbside _______ Saving resources check: 104) To save water do you: (choose all that apply) reduce your shower time _______; reduce frequency of bathing _______ reduce the amount of tank water in your toilet _______; use a washer that can adjust the water level _____ ; only wash full loads of dishes_______; turn off faucet when brushing your teeth ________; use appliances with an EPA Energy Star rating _____? 105) Do you use CFL light bulbs _____Yes _______No? (compact fluorescent bulbs – twisty kind) 106) Do you turn off lights when not in a room _______Yes _______No? 107) Do you consciously make an effort to reduce water and energy use because it: (choose one) saves money ______, or because you want to reduce your impact on the earth _________,or both_______? 108) What do you do if you see litter? ______pick it up if feasible, or _______ ignore it. 109) For your primary mode of getting to work do you mostly: (check only one) _____drive alone ____carpool ____ walk ____bike ____ bus _____other? 110) How long does it take you to commute? __________minutes 111) Do you own a hybrid car or alternative fuel (E85) car? _______Yes ________No Next, please indicate what type of outdoor activities you participate in. 112) Do you participate in outdoor recreation such as: (Check all that apply) nature study _____ hunting_______ fishing_______ snowmobiling________ cross-country skiing______ down hill skiing________ camping______ hiking______ ATV_______ horseback riding______? other (please fill in) _____________________________________________ You have come to the end of this survey. Thank you very much for participating.
70
APPENDIX 3. WRITTEN RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS
Question 5: Please provide which state or country your K-12 education primarily
took place. The following answers for states with respective number of responses for that
state include: North Dakota, 67; Minnesota, 44; South Dakota, 7; Illinois, 3; Pennsylvania,
4; Montana, 3; California, 3; Arizona, 2; Kansas, 2; 1 each: New Jersey, Oregon,
Washington, Nebraska, New York, and Colorado. Four individuals provided duplicate
states, and 2 individuals stated USA without naming a state. There were two countries
outside of the United States which included India and China.
Question 20 allowed respondents to identify what their purpose was for initiating
contact with a state/federal environmental agency.
Total Number of Respondents (N): 154
Number of responses to this question (n): 49
1. In New Jersey my husband had a landscaping business. He used and stored
chemicals as a normal part of his business. He had to pay the EPA to report the
use and storage of these chemicals. I think he also had to pay the State of New
Jersey.
2. Fishing Clinic
3. Door to door. Someone from Clean Water Action stops by occasionally.
4. School project
5. I work there.
6. Red River Basin Commission annual meeting
7. I wrote a letter expressing my dissatisfaction that we had to pay for curbside
recycling. It promotes the wrong behavior. Recycling should be free, and there
should be an increase in garbage fees to help pay for it. The more bags people
set out, the more they should have to pay.
71
8. my sister in law started an environmental group at her church
9. EPA /ND Department of Health study of the Sheyenne River is being
conducted--we live on the Sheyenne
10. North Dakota Chapter meeting TWS
11. Fair
12. Development of adjoining property
13. Radon abatement
14. Radon abatement
15. River Keepers ... Ruby boat rides on the Red River and other events/activities
16. door to door visit
17. They offered a storytime for children at the Dawson, MN Public library
18. putting in my opinion on a certain issue
19. VCSU Wildlife Club
20. VCSU Wildlife Club
21. wildlife society meeting
22. Job application
23. Watching Our World presentation
24. Hunting information
25. They were going house to house.
26. Mail
27. Filing a Storm Water Permit
28. Friend in NRCS
29. To determine if property was a wetland
30. Community Education
31. I AM A MEMBER OF A FEW ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
32. Contact was initiated for a work project.
72
33. I know someone personally and the subject comes up from time to time.
34. I know someone personally and the subject comes up from time to time.
35. National Wild Turkey Federation
36. Water Quality group came to the door
37. I am a member in several non-governmental environmental groups.
38. North Country Trail Assoc, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club
City of Fargo
#a56#
39. I was asked to lead a birding tour
40. Minnesota snowmobile safety course
41. I emailed local executive director of River Keepers.
42. Government conservation reserve program requirements for weed control
43. I'm a birdwatcher who checked in with Arrowwood NWR personnel to report a
bird sighting.
44. work
45. Environmental surveys
46. project
47. I was looking for info on tree planting
48. Registration of canoes/kayaks
Question 30 provided text response for “how do you receive information
concerning environmental and conservation topics?”
B) Text Responses
Total Number of Respondents (N): 154
Number of responses to this question (n): 17
1. groups such as Clean Water Action stopping by my house
73
2. I'm a natural resource professional. I obtain information of this sort on a daily
basis as part of my work.
3. Some from Radio
4. my work place has a green team that is great
5. in classes at VCSU
6. Radio - NPR
7. public radio -- MPR
8. classes and research
9. radio
10. radio
11. NDSU Classes
12. conservation banquets too
13. Communications from and my participation in committees of the non-
governmental environmental groups to which I belong.
14. Reading, local and national talk show programs
15. School (Higher Ed)
16. NPR
17. Student and college-related groups and events
Question number 41 provided space for text response to how the respondents
want to receive environmental or conservation information.
B) Text Responses
Total Number of Respondents (N): 154
Number of responses to this question (n): 10
1. through info in employer newsletters
2. From books and e-journals
74
3. Community events aimed at young children and their families.
4. I don't have time to read much so need it available fast and easy
5. Employer
6. Work with others in the community to assess and address local and state
environmental issues such as new lignite power plants being built in ND, mercury
emissions from the state lignite power plants, water quality and quantity in the
state's aquifers, address the building of CAFOs in the state, address power plants
being built within 82 - 100 miles of the Fargo metro area, etc.
7. By participating in actions aimed at influencing decision-makers.
8. no interest
9. Reading that presents both sides of this controversial topic, talk shows that
interview those on both sides.
10. Job integration
Question 48 asked those respondents who indicated that they were currently
members of a conservation or environmental group to name up to three
organizations
B) Text Responses
Total Number of Respondents (N): 154
Number of responses to this question (n): 46
1. Ducks Unlimited
2. Audubon in Concord, New Hampshire
3. Audubon, Sierra Club, WWF
4. My Sisters Farm (local buying group focusing on local, sustainable, and organic
food. Group also share information on related topics such as environment)
5. Audubon's executive director is in the Fargo area. Farm Service Agency works
75
with agriculture and agr-conservation.
6. RED RIVER ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY
7. audubon
8. River Keepers
9. DU
10. DU
11. Ducks Unlimited, North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, American
Fisheries Society
12. Barnes county wildlife club, VCSU wildlife conservation club
13. Wildlife Society, Wildlife Federation, North American Hunting Club
14. ND chapter of the wildlife society,
15. Ducks unlimited
16. North American Elk Foundation, North American Hunting Club
17. Ducks Unlimited, RMEF, The Wildlife Society
18. TNC, SWCS
19. Ducks Unlimited
20. Audubon
21. Audubon, National Wildlife Federation
22. Arbor day Foundation, ND urban and community forestry assoc.,
23. SIERRA CLUB, WWF, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
24. DU
Questions 71 and 72 are very biased and unfair... do not try to hedge my
answer to fit your data. this is not a yes or no question. it is as useless as
asking "do you think kids in HS should be given condoms as the solution to
prevent teen pregnancy?" YES or NO
25. campus environmental organizations
76
26. National Wild Turkey Federation
27. Sierra Club
28. Dakota Resource Council, Western Organization of Resource Councils,
Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Water Action and the Northern Plains
Sustainable Agriculture Society.
29. Nat'l Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy
30. Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy
31. Audubon, River Keepers
32. River Keepers
33. Nature Conservancy
34. National Association of Soil Conservation Districts
35. Sierra Club, NRA, Ducks Unlimited
36. Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, National Resource Defense Counsel
37. WEF, AWWA, ASEEP
38. DU
39. Student Environmental Advisory Council
40. Trout Unlimited, Nature Conservancy
41. Trout unlimited
42. Wilderness Education Association
43. Idaho Rivers United; Nature Conservancy; Union of Concerned Scientists
44. Nature Conservancy
45. Nature Conservancy
46. du, pf ,delta
The last question, 112, asked the respondent about their types of outdoor activities.
They were also provided space to type in activities that were not provided on a choice of
eleven common outdoor recreation activities. Below are their responses.
77
C) Text Responses
1. gardening, walking
2. walking
3. walking, swimming
4. biking, walking
5. Bicycling, rollerblading, swimming
6. golfing, swimming
7. walking. golfing
8. walking, biking, take kids to local parks, ice skating
9. scuba
10. GARDENING
11. walking, enjoying outdoors with children (play - unstructured, spontaneous
play - e.g. climbing trees, hide and seek along river, looking at animal tracks
and feces with books from library to help identify)
12. skating
13. biking, walking
14. Golfing
15. Flying
16. golf
17. canoeing
18. Walking, biking, swimming
19. biking
20. bicycle riding (summer only)
21. snow shoeing
22. WALKING
23. swimming, walking trails, biking
78
24. running/trail running
25. golf
26. walking
27. walking
28. bicycling and gardening
29. Snowshoe
30. jet boating, fly airplanes
31. boating
32. exercise: walk/run
33. motorcycle
34. cycling
35. Gardening
36. running
37. water skiing, boating, photography
38. Boating (kayak, canoe)
39. walking
40. Frisbee golfing!
41. bird watching, fly fishing
42. soccer
43. golf, softball, swimming
79
APPENDIX 4. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
80
APPENDIX 5. DATA TABLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND RECYCLING Table 21. Gender and age scores for Questions 57-69 (ELScore 1) and Questions 73-94 (ELScore 2). Gender & Age N Mean Female 61-70 3 ELScore1 53.8
EL Score 1: for questions 57 - 69 regarding water quality and the Red River EL Score 2: for questions 73-94 regarding land conservation and facts of the Fargo area.
ELScore2 86.4 51-60 12 ELScore1 48.7 ELScore2 88.6 41-50 16 ELScore1 39.7 ELScore2 79.0 31-40 28 ELScore1 54.8 ELScore2 88.6 25-30 11 ELScore1 51.3 ELScore2 82.7 18-24 7 ELScore1 46.2 ELScore2 82.7 Male 61-70 6 ELScore1 65.4 ELScore2 95.5 51-60 13 ELScore1 66.9 ELScore2 94.3 41-50 20 ELScore1 60.8 ELScore2 89.8 31-40 11 ELScore1 59.0
Analysis using SAS 9.1.3 Frequency Procedure
ELScore2 82.4 25-30 7 ELScore1 50.8 ELScore2 93.2 18-24 17 ELScore1 58.2 ELScore2 82.6 Age only 61-70 9 ELScore1 63.1 ELScore2 90.9 51-60 25 ELScore1 62.7 ELScore2 93.2 41-50 36 ELScore1 49.3 ELScore2 86.2 31-40 39 ELScore1 56.2 ELScore2 86.4 25-30 18 ELScore1 51.1 ELScore2 85.7 18-24 24 ELScore1 55.6 ELScore2 82.7 Gender only Female 77 ELScore1 49.0 ELScore2 84.7 Male 74 ELScore1 60.4 ELScore2 88.0
81
Table 22. Combined information for recycling responses based on gender and age. Questions 96, 97 & 103 Measurement of recycling attitude and behavior Q 96: Do you use curbside recycling?
Gender Yes No Total N % N % N %
Female 25 35.2 46 64.8 71 100 Male 19 26.4 53 73.6 72 100 Total 44 30.8 99 69.2 143 Age
18-24 4 17.4 19 82.6 23 100 25-30 5 27.8 13 72.2 18 100 31-40 13 35.1 24 64.9 37 100 41-50 12 33.3 24 66.7 36 100 51-60 8 36.4 14 63.6 22 100 61-70 2 25.0 6 75.0 8 100 Total 44 29.2 100 70.8 144
Q 97: Do you use central collection sites? Gender Female 47 67.1 23 32.9 70 100
Male 50 69.4 22 30.6 72 100 Total 97 68.3 45 31.8 142 Age
18-24 12 54.5 10 45.5 22 100 25-30 8 44.4 10 55.6 18 100 31-40 22 61.1 14 38.9 36 100 41-50 29 80.6 7 19.4 36 100 51-60 18 78.3 5 21.7 23 100 61-70 8 100 0 0.0 8 100 Total 97 69.8 46 30.2 143
Q 103: If you don’t personally recycle is it because of: Cost Desire Time Total N % N % N % N %
Gender Female 8 36.4 0 0.0 14 63.6 22 100
Male 6 23.1 5 19.2 15 57.7 26 100 Total 14 29.8 5 9.6 28 60.7 48 Age
18-24 3 21.4 0 0.0 11 78.6 14 100 25-30 1 11.1 1 11.1 7 77.8 9 100 31-40 5 38.5 3 23.0 5 38.5 13 100 41-50 5 62.5 1 12.5 2 25.0 8 100 51-60 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 100 4 100 61-70 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 100 Total 14 22,6 5 7.7 29 53.3 48
