Education influences knowledge about environmental issues in Washington, DC, USA

We predicted that demographic differences in Washington, DC’s population would influence people’s knowledge and perceptions about the interconnectedness of natural resources, climate change, economics, and socio-cultural well-being, so we conducted surveys over three years to test that prediction. We collected demographic data from 455 participants and asked them 26 questions/statements related to natural resources, climate change, economics, and health. We selected education as the focal demographic category and participants were categorized based on their level of educational attainment: 1) completion of high school or less (hereafter “high school”); 2) some trade school or university education beyond high school up to and including completion of a trade school, two-, or four-year degree (hereafter “post-high school”); and 3) completion of a Master’s, professional, or doctoral degree (hereafter “advanced education”). Answers to 14 of the 26 survey questions were dissimilar across educational groups. People with advanced education reported the highest connection with the natural community and were more likely to report that their personal welfare depended on the natural community. Participants in the high school group were more likely to believe that humans do not have much influence on natural resources and placed more trust in technology and human achievements to control nature and ensure that earth will not become unlivable. Compared to those with education beyond high school, those with a high school education were more likely to express an interest in local environmental concerns over global, jobs over natural resources, and effects of degraded local natural resources on income, health, and the environment instead of on cultural/social practices, neighborhood aesthetics, and recreation. The results suggest ways in which educational information and engagement in environmental issues should be targeted for stakeholders of different educational background in order to increase knowledge and build effective partnerships that find solutions for environmental problems.


33
Only 14% of the world's population lived in cities in 1900, but now over 50% live in cities and this 34 percentage is expected to reach 66% by 2050 [1]. The United States of America (USA) has an even higher 35 urban population than the world average: over 80% live in urban areas [2]. The urbanization of the 36 human population is happening simultaneously with worsening local and global environmental 37 problems, such as overexploitation and degradation of natural resources [3][4], population declines and 38 extinctions of other species [5][6], and climate change [7]. These environmental problems are 39 interrelated in often complex ways and have the potential to influence neighborhood aesthetics and a 40 person's economic well-being, health, cultural and social practices, and recreation [8][9]. Whereas 41 environmental knowledge does not necessarily lead people to take pro-environmental actions, tackling transportation. Answers to the question "Can you describe what climate change is to you?" were coded 127 Participants' answers that included weather change, temperature change, hotter or colder weather, or 128 similar statements were coded as "weather patterns." Participants' answers that voiced a human cause 129 or invoked a human emotion, such as scary or fear, were coded as "human cause/reaction." 130 Participants' answers that included climate change causes or effects (not including weather), such as 131 global warming, carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, and sea level rise, were coded as "climate 132 change." Finally, responses that indicated that the participants were unable to answer the question 133 were coded as "no." 134 We also used separate χ 2 contingency tests to determine whether the responses to the other 22 135 questions differed among educational groups. Sample size was sometimes fewer than the total number 136 of participants previously reported when a participant did not answer a question.

139
Participants across the three educational groups answered 14 questions dissimilarly (see Tables 1 and 2   140 for data supporting the results in this paragraph). Over 84% of participants in the post-high school and 141 advanced education groups were able to describe natural resources, whereas fewer than 67% of 142 participants in the high school group were able to do so. Participants in the high school group were 143 more likely to discuss recycling of materials for financial gain when asked to describe natural resources.

144
Over 60% of all participants discussed weather patterns when asked to describe climate change, but 145 those with advanced degrees or post-high school education also discussed other causes and effects of 146 climate change, whereas a greater percentage of those in the high school group were unable to describe 147 climate change. Over 80% of participants with advanced education somewhat or strongly agreed that 148 they think of the natural world as a community to which they belong, but only slightly over half of the 28.8% of participants with post-high school and advanced education). Participants with a post-high 165 school or high school education were more likely than those with an advanced education to strongly 166 agree that earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. Those in the high 167 school group were also more likely than other participants to strongly agree that humans will eventually 168 learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it and to somewhat or strongly agree that 169 there is there is too much worry about natural resources and not enough about jobs. Those with an 170 advanced education were over twice as likely to be a member of a community organization or faith-171 based group than all other participants. recreation (see Table 2 for data supporting the results in this paragraph). More than two-thirds of 175 participants with an advanced education selected that local degraded natural resources negatively 176 impacted all of these except income. Income was selected by fewer than a third of participants with an 177 advanced education. Those in the post-high school group felt less strongly than those in the advanced 178 education group that degraded natural resources had an impact on these categories; however, more 179 than half still thought that local degraded natural resources negatively impacted health, environment, 180 neighborhood aesthetics, and recreation. Participants in the high school group felt less strongly than all 181 other participants that local degraded natural resources impact these categories, except for income.

182
More than half of these participants said that degraded natural resources negatively impacted income.

183
Health and the environment were the other two categories where more than half of those in the high 184 school group said that local degraded natural resources had a negative impact.

185
Participants across all educational groups answered 12 questions similarly (see Tables 1 and 2   186 for data supporting the results in this paragraph). All participants most frequently mentioned water as 187 the most important natural resource and the one most threatened in their neighborhood, followed by 188 air. Participants were more likely to agree that they had a strong knowledge of natural resources than 189 disagree, but the most common answer was "neutral." Participants frequently selected "neutral" to the 190 statement that natural resources in their neighborhood cannot support more people, with participants 191 with advanced education somewhat disagreeing with this statement and all others somewhat agreeing.

192
Participants also selected "neutral" most frequently to the statement that natural resources in their 193 neighborhood are plentiful. Over 66% of participants somewhat or strongly agreed that if things 194 continue on their present course, we will soon experience an environmental catastrophe, over 55% 195 somewhat or strongly agreed that climate change negatively impacts natural resources in their 196 neighborhood, and over 70% somewhat or strongly agreed that they understand that the natural government). Businesses, environmental groups, and community organizations were less frequently 200 selected. Approximately half the participants reported spending time outdoors frequently (5 days per   201 week) or almost daily, although those that belong to a faith-based or community organization said their 202 organization was outdoors infrequently (once per week).

203
Participants were also in agreement about spending by Washington, DC's government and most 204 frequently thought the government was spending "too little" on each of the seven priority areas (Table   205 3 unknown, but could be due to shared experiences, such as lived experiences and exposure to these 220 issues through education and the media, and/or shared values. In fact, nationally in the USA there has 221 been an increased awareness and concern about at least one major environmental issue: climate change 223 and friends, regularly exposed to it in the media, and reporting that they feel the effects of climate 224 change and are harmed by them [30]. The participants in the national survey also expressed worry 225 about extreme weather events, especially those pertaining to water, such as flooding, drought, and 226 shortages [30]. Some of the similarities among participants in our survey in Washington, DC may be part 227 of the shifting attitudes and knowledge happening on a national scale. Additionally, the "biospheric 228 (concern for environment)" and "altruistic (concern for others and intrinsic value)" value orientations