Education level and income are important for good environmental awareness: a case study from south Brazil

Juliana Strieder Philippsen; Fábio H. Soares Angeoletto; Rosangela G. Santana

doi:10.25260/EA.17.27.1.0.300

Autores/as

Juliana Strieder Philippsen Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos Continentais, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, PR, Brazil.
Fábio H. Soares Angeoletto Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geografia da UFMT. Rondonópolis, MT, Brazil.
Rosangela G. Santana Departamento de Estatística, Universidade Estadual de Maringá. Maringá, PR, Brazil.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.17.27.1.0.300

Resumen

Uno de los propósitos de la ecología humana es comprender las relaciones entre las personas y el ambiente, a fin de apoyar el desarrollo de proyectos y acciones que permitan el uso sostenible de la naturaleza. En este estudio se investigó la relación entre variables socio-demográficas y el nivel de conciencia ambiental en dos ciudades del sur de Brasil (Maringá y Sarandí). Los resultados mostraron que el nivel de educación y el de ingresos se relacionaron de forma positiva con la conciencia ambiental. Los individuos con mayor nivel de educación poseen 3.2 veces más probabilidades de tener una buena conciencia ambiental que los que presentan una menor escolaridad. Estos resultados mejoran nuestra comprensión sobre las interacciones socio-ecológicas de los ciudadanos de esta región del país y pueden brindar soporte a medidas de gestión para involucrar a los residentes en acciones de conservación del ambiente.

Biografía del autor/a

Juliana Strieder Philippsen, Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos Continentais, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, PR, Brazil.

Ph.D. candidate in graduate program in Ecology of Continental Aquatic Ecosytems of the Universidade Estadual de Maringá.

Citas

Angeoletto, F. 2012. Planeta ciudad: ecología urbana y planificación de ciudades medias de Brasil. Tesis doctoral. Doctorado en Ecología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Spain. Pp. 308.

Arcury, T. 1990. Environmental attitudes and environmental knowledge. Hum Organ 49:300-304.

Bhatti, M., and A. Churh. 2001. Cultivating Natures: Homes and Gardens in Late Modernity. Sociol 35:365-383.

Czap, N. V., and H. J. Czap. 2010. An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern. Ecol Econ 69:2033-2041.

Diamantopoulos, A., B. B. Schlegelmilch, R. R. Sinkovics, and G. M. Bohlen. 2003. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J Bus Res 56:465-480.

Dietz, T., P. C. Stern, and G. A. Guagnano. 1998. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environ Behav 30:450.

Dobson, A. J., and A. G. Barnett. 2008. An introduction to generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall/CRC: New York, USA.

Ewert, A., and D. Baker. 2001. Standing for where you sit: an exploratory analysis of the relationship between academic major and environment beliefs. Environ Behav 33:687-707.

Fransson, N., and T. Gärling. 1999. Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement, methods, and research findings. J Environ Psychol 19:369-382.

Gifford, R. 2011. The dragons of inaction. Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psycol 66:290-302.

Gifford, R., and A. Nilsson. 2014. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behavior: a review. International J Psychol. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12034.

Hawthorne, M., and T. Alabaster. 1999. Citizen 2000: development of a model of environmental citizenship. Glob Environ Chang 9:25-43.

Hosmer, D. W. J. T., S. Lemeshow, and S. X. Rodney. 2013. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley and Sons. New Jersey, USA.

Hunter, L. M., A. Hatch, and A. Johnson. 2004. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Soc Sci Quart 85:677-694.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Cidades@. 2014. Avalilable at: http://www.cidades.ibge.gov.br/xtras/home.php (Accessed in: 29/04/2015).

Jones, R. E., and R. E. Dunlap. 1992. The social bases of environmental concern: have they changed over time? Rural Sociol 57:28-47.

Keniger, L. E., K. J. Gaston, K. N. Irvine, and R. A. Fuller. 2013. What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int J Environ Res Public Health 10:913-935.

Klinenberg, S. L., M. Mckeever, and B. Rothenbach. 1998. Demographic predictors of environmental concern: it does make a difference how it’s measured. Soc Sci Quart 79:734-753.

Liberty, M., and W. Hongjuan. 2010. Greening our future and environmental values: an investigation of awareness, attitudes and awareness of environmental issues in Zambia. Environ Values 19:485-516.

Maloney, M. P., M. P. Ward, and G. N. Braucht. 1975. Psychology in action: a revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am Psychol 30:787-790.

Marques, L. M., M. A. Carniello, and G. G. Neto. 2006. A percepção ambiental como papel fundamental na realização de pesquisa em educação ambiental. Traves 10:337-349.

Melazo, G. C. 2005. Percepção ambiental e educação ambiental: uma reflexão sobre as relações interpessoais e ambientais no espaço urbano. Olhares and Trilhas 6:45-51.

Olofsson, A., and S. Öhman. 2006. General beliefs and environmental concern: transatlantic comparisons. Environ Behav 38:768-790.

Palavecinos, M., M. Amérigo, J. B. Ulloa, and J. Muñoz. 2016. Preocupación y conducta ecológica responsable en estudiantes universitarios: estudio comparativo entre estudiantes chilenos y españoles. Psychosoc Int. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2016.01.001.

Pisano, I., and M. C. Hidalgo. 2014. Testing the cross-national social basis of environmentalism: a current and comparative analysis of conservation behaviors. Psico 45:395-405.

Rodrigues, A. L. 2004a. Características do processo de urbanização de Maringá, PR: uma cidade de “porte médio”. Cad Metróp 12:95-121.

Rodrigues, A. L. 2004b. A pobreza mora ao lado: segregação socioespacial na região metropolitana de Maringá. Tesis doctoral. Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Ciências Sociais. Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo. São Paulo. Brazil. Pp. 223.

SAS Institute. 2002. The SAS system for Windows. Release 9.1. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.

Schwartz, H. J. 2012. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read Psychol Cult, 2: http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116.

Shackleton, S., A. Chinyimba, P. Hebink, C. Shackleton, and H. Kaoma. 2015. Multiple benefits and values of trees in urban landscapes in two towns in northern South Africa. Landsc Urban Plan 136:76-86.

Shen, J., and T. Saijo. 2008. Reexamining the relations between socio-demographic characteristics and individual environmental concern: evidence from Shanghai data. J Environ Psychol 28:42-50.

Vaske, J. J., M. P. Donnelly, D. A. Williams, and S. Jonker. 2001. Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Soc Natur Res 14:761-776.

Vicente-Molina, M. A., A. Fernandez-Sainz, and J. Izagirre-Olaizola. 2013. Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behavior: comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J Clean Prod. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.015.

Xiao, C., and R. E. Dunlap. 2007. Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern cross-nationally: a U.S.-Canadian comparison. Soc Sci Quart 8:471-493.

Xiao, C., and D. Hong. 2010. Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Popul Environ 32:88-104.

Xiao, C., and A. M. McCright. 2015. Gender differences in environmental concern: revisiting the Institutional Trust Hypothesis in the USA. Environ Behav 47:17-37.

Zelezny, L. C., P. P. Chua, and C. Aldrich. 2000. Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. J Soc Issues 56:443-457.