This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 15 June 2015, At: 16:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Environmental EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjee20

Academic Major, EnvironmentalConcern, and Arboretum UseMeghan Sherburn a & Ann Sloan Devlin ba University of California School of Social Ecology Irvineb Connecticut College New LondonPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Meghan Sherburn & Ann Sloan Devlin (2004) Academic Major, EnvironmentalConcern, and Arboretum Use, The Journal of Environmental Education, 35:2, 23-36, DOI: 10.3200/JOEE.35.2.23-36

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.35.2.23-36

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Academic Major, EnvironmentalConcern, and Arboretum UseMeghan Sherburn and Ann Sloan Devlin

ABSTRACT: This study investigated the relationships between academic major, environmental con-cern, and the presence of a campus arboretum. Twenty-seven men and 43 women from a small lib-eral arts college, ages 1836, completed a series of surveys including the Environmental PreferenceQuestionnaire (EPQ), the Environmental Concern Scale (EC), and the New Ecological Paradigmscale (NEP). As hypothesized, environmental studies majors scored significantly higher on all meas-ures of proenvironmental concern and preferences than did economics majors or students of otheracademic disciplines. Environmental studies majors were significantly more likely to value and to usethe arboretum than were the other groups. Results are discussed in terms of the relationships betweeneducation, environmental concern, and behavior.

Key Words: academic major, arboretum, environmental concern, environmental education

eoples interest in and attitudes toward the environment have been attributed to an extend-ed time spent outdoors, parents attitudes, education, involvement in environmentalorganizations, and the loss of a valued place. A single exposure to any of the above elements

may allow people to feel connected to the environment and committed to protecting it (Chawla,1999). These feelings can be described as an individuals concern for the physical environment assomething that is worthy of protection, understanding, or enhancement (Gifford, 1997, p. 47).This article will focus on the relationships between education (in the form of an academic major), avalued place (in the form of the campus arboretum), and environmental concern. The questionraised is whether use of the arboretum and the value placed on it is related to environmental con-cern, and whether students who major in different academic disciplines have different attitudestoward this natural resource and different levels of environmental concern.

Peoples environmental concerns tend to form three related categories (Schultz, 2001): theimportance a person places on the self (egoistic), on other people (social-altruistic), and on plantsor animals (biospheric or biocentric). People with egoistic concerns form beliefs based on the harm

WINTER 2004, VOL. 35, NO. 2 23

P

Meghan Sherburn is a second-year graduate student in the School of Social Ecology at the University ofCalifornia, Irvine. Ann Sloan Devlin is a professor of psychology at Connecticut College, New London.

REPORTS & RESEARCH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

environmental destruction has on them personally. Those in the social-altruistic group care aboutthe environment because it benefits humankind and will be essential for the sustainability of futuregenerations. Those who hold biocentric concerns believe nature has an inherent value and that itshould not be destroyed because humans are a part of it, not its overlords. These categories formthe value orientations that shape environmental attitudes and demonstrate that people may be con-cerned about the environment for different reasons (Schultz & Zelezny, 1999). In addition to thegeneral public in the United States, college students in the U.S., Spain, Canada, and a number ofLatin American countries have exhibited these three categories of environmental concern (Schultz,2001; Schultz & Zelezny, 1999).

A number of studies have examined the relationship between education, in the form of collegemajor or concentration, and environmental concern. Although there is some evidence to the con-trary (Shetzer, Stackman, & Moore, 1991), most studies report that students majoring in econom-ics, commerce, or business-related subjects are not supportive of environmental issues or are less con-cerned about the environment than students majoring in biological science or environmental stud-ies (Hodgkinson & Innes, 2001; McKnight, 1990; Synodinos, 1990; Tikka, Kuitunen, & Tynys,2000). Schultz (2001) reports that people classified as competitors or as individualists have higheregoistic concerns than do people classified as prosocial, a point also discussed by Stern (2000b). Itmay be argued that these individualistic or competitive orientations are truer of those majoring inbusiness-related disciplines than in biological or environmental studies. In a related point, Stern(2000b), in discussing the value-belief-norm theory of environmentalism, comments, . . . the val-ues most strongly implicated in activating proenvironmental personal norms are, as norm-activationtheory presumes, altruistic or self-transcendent values (p. 414). Even among those who are proen-vironmental, economic concerns may undermine their willingness to put the environment first(Hodgkinson & Innes, 2001). But as Stern (2000a) points out, the key to behavioral change is theimmediate context of behavior, not deeper values (p. 525). He goes on to comment, . . . it mightbe possible to induce major policy changes even without changing values, for instance, with strongeconomic arguments (p. 525).

Thus, there is every reason to be as concerned with the attitudes of those who major in business-related disciplines as with those who major in disciplines related to the environment (e.g., environ-mental studies, forestry, biology). In their study of 237 undergraduate business majors, Shetzer et al.(1991) suggested that a strong pro-environmental sentiment is emerging among business students(p. 20); however, much research suggests otherwise. In a survey of over 200 college students who weresenior majors in environmental studies (ES), business, and engineering, two underlying factorsenvironment and technologyemerged (McKnight, 1990). Comparatively, ES students were mostpro-environmental and anti-technology, engineering students were most pro-technology, and busi-ness students were anti-environmental and anti-technology (p. 137). The author provides two sug-gestions to promote more positive environmental perspective and action. One suggestion is toincrease communication about the environmental and social impact of technology and science acrossall educational levels of the hard sciences.

Internationally, the pattern is similar to the findings in the United States; that is, those majoringin environmental studies and disciplines related to the natural environment tend to have higher lev-els of environmental concern. Evidence coming from Finland (Tikka et al., 2000), indicated thatthose in biology and forestry (conservation curriculum) had more positive attitudes and higher envi-ronmental activity scores (i.e., eagerness to participate in any nature or environmentally-relatedactivity) than those in the commercial college, statistics, and economics. Although Tikka et al.(2002) recognize the role of self-selection in the educational process (i.e., students may gravitate

24 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

toward subjects in which they already have an interest), these authors emphasize the role that an edu-cational institution can play. In the judgment of Tikka et al. (2002) activities involving nature or theenvironment were of little interest to students in economics or those enrolled at commercial colleges.The authors see this lack of interest as symptomatic of the culture of these disciplines.

Another example comes from Australia (Hodgkinson & Innes, 2001) where data from 399 stu-dents in their first semester of college support the hypothesis that attitudes about the environmentand ecology are not uniform across disciplines. In this research, Sociology, biology, and environ-mental studies students consistently displayed stronger positive beliefs and attitudes toward the envi-ronment than students from other disciplines, implying interdisciplinary discrepancies in belief andattitude patterns (p. 39). Hodgkinson and Innes argue that students who study disciplines thatmight be considered conservative and those who study disciplines that are arguably more liberal, willdiffer in their worldview or outlook. Furthermore, similar to the findings of Tikka et al. (2000),Hodgkinson and Innes comment that there is an . . . apparent lack of economic support for theenvironment among students in economically related disciplines (p. 40). Even though, as theauthors point out, this difference can be explained from the standpoint of self-selection, it is trou-bling vis--vis global environmental challenges. Of greater concern, in some way, is the authors fol-lowing contention: This study illustrates that, although students in some disciplines may be morepro-environmental than others, they are only slightly more willing to put the environment before theeconomy (p. 40). They reached this conclusion because all students scored lower on theEnvironmental Attitude scale (EAS; Forgas & Jollifee, 1994), than on the NEP scale (Dunlap & VanLiere, 1978). Although the NEP measures only ecological beliefs, the EAS includes items that involveeconomic/environmental trade-offs. Hodgkinson and Innes suggest that for students studying eco-nomics and related areas, educators can play a role in addressing the lackluster financial support forthe environment exhibited by students in these disciplines. In a related study, although students inthree different disciplines (recreation and park management; hotel, restaurant, and institutional man-agement; and science, technology and society; Thapa, 2001) expressed environmental concern (asmeasured by the NEP), their scores were comparatively lower than those of residents and of visitorsto a natural site in earlier research. Consistent with the pattern already discussed, the students inrecreation and park management expressed higher level of environmental concern than those in theother two categories. Thus, environmental studies majors alone are unlikely to solve environmentalproblems.

Political party preference also may affect environmental attitudes and actions. Research hasshown that people indicating democratic preference or liberal ideologies tend to be more proen-vironmental than are Republicans or conservatives. Dunlap (1975) measured proenvironmental-ism using a number of variables. The Democrats and liberals tended to be more interested inenvironmental issues, to be more likely to take environmental action, to attribute the source ofenvironmental problems to social structure, to be more likely to blame the economic system forenvironmental problems, and to perceive these problems as more threatening than did theRepublicans and conservatives; however, differences were not significant in every category(Dunlap, 1975). A similar study examined how political orientation and academic major relateto proenvironmental attitudes and behavior. On all measures, the environmental studies studentswere more aware and concerned about the environment than were the business students (Wysor,1983). Examining the relationship between environmentalism, political and economic conser-vatism, and traditional values of morality, Forgas and Jolliffe (1994) demonstrated that those whoheld extreme positions on environmental topics also tended to hold politically and economical-ly radical views on other topics.

WINTER 2004, VOL. 35, NO. 2 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

There is very little quantitative research that combines college students majors, their relationshipto environmental attitudes/concerns, political outlook, and the existence of a campus arboretum.The existence of an arboretum adjacent to a college campus provides an opportunity to see how sucha resource is valued by students of different disciplines. Not infrequently, a college arboretum is locat-ed at some distance from the central campus (e.g., Harvards Arnold Arboretum in Jamaica Plain).However, in the present study, the arboretums location at one of the major entrances to campusmeans that it is visible to all students. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) discuss the importance of the prox-imity of natural areas to use, following Christopher Alexanders concept of Accessible Green(Alexander, Ishikawa, & Silverstein, 1977). In the study in question, the arboretum is not only visi-ble from campus residence halls but within a few minutes walk of all students. What is the rela-tionship between nearby nature, academic major, and environmental concern?

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether use of the arboretum and the valueplaced on it are related to environmental concern, and whether students who major in different aca-demic disciplines have different attitudes toward this natural resource, and different levels of envi-ronmental concern. In research by Rachel and Steve Kaplan (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and others(e.g., Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan, 1998; Kuo & Sullivan, 2001;Ulrich, 1984), nearby nature has been demonstrated to have a wide range of positive effects on indi-viduals. For individuals, these effects range from the opportunity to forget their worries to accelerat-ed recovery from surgery.

In the late 1990s the college in question decided to manage all of its approximately 750 acres aspart of its arboretum; what had traditionally been considered the arboretum comprised approxi-mately 450 acres. The purpose of this new vision of the central campus (adjacent to the main arbore-tum) was to enhance the setting through diversifying the plantings and improving the quality of theoutdoor spaces (G. Dreyer, personal communication, spring, 2002). One question this study can alsohelp to answer is whether an appreciation of this landscape is shared across students in different dis-ciplines at the college and whether this appreciation is related to their concern for the environment.

A number of hypotheses were developed to explore the issues of environmental concern, collegemajor, and the existence of a nearby college arboretum. Based on an examination of the literature, itwas hypothesized that environmental studies majors would score higher on environmental concernmeasures and would visit the arboretum more often than would economics majors and other aca-demic majors. A second hypothesis predicted that environmental studies majors would value the nat-ural aspects of their campus (as reflected in themes identified in college publications) more thanwould other academic majors. A third hypothesis expected that environmental studies majors wouldbe more likely to visit the arboretum if they had more time, mention it as an important aspect intheir decision to matriculate at the college, and be less likely to want to develop the arboretum thanwould the students of the other academic majors. Finally, students with a rural upbringing and amore Liberal political orientation were hypothesized to score higher on the environmental measuresand use the arboretum more often.

Method

ParticipantsSeventy undergraduates at a small liberal arts school participated in this research. Twenty-seven

were men (38.6%), 43 were women (61.4%), and the mean age was 20.4 years. Environmentalstudies majors and economics majors were surveyed through placing questionnaires in their campusmailboxes. Students in an introductory psychology class who received credit for their participation

26 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

completed the remaining questionnaires. There were 28 environmental studies majors, 20 econom-ics majors, and 22 majors from other disciplines. Of those categorized as Other majors, 36.4%were declared majors in psychology or psychology-based human relations, 27.3% were undeclaredmajors, 9% were sociology majors, and the remaining 27.3% came from a variety of other disci-plines including art history, film studies, biomedical ethics, chemistry, zoology, and a self-designedmajor in society, culture, and documentation.

InstrumentsThe participants completed a survey consisting of six components. One section assessed demo-

graphic information including the students gender, age, class year, major, upbringing, and politicalaffiliation; another asked students to indicate how much they valued a number of items importantto their campus. Three of the sections included the following scales: the Environmental PreferenceQuestionnaire (EPQ; Kaplan, 1977), the Environmental Concern Scale (EC; Weigel & Weigel,1978), and the New Ecological Paradigm scale (NEP; Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000).

The EPQ (Kaplan, 1977) was designed to determine environmental preference. Developed fromthe responses of adult samples, this 64-item scale calculates means of seven different categories:nature, modern development, romantic escape, social, passive reaction to stress, city, and suburbs. Inthis study, the categories of EPQ nature, modern development, and city were used for analysisbecause they more closely assess the concerns relevant to the hypotheses. That is, these dimensionswere included because the study addressed how students from different disciplines value nature (inthe form of an arboretum), and the extent to which they would advocate development of such anarea. Cities typically represent environments of more intense development, and the modern devel-opment dimension addresses a preference for industrialized settings. A high nature score indicatessomeone who seeks natural settings whenever possible, including when under stress . . . seeks outpeace and tranquility and selects activities that provide the opportunity for being alone (Kaplan,1977, p. 207). Those high on the modern development scale have a preference for industrializedsettings, and those high on the City scale enjoy the stimulation and excitement found in cities. Theauthor reports an alpha coefficient of internal consistency of the scales between .63 and .85 (Kaplan,1977).

In order to assess how much college students are concerned about the environment and environ-mental issues, the EC scale (Weigel & Weigel, 1978), a 16-item Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong-ly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used. Scores could range from 16 to 80; higher scores reflect moreconcern for the environment. The internal consistency alpha level is reported to be .83 (Weigel &Weigel, 1978).

The third scale used for this questionnaire was the NEP (Dunlap et al., 2000) that measuresproenvironmental orientations. It focuses on humanitys abilities to upset the balance of, and to ruleover, nature and limits to human growth. The 15 items are scored according to a 5-point Likert scaleranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) using totals ranging from 1575. Participantsscoring higher on this measure have a greater proenvironmental orientation. They believe thathuman growth needs to be slowed down to protect the environment because humans are destroyingthe delicate balance of nature. The scales alpha level is reported as .83 (Dunlap et al., 2000).

The final section asked questions about the use of the arboretum. Respondents were asked howoften they visited the arboretum [1 (never) to 5 (almost everyday)], how many of their classes involvedvisits to the arboretum, to what extent they thought the arboretum was a good resource for enhanc-ing class [1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)], how important the presence of the arboretum was in influ-encing their decision to come to the college [1 (not important) to 5 (very important)], and to what

WINTER 2004, VOL. 35, NO. 2 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

extent they thought the land designated for the arboretum would benefit the college if developed intoanother dormitory, athletic center, etc. [1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)]. This section concluded withthree open-ended questions: Please indicate if you think the arboretum enhances the [college] expe-rience and explain why or why not; What do you think needs to be changed or improved aboutthe arboretum? and What do you think could be done to increase student use of the arboretum?

To identify the colleges set of values, a tally was kept of how frequently features or constructsappeared on the college website and in the colleges admissions view book, and were cited as impor-tant to preserve, for both students and faculty members, as a part of the colleges facilities andgrounds master plan. Twelve items were highlighted most frequently and were thus selected for use:

tight knit community/atmosphere flowers and plants of the landscape trees of the landscape overall beauty/aesthetic look of the campus faculty open spaces and the greens arboretum fact that the college is small and self-contained view of Long Island Sound old appearance of the stone buildings sundial, and importance of trust and the honor code.

The participants were asked to rate how much they valued these aspects using a 5-item Likert typescale ranging from 1 (no value) to 5 (great value).

The last section of the questionnaire produced a number of measures specific to the arboretum.Some were analyzed as descriptive results (see results section below); others were used as dependentvariables in analyses. The following questions (given variable names) were based on 5-point Likertscales. The likely variable was formed from a question that asked, If you had more time, how like-ly would you be to visit the arboretum more often? The decision variable was phrased, Howimportant was the presence of the arboretum in influencing your decision to come here? Finally, thedevelopment variable asked the students, To what extent would the land designed for the arbore-tum benefit the college if developed into another dormitory, athletic center, etc.? Higher scores onthe likely and decision variables reflected more favorable views toward nature, and a higher score onthe Development variable indicated a less favorable view.

ProcedureA list of the economics and environmental studies majors was obtained from the registrars office.

Questionnaires were placed in all 47 environmental studies student campus mailboxes and to everyother name on the alphabetical list of the economics majors campus mailboxes (for a total of 62distributed). The evening before questionnaires were distributed, a voicemail message was sent toall the recipients asking for their participation. Two follow up messages were sent after the ques-tionnaires were distributed to increase response rates. So few economic majors returned their sur-veys in the initial mailing that another 30 surveys were sent to the next 30 students on the list ofeconomics majors who had not yet received the questionnaire. To gain a sample of students from abroader spectrum of majors, the remaining questionnaires were distributed to students enrolled in

28 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

an introductory psychology course during 30-minute sessions in a psychology classroom. Studentsfrom a variety of majors enroll in introductory psychology to satisfy one of the general educationrequirements.

ResultsSeventy-five surveys were returned; of these, only 70 surveys were completed correctly, collected

within the time frame, and used for analysis. This produced a response rate of 49.6% (this percentdoes not include the other category because they were not distributed through the student mail sys-tem). Of these 70, the environmental studies majors returned 57.1% of their surveys, and the eco-nomics majors 21.7%. In order to determine whether this difference in response rates was signifi-cant, a chi-square test was run. Results indicated that environmental studies majors returned a sig-nificantly greater proportion of questionnaires than did economics majors 2(1, N = 141) = 17.85,p < .01. Because the other category consisted of the students in the introductory psychology class,all of the distributed surveys were completed.

To test a number of the hypotheses, a series of analyses of variance were run. The first hypothesisexamined whether there were differences between academic major and scores on the EC, NEP, andEPQ nature, modern development, and city. The results of these ANOVAs are displayed in Table 1.Tukey posthoc tests indicated that environmental studies majors scored significantly more positivelyon all environmental measures (higher on the EC, NEP, and EPQ nature; lower on the EPQ mod-ern development and city) than did economics or other majors (p < .05); there were no significantgroup differences between the economics and other majors on any of these measures.

In order to test the second hypothesis, students were asked to rate how much they valued the 12different aspects of the campus. It was hypothesized that environmental studies majors would valuethe natural aspects of the campus more than would the other two categories of majors. Based on thestudent responses, the 12 aspects were categorized using a Principal Components Factor Analysiswith Varimax Rotation. Eigenvalues greater than 1.00 were extracted and variables that loaded .40or higher on more than one factor were eliminated. This analysis eliminated one item, the view ofLong Island Sound; the other values produced four distinct categories that were labeled nature,image, academic, and community. The nature factor included the items dealing with thearboretum, plants and flowers, trees, and open spaces and greens. The image factors included theitems of the overall beauty of the campus, the appearance of the old stone buildings, and the sundi-al. The academic factor included the faculty and the honor code. Finally, the community factorincluded the colleges tight knit atmosphere and the fact that it is self-contained. These four categorieswere used as dependent variables to examine potential differences between majors. The rest of theANOVAs are displayed in Table 2. Tukey posthoc tests showed that environmental studies majorsvalue nature on the campus significantly more than do economics or other majors (p < .01). Noother differences were significant.

The third hypothesis, in comparison to students of economics and other majors, environmentalstudies majors would report visiting the arboretum more often, would be more likely to visit thearboretum if they had more time, would judge the arboretum as a more important aspect in theirdecision to come to the school, and would be less likely to want to develop it, was examined in aseries of ANOVAs. Results are reported in Table 3. Posthoc tests revealed that environmental stud-ies majors reported visiting the arboretum significantly more often (p < .01), indicated that theywould be significantly more likely to visit the arboretum if they had more time (p

30 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

TAB

LE1.

Env

iro

nm

enta

l Mea

sure

(E

M)

Sco

res

by A

cad

emic

Maj

or

Enviro

nmen

tal

stud

ies

Econ

omic

sO

ther

(n=

28

)(n

= 20

)(n

= 22

)EM

sco

res

MSD

MSD

MSD

F(2,

67)

Enviro

nmen

tal c

once

rn (E

C) (1

680

)69

.25.

959

.610

.860

.69.

19.

5*N

ew E

colo

gica

l Par

adig

m (N

EP) (

575

)61

.85.

949

.011

.254

.49.

812

.4*

Enviro

nmen

tal P

refe

renc

es Q

uesti

onna

ire

Natur

e (EP

QN) (

16)

5.4

0.3

4.6

0.6

4.6

0.7

17.5

*En

viro

nmen

tal P

refe

renc

es Q

uesti

onna

ire

Mod

ern D

evel

opm

ent

(EPQ

MD)

(16

)1.

70.

42.

40.

62.

40.

74.

8*En

viro

nmen

tal P

refe

renc

es Q

uesti

onna

ire

City

(EPQ

C) (1

6)

3.1

0.9

4.1

1.0

4.0

0.8

9.9*

Note

. R

ange

s for

eac

h sc

ale

are

repo

rted

in th

e pa

rent

hese

s fol

low

ing

the

scal

e ab

brev

iatio

n.*p

< .

01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

studies majors were also significantly less likely to want to develop the arboretum than were eco-nomics majors (p < .01), but there were no significant differences between environmental studiesand the other majors (p > .05) on this issue. No other significance was found.

Finally, ANOVAs were run to test the fourth hypothesis; that students with a rural upbringingand a more liberal political orientation would score higher on environmental measures and use thearboretum more often. Because some of the cell sizes on the 5-category political orientation scale ofconservative to liberal were small, the data were collapsed into those with more conservative values(categories 13) and those with more liberal values (categories 4 and 5). Two significant findingsemerged. On the EC Scale [F(1, 64) = 10.14, p

more conservative political views (M = 51.89, SD = 12.35, n = 27). No significant differences werefound that a particular upbringing (rural, suburban/small town, urban) was related to scores onenvironmental measures or the use of an arboretum (p > .05), although the finding for the EPQcity scale approached significance, p < .06, indicating that those with an urban upbringing tendedto have higher scores than those with a rural upbringing.

To examine the relationship between visits to the arboretum and scores on the EPQ scales, theEC scale, and the NEP scale, Pearson correlations were run. They indicated a significant rela-tionship between number of visits to the arboretum and scores on the EPQ nature scale, r(70) =.363, p < .01; the EPC city scale, r(70) = .244, p < .05, and the EPQ modern development scale,r(70) = .273, p < .05.

Of the variables important to the campus, the mean value for the arboretum was 4.17 (SD = 0.98)on a scale from 1 (no value) to 5 (great value). The greatest number of students reported visiting thearboretum an average of one to two times a semester (38.6%). When asked which activities they par-ticipated in while at the arboretum, exercise, in the form of walking or jogging, was reported as themost frequent activity (cited by 72.9% of the respondents). This activity was followed by relaxationor stress relief (67.1%), admiration of the beauty of nature (60%), class-related work (42.9%), andreading for pleasure (34.3%).

There were 63 responses, (90%) of the sample, to the first open-ended question, Please indicateif you think the arboretum enhances the college experience and explain why or why not. Themajority of people indicated that it did (88% of those answering) with 11% indicating that it didnot affect them or they had no opinion. Of the reasons cited that the arboretum enhanced the col-lege experience, the most frequent response (23.2%) was that it was a good place to experience andappreciate natural beauty (42.1% from environmental studies, 26.3% from economics, and 31.6%from other). As an example, one economics major said, Yes it does because it is a wonderful oppor-tunity to have nature so close at hand. Another common response (15.8%) was that the arboretumwas a place to escape the stresses of college life (61.5% from environmental studies, 15.4% eco-nomics, 23.1% from other). An environmental studies student stated, Yes, its a place where onecan lose oneself from the chaos of school and the surrounding extremely commercialized area. Ithelps maintain ones balance. Other responses (15.8%) included that it is a good area for relaxationand solitude (30.7% from environmental studies, 23.1% from economics; 46.2% from other). Onestudent from the other category reflected, It enhances [college] because it creates a nice atmos-phere where we can go and just relax and reflect. A final group of comments (12.2%) centered onthe arboretum as a resource for academic use (60% from environmental studies, 10% from eco-nomics, 30% from other). As one environmental studies student commented, Yes, besides its beau-ty, this land enhances learning in class.

The second open-ended question asked students, What do you think needs to be changed orimproved about the arboretum? Only 38.6% of the participants answered this question. Of thosewho responded, the most frequent advice (21.4%) was that more emphasis needed to be placed onthe arboretums existence (33.3% from environmental studies, 0% from economics, 66.7% fromother). One student in the other category said that there should be more talk about it. Additionalcategories of comments included increasing safety and security (17.9%; 40% environmental studies,40% from economics, 20% from other), constructing more trails (10.7%; 33.3% from environ-mental studies, 33.3% from economics, 33.3% from other), or developing the land in another way(10.7%; 0% from environmental studies, 66.7% from economics, 33.3% from other). Regardingdevelopment, one economics major said that it should be turned into a golf course to generate rev-enue for the school.

32 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

The final open-ended question asked students what they thought could be done to increase stu-dent use of the arboretum. This question was responded to by 70% of the sample; the most fre-quent suggestion was to increase activities held in the arboretum such as plays, performances, andother events (30.4%; 17.6% from environmental studies, 29.4% from economics; 52.9% fromother). A student in the other category offered, Perhaps more arboretum-related activity likewalks, yoga classes, etc., whereas an economics major offered, Hold more events there: concerts,tours, performances. Leave as is though; dont build anything else in it. Other categories of answerswere more classroom use (21.4%; 16.7% from environmental studies, 8.3% from economics, 75%from other], and including an arboretum tour during freshman orientation (12.5%; 42.8% fromenvironmental studies, 28.6% from economics, 28.6% from other). Just over 10% (66.7% fromenvironmental studies, 33.3% from economics, 0% from other) responded that there should be noincrease in student use because that would destroy the natural habitat. As an example, one environ-mental studies student said, I dont know if we should; an increase in use may lead to degradationof the ecosystem, whereas an economics student offered, the more it is used, the greater potentialfor damage.

Discussion

This research examined the relationship between academic major, environmental concern, and theextent to which a college arboretum was valued. For the population as a whole, the arboretum was ahighly valued aspect of the campus and few expressed desires to see it developed. The arboretumenhances the college experience for numerous students by providing direct exposure to the naturalenvironment and as an outlet to escape from the pressures associated with college life. These resultsare consistent with the arboretum study conducted by Schroeder (1991). Many students in the pres-ent study were interested in encouraging more arboretum activities to increase knowledge of its exis-tence across the entire college population.

Despite this support for the arboretum, there were still differences in environmental measuresacross student majors. Environmental studies majors scored higher (or more positively) on the ECscale, the NEP scale, and the nature, modern development, and city scales of the EPQ than eitherthe economics or other group of academic majors. Consistent with previous research (Hodgkinson& Innes, 2001; Wysor, 1983) this finding suggests that students in environmental studies disciplineshave greater concern for the environment than students in business-related fields. Even the findingthat the environmental studies majors returned a significantly greater percentage of their question-naires than did the economics majors is suggestive of their concern. It is also the case that in responseto an open-ended question about whether and how the arboretum might enhance the college expe-rience, environmental studies students were more likely to mention its use as an academic resourcethan were students majoring in economics or other disciplines. This finding reflects a point made byTikka et al. (2000) on the role that educational discipline can play in shaping views of the environ-ment. And in the open-ended question regarding how students use of the arboretum could beincreased, only 8.3% of the comments suggesting increased classroom use came from economics stu-dents. Students in the other category made 75% of such comments. These findings suggest thateconomics students do not see the arboretum as a venue that could be related to the work in theirdiscipline. The data here thus reflect a trend in the literature that students in business-related majorsare likely to be less involved in environmental activities (Tikka et al.).

Often, contrasts are drawn between students in environmental studies and related disciplines, onthe one hand, and students in business-oriented disciplines, on the other (e.g., McKnight, 1990;

WINTER 2004, VOL. 35, NO. 2 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

Tikka et al., 2000). The rationale for this approach may be that students in business-related disci-plines, because of presumptions about individualistic or competitive values (Schultz, 2001; Stern,2000b), naturally comprise the low end on a continuum of environmental concern. In contrast, thedata from the present study indicate that economics majors are not alone in their lower level of envi-ronmental concern. Here, students in other disciplines, the largest percentage (45.4%) who were ina cluster comprised of psychology, psychology-related, or sociology majors, did not differ signifi-cantly from economics majors in their level of concern. Further research might examine the extentto which students in these areas of study hold individualistic or competitive values.

The results also demonstrate that environmental studies students value the natural aspects of thecollege campus (the flowers, trees, open spaces and greens, and arboretum) more than do other stu-dents. Of the four dimensions that were measured (nature, academic, aesthetic/traditional image, andcommunity), only the nature dimension yielded significant group differences. The academic (faculty,honor code), aesthetic/traditional image (overall beauty, stone buildings, sundial), and community(tight-knit, self-contained) categories yielded no significant differences, suggesting that all studentsvalue them equally. It was also shown that the arboretum was a significantly more important aspectof environmental studies majors lives than was true for either of the other groups. Environmentalstudies majors tended to visit the arboretum more often, to have more classes in the arboretum, toreport that they would be likely to visit it more frequently if given the time, to mention it as an impor-tant aspect of their decision to attend this particular college, and to be less willing to see it developed.On all of these measures, no significant differences were found between the economics majors andthe other majors. Based on these data, the environmental studies students seem more likely tounderstand the concept of the campus as an arboretum. Further research might address this questiondirectly. The study also demonstrates that a natural asset like an arboretum may not be sufficient togenerate high levels of concern about the environment in students majoring in disciplines in whichthe natural environment plays a minor role or no role at all. The mere existence of an arboretum, evenone that is visible from the central campus, may not be sufficient to heighten levels of environmen-tal concern. Further research could examine whether an awareness campaign about the arboretum orother kind of educational program might increase the levels of environmental concern.

Supporting some earlier research (Dunlap, 1975; Forgas & Jolliffe, 1994) there was a relationshipbetween political orientation and environmental attitude measures, specifically the EC and the NEP.Students with more liberal political views scored higher on these two measures. At the same time,there were no significant differences in political orientation related to the three scales of the EPQ norto actual use of the arboretum. There may be social desirability factors related to the expression ofenvironmental concern among those with more liberal leanings. At the same time, this social desir-ability may not emerge in a scale like the EPQ that is less transparent than either the EC or the NEP.Furthermore, although people can espouse support for the environment, there is no guarantee thatthis support translates into behavior, specifically visiting a natural area like an arboretum. Finally, theparticipants upbringing was not related to scores on any of these measures either, although there wasa trend for those whose upbringing was in urban areas to have higher scores on the EPQ city scale(indicating that they enjoy the stimulation and excitement found in cities) than those whoseupbringing was in rural areas. It is likely that a question with three options (rural, suburban/smalltown, urban) was not sufficient to assess the impact of childhood locale on environmental concern.

Study LimitationsResearch that includes a larger sample with greater heterogeneity should be conducted to further

examine the relationships evaluated in this study. The self-selection of majors by students means that

34 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

it is not possible to differentiate between pre-existing beliefs and concerns and the impact the cur-riculum might make. However, because of the significant group differences in the differential valueof environmental concern and the value of a campus arboretum, it appears likely that the mere pres-ence of a natural resource such as an arboretum does not guarantee a high level of environmentalconcern.

Conclusions

The fact that there are differences in environmental attitudes and the use of an arboretum, relat-ed to academic major, may have implications for educational content and strategies. Essentially, thosewho choose to study environmental disciplines tend to be more concerned about the arboretum andare less likely to want to see it developed. The current environmental movement focuses on problemsassociated with the harmful consequences of exploitation, over consumption, and rapid populationgrowth. Some of the cited damage has been global warming, loss of the ozone layer, deforestation,species extinction, pollution, and toxic chemicals (Oskamp, 2000). Further research might addresswhether encouraging arboretum use by faculty and students in disciplines other than environmentalstudies is related to an increase in environmental concern. Ways in which faculty and students out-side of environmental studies might use the arboretum include research in environmental psycholo-gy, open-air theatrical productions, art projects (e.g., photography, large-scale sculpture), and a hostof other curricular possibilities. Further research could thus determine whether such planned expo-sure increases environmental concern and, if so, for what duration.

REFERENCESAlexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language. New York: Oxford University Press.Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 1526.Dunlap, R. E. (1975). The impact of political orientation on environmental attitudes and actions. Environment and

Behavior, 7, 428454.Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. The Journal of Environmental Education,

9, 1019. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological

Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425442.Forgas, J. P., & Jolliffe, C. D. (1994). How conservative are Greenies? Environmental attitudes, conservatism, and tradi-

tional morality among university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 123130.Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experience. Environment and

Behavior, 23, 326.Hodgkinson, S. P., & Innes, J. M. (2001). The attitudinal influence of career orientation in 1st-year university students:

Environmental attitudes as a function of degree choice. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32, 3740.Kaplan, R. (1977). Patterns of environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 9, 195216.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. New York: Cambridge University Press.Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and prefer-

ence. Environment and Behavior, 30, 2859.Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?

Environment and Behavior, 33, 343367.McKnight, M. (1990). Socialization into environmentalism. In D. A. Simmons, C. Knapp, & C. Young (Eds.), Setting the

EE agenda for the 90s: 1990 Conference proceedings (pp. 135140). Troy, OH: NAAEE.Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? How can psychology help? American Psychologist, 55, 496508.Schroeder, H. W. (1991). Preference and meaning of arboretum landscapes: Combining quantitative and qualitative data.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 231248.Schultz, W. P. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327339.Schultz, W. P., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14

countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255265.

WINTER 2004, VOL. 35, NO. 2 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015

Shetzer, L., Stackman, R. W., & Moore, L. F. (1991). Business-environment attitudes and the new environmental para-digm. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 1421.

Stern, P. C. (2000a). Psychology and the science of human-environment interaction. American Psychologist, 55, 523530.Stern, P. C. (2000b). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56,

407424.Synodinos, N. E. (1990). Environmental attitudes and knowledge: A comparison of marketing and business students with

other groups. Journal of Business Research, 20, 161170.Thapa, B. (2001). Environmental concern: A comparative analysis between students in recreation and park management

and other departments. Environmental Education Research, 7, 3953.Tikka, P. M., Kuitunen, M. T., & Tynys, S. M. (2000). Effects of educational background on students attitudes, activity

levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 1219.Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may enhance recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420421.Weigel, R. H., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior,

10, 315.Wysor, M. S. (1983). Comparing college students environmental perceptions and attitudes: A methodological investiga-

tion. Environment and Behavior, 15, 615645.

36 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

Q Li

brary]

at 16

:23 15

June

2015