APPENDIX B: CLUSTER AND PATH ANALYSES

CLUSTER ANALYSIS

The clustering technique utilized in this study looks for homogeneous groups which exist in the sample of students examined; it does not create these groups. Rather, the technique identifies members of existing groups by looking at the responses of each respoindent in the sample to see if that respondent is similar to any existing groups and, simultaneously, different from the respondents in any other groups. In this case, we selected the environmental issues students consider "most serious" as our criteria, and we used these items as the basis for grouping or segmenting the population.

A k-Means clustering procedure was used to identify 5 groups of students, from both Phase II (national cross-section) and Phase III (youth from disadvantaged areas) of this research. This was done after the data was weighted to bring the "disadvantaged" student population in-line with its true percentage of the population, about 17%. Since the samples were randomly selected and approximated the real population of students, we can reasonably assert that our 5 clusters represent natural groups in the student population as a whole.

PATH ANALYSIS

In this survey, we have examined many aspects of students' attitudes, values, knowledge, education, beliefs, concerns, and behavior regarding a wide variety of environmental issues. The question which logically emerges is what is the relationship among these variables: Does environmental education lead to changes in environmental behavior; or, does pro-environmental behavior cause one to seek out additional environmental information and education; or is there a different type of relationship which exists? In this section, we attempt an integrated analysis of a substantial portion of these data elements.

Our approach will be from a path analytic perspective. Path analysis, due to Wright (1934)1, is a technique to assess the direct causal contribution of one variable to another in a non-experimental dataset. The problem, in general, is one of estimating the coefficients of a set of linear structural equations, representing the cause and effect relationships hypothesized by the investigator. The system involves variables of two kinds: independent (or cause) variables and dependent (or effect) variables.

In this instance, we intend to examine the causal relationship among the system of variables delineated below:

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

** Demographics Factors
  1. Region (Northeast/Midwest/South/West)
  2. Urbanicity (Urban/Suburban/Rural)
  3. Disadvantaged/Non-disadvantaged Status
** Environmental Education Sources
  1. Q6. Parents.
    How much do you think your parents or other adults in your house know about environmental issues and problems?
    (a lot / a fair amount / only a little / practically nothing)
  2. Q7. Schools
    Young people learn about a lot of topics in school. Thinking about all of your classes, how much would you say you are learning about environmental issues in school?
    (a lot / a fair amount / only a little / practically nothing)
** Obstacles/Opportunities for Involvement in Environmental Activities
  1. Q23. Overall ease of getting involved
    How easy or hard would it be for you to get involved in helping to do things for the environment?
    (very easy / sort of easy / sort of hard / very hard)
  2. Q24. Opportunities at schools
    Do you know about any groups or clubs at your school where people can work with others to help do things for the environment? (yes / no)
  3. Q26. Opportunities in community Do you know about any groups or clubs in your community, apart from school, where people can work with others to help do things for the environment?
    (yes / no)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

** Environmental Knowledge
  1. Q5. Self Report
    How much do you think you know about environmental issues and problems?
    (a lot / a fair amount / only a little / practically nothing)
** Environmental Concern
  1. Q.8. Seriousness Attributed to Environmental Issues
    Here is a list of environmental issues people talk about. For each one, mark whether you think it is one of the most serious environmental problems, sort of serious, or not that serious.
    a) Destruction of the rainforest
    b) Endangered animals, plants, insects
    c) Air pollution or smog
    d) Not enough energy (such as electricity, oil, etc.)
    e) Pollution of lakes, rivers, streams
    f) Acid rain, that is, air pollution that makes rain acidic, causing damage to lakes and forests
    g) Damage to the ozone layer over the earth, permitting strong rays to get through, causing skin cancer and other problems
    h) Too little recycling
    i) Global warming, that is, a build-up of certain gases in the atmosphere that will cause the temperature on earth to rise
    j) Lead poisoning from water, old paint, etc.
    k) Not enough landfill space for garbage and trash
    l) Shortages of good drinking water
    m) Littering of trash and garbage
    n) Pollution from toxic or hazardous dump sites
    o) Pollution of water from fertilizers and pesticides used in farming
    p) Not enough open areas, woods, trees, grass, natural places
    q) Damage to the environment caused by mining or cutting down trees
    r) Polluted ocean water and unsafe beaches
    s) Destruction or filling in or wetlands, that is, places where birds and fish breed
** Desire for More Environmental Knowledge
  1. Q.12 Further Knowledge
    And which two or three of these issues, if any, would you really like to know more about.
    a) Destruction of the rainforest
    b) Endangered animals, plants, insects
    c) Air pollution or smog
    d) Not enough energy (such as electricity, oil, etc.)
    e) Pollution of lakes, rivers, streams
    f) Acid rain, that is, air pollution that makes rain acidic, causing damage to lakes and forests
    g) Damage to the ozone layer over the earth, permitting strong rays to get through, causing skin cancer and other problems
    h) Too little recycling
    i) Global warming, that is, a build-up of certain gases in the atmosphere that will cause the temperature on earth to rise
    j) Lead poisoning from water, old paint, etc.
    k) Not enough landfill space for garbage and trash
    l) Shortages of good drinking water
    m) Littering of trash and garbage
    n) Pollution from toxic or hazardous dump sites
    o) Pollution of water from fertilizers and pesticides used in farming
    p) Not enough open areas, woods, trees, grass, natural places
    q) Damage to the environment caused by mining or cutting down trees
    r) Polluted ocean water and unsafe beaches
    s) Destruction or filling in or wetlands, that is, places where birds and fish breed
** Interest in Involvement in Environmental Activities
  1. Q.28 How interested would you be in working with others, or joining a group or club to help do things for the environment?
    (very interested / somewhat interested / not too interested / not at all interested)
** Involvement in Environmental Activities
  1. Q25. Opportunities at schools
    By any chance, have you yourself joined a group or club at school to help do things for the environment?
    (yes / no)
  2. Q27. Opportunities in community
    By any chance, have you yourself joined a group or club in your community to help do things for the environment?
    (yes / no)
For the sake of simplicity, we present an abbreviated version of the path diagram representing our "model" in the figure below (See print version for this).

Basically, the model works as follows. Environmental education (Q.6 and Q.7) is hypothesized to lead to environmental knowledge (Q.5) [pathset-1]; demographic factors (region, urbanicity, and disadvantaged status) also influence environmental knowledge (Q.5) [pathset-2]. Environmental knowledge (Q.5) is hypothesized to lead to environmental concern (Q.8a-s) [pathset-3]. Environmental concern (Q.8a-s) is hypothesized to lead to a desire for more environmental knowledge (Q.12a-s) [pathset-4] and an interest in involvement in environmental activities (Q.28) [pathset-5].

On the one hand, the desire for more environmental knowledge (Q.12a-s) is hypothesized to lead to increased environmental knowledge (Q.5) [pathset-6], while interest in involvement in environmental activities(Q.28) is hypothesized to lead to actual involvement in environmental activities(Q.25,27), particularly when there are few obstacles standing in the way (Q.23,24,26) [pathset-7].

Table 2, (See print version for this), provides a detailed presentation of all the path coefficients involved in the model summarily described above. These coefficients were derived using the maximum likelihood simultaneous equation solution from LISREL 7 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989).

Thus, for example, in Pathset 1, the hypothesized relationship between parental environmental knowledge (Q.6) and a student's own knowledge (Q.5) is strong (0.221), stronger in fact than the relationship between environmental education in school (Q.7) and a student's own environmental knowledge (Q.5), which has a path coefficient of 0.078.

At the same time, another strong relationship exists between disadvantaged/non- disadvantaged status and overall environmental knowledge (Q.5), part of Pathset 2. The path coefficient for disadvantaged students and environmental knowledge is -0.012, indicating that these students tend to know less about the environment than students from non-disadvantaged areas, whose path coefficient for these two variables is 0.04.

Pathset 3, the hypotheisized relationship between environmental knowledge (Q.5) and environmental concern (Q.8a-s) is strong. In other words, students who profess to a good deal of environmental knowledge also tend to exhibit high levels of concern about various environmental issues and problems. Thus, the path coefficient between overall knowledge and concern about endangered plants, animals, insects is 0.098 and the path coefficient between overall knowledge and destruction of the rainforest is 0.095. This relationship is significant for sixteen of the nineteen issues, though the coefficients are lower.

In turn, concern about an environmental issue (Q.8a-s) often leads to the desire for further knowledge of that same issue (Q.12a-s) [Pathset 4]. The issues for which these two variables relate most closely include endangered plants, animals, insects (0.185), damage to the ozone layer (0.144), lead poisoning from water or old paint (0.121) and global warming (0.115). The relationship between concern and desire for further knowledge is weaker for other issues.

The next step in the path analysis was to discern if environmental concern (Q.8a-s) leads to interest in involvement in environmental activities (Q.28). As seen in Pathset 5, concern about various environmental problems often ties significantly to interest in involvement in environmental activities. The strong path coefficient for problems such as littering of trash and garbage (0.342), endangered animals, plants, insects (0.340), damage to the environment from mining or cutting down trees (0.304) and pollution of water from pesticides or fertilizers used in farming (0.183) indicate that concern for these problems leads many students to report interest in involvement in environmental groups and clubs. For other environmental problems, though, the relationship is either weaker or non-existent, such as not having enough energy (-0.122) and pollution of ocean waters or beaches (-0.090).

In Pathset 6, the desire for further environmental knowledge (Q.12a-s) was hypothesized to lead to greater environmental knowledge overall (Q.5). From the data, however, there is little support that a relationship exists between these two variables, and for nine of the nineteen problems, the relationship is negative, indicating that further knowledge of an issue may actually turn some students away from an increase in their overall knowledge. In the ten cases where the relationship is positive, none are significant, an indication that these two variables do not effect each other, at least in the terms of this path analysis.

Finally, in Pathset 7, we see a strong and significant relationship between interest in joining an environmental group (Q.28) and actual involvement in environmental activities (Q.25, Q.27). Thus, students who report an interest in joining a group often report joining groups both at school (Q.25, path coefficient of 0.102) and in the community (Q.27, path coefficient of 0.115).

In addition, we examined this relationship through a third variable, the existence of obstacles to involvement, generated by responses to Q.23, how easy or hard students feel it would be for them to be personally involved. As might be expected, when there is a low level of obstacles to personal involvement ("very easy" or "sort of easy"), interest in being involved is linked more closely with actual involvement (path coefficients of 0.112 for groups at school and 0.138 for groups in the community) than when students feel a high level of obstacles to personal involvement ("sort of hard" or "very hard"), path coefficients for which are 0.107 for groups at school and 0.081 for groups in the community. In other words, while participation in environmental groups is related strongly to interest in involvement, students who feel there are few obstacles to their personal involvement exhibit a greater likelihood of actual involvement than students who report a high level of obstacles to involvement.

Overall, then, a distinct path leads from environmental knowledge to environmental concern, from environmental concern to interest in involvement in environmental activities, and finally from interest in involvement in environmental activities to actual involvement in environmental groups, especially if there are few obstacles to involvement.


Notes:

  1. Wright, S. (1934) The method of path coefficients. Annals of Mathematical Studies, 5, 161-215.
  2. Joreskog, Karl and Dag Sorbom. (1989) LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

back to Contents / / back to EE-Link Homepage