USF Libraries

A comparative study of environmental attitudes in 9-12th grade students in Monteverde Costa Rica and Edina Minnesota

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
A comparative study of environmental attitudes in 9-12th grade students in Monteverde Costa Rica and Edina Minnesota
Translated Title:
Un estudio comparativo de las actitudes ambientales en los estudiantes del 9- 12 grado en Monteverde, Costa Rica y Edina Minnesota ( )
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Curran, Brian
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
High school students   ( lcsh )
Social ecology   ( lcsh )
Estudiantes de colegio
Ecología social
Tropical Ecology 2009
Environmental attitudes
Ecología Tropical 2009
Actitudes ambientales
Genre:
Reports   ( lcsh )
Reports

Notes

Abstract:
In this study a 44-question environmental attitudes survey was given to 150 students in area schools in Monteverde, Costa Rica and Edina, Minnesota. 66 students were sampled from five schools in Monteverde and 94 students were sampled from one high school in Minnesota. The question that was addressed was whether or not: demographic, geographic, curricular, and type of school differences could explain trends in environmental attitude preferences of students that were surveyed. Statistically significant difference trends were found in questions: 4,8,12,16 and 23. However, the survey did not try to correlate demographic variables like income or level of parental education to attitude preferences. Similarly, it cannot be determined definitively to what extent demographic, geographic, curricular, and type of school differences played a role in environmental attitude selection of the students sampled.
Abstract:
En este estudio, se les dio una encuesta de 44 preguntas sobre actitudes ambientales a 150 estudiantes en escuelas de la zona de Monteverde, Costa Rica y Edina, Minnesota. Se tomaron muestras a 66 estudiantes de cinco escuelas en Monteverde y se tomaron muestras a 94 estudiantes de una escuela secundaria en Minnesota. La pregunta que se les hizo a los estudiantes encuestados fue si podrían explicar las tendencias en las preferencias de las actitudes ambientales y las diferencias demográficas, geográficas, curriculares, y el tipo de diferencia escolar.
Language:
Text in English.
General Note:
Born Digital

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - M39-00116
usfldc handle - m39.116 m39.116
System ID:
SFS0001292:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
leader 00000nas 2200000Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 000000c19749999pautr p s 0 0eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a M39-00116
040
FHM
0 041
eng
049
FHmm
1 100
Curran, Brian
242
Un estudio comparativo de las actitudes ambientales en los estudiantes del 9- 12 grado en Monteverde, Costa Rica y Edina Minnesota
245
A comparative study of environmental attitudes in 9-12th grade students in Monteverde Costa Rica and Edina Minnesota
260
c 2009-05
500
Born Digital
3 520
In this study a 44-question environmental attitudes survey was given to 150 students in area schools in Monteverde, Costa Rica and Edina, Minnesota. 66 students were sampled from five schools in Monteverde and 94 students were sampled from one high school in Minnesota. The question that was addressed was whether or not: demographic,
geographic, curricular, and type of school differences could explain trends in environmental attitude preferences of students that were surveyed. Statistically significant difference trends were found in questions: 4,8,12,16 and 23. However, the survey did not try to correlate demographic variables like income or level of parental education to attitude preferences. Similarly, it cannot be determined definitively to what extent demographic, geographic, curricular, and type of school differences played a role in environmental attitude selection of the students sampled.
En este estudio, se les dio una encuesta de 44 preguntas sobre actitudes ambientales a 150 estudiantes en escuelas de la zona de Monteverde, Costa Rica y Edina, Minnesota. Se tomaron muestras a 66 estudiantes de cinco escuelas en Monteverde y se tomaron muestras a 94 estudiantes de una escuela secundaria en Minnesota. La pregunta que se les hizo a los estudiantes encuestados fue si podran explicar las tendencias en las preferencias de las actitudes ambientales y las diferencias demogrficas, geogrficas, curriculares, y el tipo de diferencia escolar.
546
Text in English.
650
High school students
Social ecology
4
Estudiantes de colegio
Ecologa social
653
Tropical Ecology 2009
Environmental attitudes
Ecologa Tropical 2009
Actitudes ambientales
655
Reports
720
CIEE
773
t Monteverde Institute : Tropical Ecology
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?m39.116 m39.116



PAGE 1

A Comparative Study of Environmental Attitudes in 9 12 th grade students in Monteverde Costa Rica and Edina Minnesota Brian Curran Department of Environmental Studies & Department of Political Science, Gustavus Adolphus College RESUMEN En este estudio una revisi—n de actitudes ambiental de 44 preguntas fue da da a 150 estudiantes en colegios de l ‡rea en Monteverde, Costa Rica y Edina, Minnesota. 6 6 estudiantes fueron probados en cinco escuelas de Monteverde y 94 estudiantes fueron probados de una escuela en Minnesota. La pregunta que fue dirigida eran: demogr‡ficas, geogr‡ficas curricular, y el tipo de diferencias escolares que podr’a n explicar tendencias en prefer encias de actitud ambientales en los estudiantes que fueron contemplados. Segœn la s estad’sticas las tendencias de diferencia fueron encontradas en preguntas: 4,8,12, 16 y 23. Sin embargo, la revisi—n no trat— de correlacionar variables demogr‡ficas como ingresos o nivel de la educaci—n paternal a preferencias de actitud. Del mismo modo no puede ser determinado definitivamente hasta que punto demogr‡fico, geogr‡fico, curricular, y el tipo de diferencias escolares desempe–— un papel en la selecci—n de actitud ambiental de los estudiantes probados ABSTRACT In this study a 44 question e nvironmental attitudes survey was given to 150 students in area schools in Monteverde, Costa Rica and Edina, Minnesota. 66 students were sampled from five schools in Monteverde and 94 students were sampled from one high school in Minnesota. The question th at was addressed was whether or not: demographic, geographic, curricular, and type of school differences could explain trends in environmental attitude preferences of students that were surveyed. Statistically significant difference trends were found in qu estions: 4,8,12, 16 and 23. However, the survey did not try to correlate demographic variables like income or level of parental education to attitude preferences. Similarly, it cannot be determined definitively to what extent demographic, geographic, curri cular, and type of school differences played a role in environmental attitude selection of the students sampled.

PAGE 2

INTRODUCTION Environmental awareness, one of the purposes of this study is try to figure out why people care about the environment. Then what factors may make someone more predisposed to care about the environment. Vitousek (1997) suggested that the growing scale of human enterprise is the ultimate cause of environmental problems on the planet right now. We live in a human dominated world and most people concern themselves with the economic imperative rather than the ecological imperative. That needs to change. Recent calculations suggest that the current rate of species loss maybe 100 to 1000 times more then they were before human dominat ion of this planet (Vitousek 1997). The effects of climate change specifically, the affect of carbon dioxide is likely to significantly change the composition and ecological dynamics of terrestrial ecosystems (Koch & Mooney 1996). In order to assess the e nvironmental attitudes of individuals: age, income, level of education, political ideology, and to a lesser extent, gender although not as a strong predictor as income or level of education (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). It was first suggested by Dunlap that public concern for the environment maybe weakened by increasing government attention to environmental issues. The media and public assume the problem is being solved and turn their attention to more pressing matter (Dunlap 1989). Dunlap (1989) also sugges ted that the public tends to see institutions, not individuals, as the primary culprits. In that institutions not individuals cause environmental problems. For instance, it wasn't x person who caused the Love Canal disaster it was x chemical company. Simil arly, individuals in turn believe that institutions should take the lead in cleaning up the environment (Dunlap 1989). According to Bloom (1995) suggest that both people in the developed and the developing concerned about the worsening condition of the env ironment. The study also suggested that people recognize government's natural role in addressing local and national environmental issues (Bloom 1995). The purpose of this study is to assess the environmental attitudes of high school students in Monteverde Costa and Edina Minnesota. Then to suggest that differences in: demographics, geography, curriculum, and type of school like public vs. private or religious vs. secular could explain some of the trends found in student responses. MATERIALS AND METHOD The survey used in this project was ninth through eleventh grade environmental attitudes, values, and behaviors. Liz Delaney a former science teacher at the Cloud Forest School developed the survey in the spring 2008. The survey asked 44 questions. Where the first 30 of the questions asked the respondent if they: strongly agreed, agreed, were neutral, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with each statement. Questions 31 37 asked the respondent if they performed a given behavior: never, rarely (3 or 4 times a year ), sometimes (3 or 4 times a month) or almost always (I do this almost every day). Questions 38 44 asked the respondent if they knew: a lot, a little, or nothing at all about a given environmental issue. The survey is consistent with other established en vironment measures (Dunlap & Van Liere 1978). Dunlap & Van Liere (1978) was one of the first studies to use likert scales in assessing environmental attitudes of individuals. Likert scales ask respondents to rank their agreement/disagreement from 1 to 5. The survey was administered to 66 students in Monteverde area schools and 94 students at Edina Senior High School. In all, 150 students were sampled in this study. All

PAGE 3

students at Monteverde schools were given the survey in Spanish, and at Edina Senior Hig h School the survey was given in English. The survey was administered at the Adventist School on April 28 th 2009 at 9 am 12 students between grades 8 th 11 th grade took the survey. The students were in Nabir Pinto's and Erick Montenegro's english class. The survey was given to The Cloud Forest School on May 5 th 2009 were 21 students, in ninth through eleventh grade, Dolly Ledin, a science teacher at the Cloud Forest School, administered the survey and I came back on May 7 th to pick up the survey. On may 6 th 2009 I administered the survey to two classes at The Monteverde Friends School. The first class was a class of 9 th and 10 th graders. The second class was a class of 11 th graders. 16 students took the survey over the course of that day from The Monteverde Friends School. Heather Goose was the science teacher who gave me permission to administer my survey to her students. The survey was given at Colegio Santa Elena on the morning of May 6th 2009 to 17 9th graders. Marcella Araya, a biology teacher, administe red my survey to her students. I returned the next day May 7 th 2009 to pick up my surveys. I also sampled students at Edina Senior High School in Edina Minnesota USA. I rewrote the survey on Survey Monkey and changed questions 11 and 29. Question 11 was c hanged to: The American government protects the environment better than the majority of world governments. Instead of the Costa Rican government as it is written in the original survey. Likewise, Question 29 was changed to: The United States has enough wat er for its entire population. 94 students of Jason Szporn and Eric Burfiend in the 12 th grade took my survey online as either a part of their economics or environmental science classes. The statistic I used was a chi square. I summed strongly agree, agree disagree, and strongly disagree responses. I then compared the proportions of agree to disagree for questions 1 30. I did not statistically analyze questions 31 44 (see appendix A for the questions). I did not analyze question 31 44 because in my opinion the questions the trends in that data were less interesting and lack of time to analyze all of the data. Study Sites Edina Senior High School (EHS on the figures) is a 10 11 grade public high school located in Edina Minnesota USA with 1800 students. Its demographics are largely white wealthy to middle class families. The Monteverde Friends School (Escuela de los amigos and MFS on the figures) is a private K 12 bilingual Quaker school. The MFS mission is educate children in a way that promotes community development, personal growth and spiritual awareness. The MFS demographics are mainly middle class to wealthy Costa Rican and American families living in Monteverde. All of its teachers are certified to teach in the United States. Centro Educaci—n Advent ista de Monteverde (the Adventist school and A on the figures) is religious K 11 school that is firmly rooted in the Seventh Day Adventist tradition. The students at the school are lower to middle class Costa Rican students. The school is mainly run throug h volunteers with few permanent staff.

PAGE 4

Colegio Santa Elena (CSE on the figures) is 9 11 grade public high school in Santa Elena Costa Rica that teaches the Costa Rican national curriculum. Its demographics are lower to middle class Costa Rican families i n Monteverde. The Cloud Forest School (Centro de Educaci—n Creativa and CEC on the figures ) is a private school with approximately 230 K 11 students that integrates environmental education into all aspects of the school and its curriculum. Its demographi cs are middle class Costa Rican families living in Monteverde. Although there are quite a few American school children enrolled. However, its biggest distinction is that most if not all of its teachers are certified to teach in the United States. Dichoto my of the Questions 1. Personal awareness and responsibility: 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30 2. Corporate awareness and responsibility: 7, 10, 16 3. Government Awareness and Responsibility: 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 23, 27, 4. Add itional Considerations: Who to believe 3, 24, 25, Costa Benefit analysis 1 and 26.

PAGE 5

RESULTS My results demonstrate that they are statistically significant relationships in the proportions of students that agreed and disagreed with ques tions: 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 23, and 25. Question 4 (Figure 1.) my culture and gender affect my view of nature. Figure 1 had a sample size of 127 students. Where 68 students agreed with the statement and 59 disagreed with the statement. FIGURE 1. The proportions of agrees to disagrees for the statement ( X 2 = 24.4429414, p = 0.00193077, df = 8 ). Figure 1 illustrated the trend that students at the MFS had preferences more similar to American high school students. Students at EHS and MFS said that they agree that gender and culture affected their view of nature. Where as at the CEC, Adventist School, and at Colegio Santa Elena the trend was reverse where the majority of students agreed that gender and culture did not affect their perception of nature.

PAGE 6

Question 8 (Figure 3.) had a sample size of 145 students. Where 18 agreed and 127 disagreed with the statement. Figure 3 illustrated that the majority of students sampled disagreed with the statement: No matter what environmental problems are too big and advanced to solve. FIGURE 3. The proportions of agrees to disagrees for the statement ( X 2 = 16.9377643, p = 0.030763, df = 8 ). Question 11 (Figure 4.) had a sample size of 108 students. Where 41 agreed and 67 disagreed with the statement. Figur e 4. Shows that students at the MFS, the Adventist school, and Colegio Santa Elena all agreed that their national government protected the environment better than the majority of world governments. In contrast students at the CEC and EHS disagreed with th e same statement.

PAGE 7

FIGURE 4. The proportions of agrees to disagrees for the statement ( X 2 = 20.9252036, p = 0.0073488, df = 8 ). Question 12 (Figure 5.) had a sample size of 119 students. Where 42 agreed and 77 disagreed with the statement. Figure 5 i llustrated that more students at the MFS, CEC, the Adventist school, and Colegio Santa Elena agreed that the type of government (i.e. socialist, democratic, kingdom) does not affect how the environment is protected. However, the majority of students at EHS disagreed with the same statement.

PAGE 8

FIGURE 5. The proportion of agrees to disagrees of for the statement ( X 2 = 22.1449713, p = 0.00465427, df = 8 ). Question 15 (Figure 6.) had a sample size of 104 students. Where 27 students agreed and 77 students d isagreed with the statement. Figure 6 demonstrated that the majority of students sampled at the MFS, CEC, and EHS disagreed with the statement. Governments and other organizations take into consideration short term and long term environmental effects befor e they make decisions. Where as more students at the Adventist school and Colegio Santa Elena agreed with the same statement.

PAGE 9

FIGURE 6. The proportions of agrees to disagrees for the statement ( X 2 = 19.5743466, p = 0.01207217, df = 8 ). Question 23 ( Figure 7.) had a sample size of 106 students. Where 62 students agreed and 44 disagreed. Figure 7 demonstrated that more students at the MFS, CEC, the Adventist School, and Colegio Santa Elena disagreed with the statement: when people are against something politicians generally support public opinion. Conversely, students at EHS overwhelmingly agreed with the same statement.

PAGE 10

FIGURE 7. The proportions of agrees to disagrees for the statement ( X 2 = 23.6082181, p = 0.00266513, df = 8 ). Question 25 (Fi gure 8.) had 110 students in the sample size. Where 20 students agreed and 90 disagreed with the statement. Figure 8. Illustrates that the majority of students sampled at the MFS, CEC, CSE, and EHS disagreed with the statement: The information that reporte rs present in the news is generally true and without prejudice. In contrast students at the Adventist School agreed with the same statement.

PAGE 11

Figure 8. The proportions of agrees to disagrees for the statement ( X 2 = 29.181547 p = 0.002946 df = 8 ). DISCUSSION Question 4 was a good example of demographic differences between the schools. The students sampled at the MFS had preferences most similar to the preferences of students from EHS. Where as students at the CEC, the Adventist school, and Coleg io Santa Elena had similar preferences. Which makes sense because the majority of students in those three schools were from Costa Rica. Data from Householder (2002) also confirms that the MFS has the highest proportion of non Costa Rican students. The per centage of non Costa Rican students at the MFS was higher than any of the other area schools. Question 5 had no trend other than that proportions of those that agreed to disagree was statistically significant. What? This makes no sense. More students fro m EHS, CEC, and the Adventist school agreed that corruption was a natural and inevitable part of every government. Where as there peers at the MFS and Colegio Santa Elena did not think so. There were a variety of factors that influenced an individual to ag ree with that statement. There was not a clear demographic or cultural breakdown. A large proportion of students from: a public school in the United States, a private school with an environmental education emphasis in Costa Rica, and students from a privat e religious school in Costa Rica all agreed that corruption in government is natural. The trend in Question 8 was that a majority of all students sampled across all five schools disagreed that no matter what people do, environmental issues are too big and advanced to solve. The trend is not due to differences in demographics, geography, curriculum, or type of school. However, it could be due to cultural heritages of human denomination over the

PAGE 12

environment. Like the settlement of Monteverde for area high sch ool student, and for EHS students it could be the cultural legacy of 19 th century westward expansion. Question 11 illustrated the MFS, the Adventist school, and Colegio Santa Elena all agreed that there national government protects the environment better than the majority of world governments. In contrast, students at the CEC and EHS who disagreed with the same statement. This could be true because of the level environmental knowledge. If a student attended a school that had an emphasis on environmental ed ucation this student maybe more inclined to believe their government is not doing enough to protect it. Likewise with students at EHS if you were in an environmental science class you were learning about the inconsistencies in environmental legislation in the United States. You may also be less inclined to believe your government is doing enough. Scott & Fern (1994) suggested that age can could play considerable role. However, students at the Adventist School and Colegio Santa Elena said they agreed that th eir government protects the environment better than most nations. Which makes sense growing up in a community that relies heavily on eco tourism as the basis for the local economy. Question 12 asked whether you or disagreed that the type of government doe s not affect how the environment is protected. The majority of students sampled from Monteverde schools agreed that the type of government did not affect how the environment was protected. Where as the majority of students at EHS disagreed. Education could be a significant factor at play here in addition to geography. Maybe students at EHS have only of heard of democratic countries with established national park systems. The literature suggests that education is the primary indicator with income coming in a close second (Scott & Willits, 1994). Question 16 illustrated the trend schools with established environmental education programs had a greater proportion of students that disagreed with the statement: Governments and other organizations take into conside ration short term and long term environmental effects before they make decisions. Where as students at the Adventist school and Colegio Santa Elena had a greater proportion that agreed with the statement. This maybe true because of they may know less about government and other organizations. It could also be that they trust government and other organizations to make sound judgments. Question 23 illustrated a geographic or cultural divide where a greater proportion of students sampled among all Monteverde s chools disagreed that: when people are against something, politicians generally support public opinion. In contrast a greater proportion of students at EHS agreed with the same statement. This difference could be explained by evidence that Costa Rican poli ticians only pay attention to large well organized special interests in the country like foreign companies, businesses owners, or agricultural interests. Where as in the United States if an elected official does not pay attention to their constituency that elected them to office they are less likely to be re elected. The data from question 23 suggested a lack of transparency in Costa Rican politics. The distribution of responses for Question 25 said a greater proportion of students disagreed from EHS, Cole gio Santa Elena, MFS, and the CEC with the statement: The information that reporters present in the news is generally true and without prejudice. Where as a greater proportion of students from the Adventist school agreed with that statement. This could be due to any number of factors such as their

PAGE 13

exposure to different media forms or income (Klingberg et al. 1998). What if your income doesn't allow you to have access to news outlets on a consistent basis? It would not be unreasonable for a person to belief that most of the information presented in news outlets is true and without biases. A just as likely explanation for the four other schools is maybe since these students have access to more forms of media they are able to discern biases or distinct styles o f journalism in them. For the most part demographic, geographic, curricular, and type of school were not great determinants of preference behavior of the students sampled. Certainly there are interesting trends such as in questions for 4, 8, 12, 16, and 23 However, I feel there were quite a few antecedent and intervening variables that could affect how these students responded to questions on the survey. Suggestions for further research could include questions that ask for level of parental education, con trol for age, family income, how often they read or watch the news, and what students talk about in their free time. LITERATURE CITED Bloom, D.E. 1995. International Public Opinion on the Environment. SCIENCE 269 354 358. Dunlap, R. E. 1989. Publi c opinion and environmental policy. In J. P. Lester (Ed), Environmental politics and policy, pp. 87 134. Duke University Press, Durham. Dunlap, R. R., AND Van Liere, K.D. 1978. The "environmental paradigm": A proposed instrument and preliminary results Journal of Environmental Education 9: 10 19. Hillygus, D. 2005. The Missing Link: Exploring the Relationship Between Higher Education and Political Engagement. Political Behavior 27 (1): 25 47. Householder, Clara. 2002. Environmental Education and U nderstanding: the Case for Understanding Students in Monteverde Costa Rica. Evergreen State College Department of Biology. CIEE Press. Monteverde, Costa Rica. Klineberg, S. L., McKeever, A., AND Rothenback, B. 1998. Demographic predictors of environm ental concern: does it make a difference how its measured. Social Quarterly 79 (4): 734 755. Scott, D., AND Willits, F. K. 1994. Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: A Pennsylvania survey. Environmental Behavior 26: 239 260. Van Liere, K. D., AND Dunlap, R. E. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern; A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly 44: 181 197.

PAGE 14

Vitousek, P. M., Mooney H. A., Lubchenco, J., AND Melillo, J.M. 1997. Human Dominat ion of Earth's Ecosystems. SCIENCE 277 494 499. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Alan Masters for helping me throughout the process of my project. I would like to thank Dolly Ledin at the CEC for letting me sample her students and for providing me with my survey for answering all my phone calls and emails in a timely and courteous manner. I would like to thank Liz Delaney for developing the assessment I used in this project. I would like to thank Heather Goose for allowing me to sample her students at the MFS. I would like to thank Marciella Araya for administering my survey to her students at Colegio Santa Elena. I would also like to thank Nabir Pinto and Erick Montenegro at Centro Educaci—n Adventista de Monteverde for getting permiss ion for me to sample their students and for being my contacts at the school. I would also like to thank Yi men Araya for helping me with my stats. I would also thank Jason Szporn and Eric Burfiend at Edina Senior High School for getting back to me in a tim ely manner and for allowing me to sample their students. Then I would lastly like to thank the 150 students who took the survey.

PAGE 15

Appendix A Nombre: (opcional) ___________________________ Grado: _____________________________ Cuestionario Secci—n A: Instrucciones: Envolver en un c’rculo la letra que refleja sus verdaderos sentimientos. No hay ninguna respuesta que es correcta ni incorrecta. 1. Debemos de proteger al medioambiente, pero solo cu‡ndo no cuesta mucho dinero. (3.2.6) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de a cuerdo contra esta 2. Estoy preocupado por el medioambiente y el futuro del planeta. (5.2.3) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acu erdo contra esta 3. Pienso que los problemas del medioambiente est‡n exagerados por los periodistas y los profesores. (5.4.5) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 4. Mi cultura y mi sexo afectan como veo la naturaleza en m’ alrededor. (3.1.1) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuer do neutral de acuerdo contra esta 5. La corrupci—n es una parte natural e inevitable de cualquier gobierno. (3.2.2) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 6. Le gente el en mundo generalmente se consume la misma cantidad de recursos naturales. (3.1.2) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta

PAGE 16

7. No es la responsabilidad de los due–os de los negocios proteger al medioambiente. (3.2.7) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No es toy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 8. No importa lo que hace la gente, los problemas medioambientales est‡n demasiados avanzados y grandes para resolver. (5.3.2) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 9. Es posible anticipar los efectos de cualquier acci—n al medioambiente. (3.1.4) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 10. El comercio internacional asegura que todos los pa’ses del mundo se reciben la misma canti dad de recursos naturales. (3.2.1) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 11. El gobierno de Costa Rica proteja al medioambiente mejor que la mayor’a de pa’ses en el mundo. (3.2.2) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 12. No imp orta mucho el tipo de gobierno (socialista, democr‡tica, reino) a como esta protegido el medioambiente. (3.2.2) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 13. Toda la tierra protegida en Costa Rica pertenece al gobierno. (3.2.4) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 14. La salud del medioambiente se depende el la salud de las relaciones entre los varios pa’ses del mundo. (3.3.8) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy

PAGE 17

acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 15. Los gobiernos y otras organizaciones se consideran los efectos de corto y largo plazo al medioambiente antes de tomar una decisi—n. (3.2.6) A B C D E Estoy muy de Es toy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 16. La mayor’a de la tecnolog’a ayuda al medioambiente. (3.3.1) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 17. Tomo acci—n para minimizar el da–o que hago al medioambiente. (3.3.8) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 18. Costa Rica maneja bien toda la basura que se genera la gente. (3.4.4) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 19. Me gusta hacer investigaciones para encontrar las respuestas de mis preguntas. (4.2.1) A B C D E Estoy muy de Est oy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 20. Puedo hablar con la gente sobre una gran variedad de problemas que se encuentra el medioambiente. (5.1.1) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 21. Tengo interŽs en trabajar para ayudarle al medioambiente, y me doy cuenta que va a tomar una parte de mi tiempo libre. (5.2.1, 5.2.3) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 22. Acciones individ uales pueden ayudar al medioambiente. (5.2.2, 5.3.2) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta

PAGE 18

23. Cuando la gente est a contra una acci—n, los pol’ticos generalmente apoyan al las opiniones del publico. (5.3.1) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 24. La honestidad no es muy importante para resolver problemas medioambientales. (5.3.3) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 25. La informaci—n que se encuentra en los peri—dicos y en las noticias generalmente es verdadero y sin prejuicio. (5.4.5) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acu erdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 26. Si tuviera que escoger entre proteger a un ‡rea natural y crear hogares para humanos, escoger’a proteger a la naturaleza. (5.2.4) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy d e Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 27. El gobierno debe de escribir un ley para hacerlo obligatorio que la gente recicla. (3.2.2) A B C D E Estoy m uy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 28. Todo el mundo piensa que el muy importante proteger al medioambiente. (3.1.1) A B C D E E stoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 29. Costa Rica tiene, como recurso natural, bastante agua para toda la poblaci—n. (3.2.1) A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta 30. Hay m‡s que una soluci—n para la mayor’a de los problemas medioambientales. ( 5.3.3)

PAGE 19

A B C D E Estoy muy de Estoy de Estoy No estoy Estoy muy acuerdo acuerdo neutral de acuerdo contra esta Secci—n B: Por favor, para cada articulo, poner un X en uno de los c uatros cuadritos. No hay respuestas correctas ni incorrectas. N = Nunca o no P = Pocas veces (3 o 4 veces por a–o) A = A veces (3 o 4 veces por mes) M = Muchas veces o s’ (casi todo el tiempo) ACCION N P A M Traigo mi almuerzo en recipientes pl‡sticos que se puede usar m‡s de una vez. Cierro el tubo cu‡ndo estoy cepill‡ndome los dientes. En la casa, pretendo reciclar tanto como puedo. Tiro basura en el suelo. Hablo con otros sobre la importancia de proteger al medioambien te. Me gusta aprender mas sobre el planeta y como protegerlo Me gusta el trabajo que hacemos con Milton. Estoy aburrida cuando aprendo sobre el medioambiente. Secci—n C: Por favor, poner un X en uno de los tres cuadritos. No hay respu estas correctas ni incorrectas. M= SŽ mucho acerca de este problema P= SŽ un poco acerca de este problema N= No sŽ casi nada acerca de este problema PROBLEMA M P N Calentamiento global y el efecto invernadero Destrucci—n de la capa de oz ono Contaminaci—n de aire Deforestaci—n y destrucci—n de h‡bitat Explotaci—n de recursos naturales Contaminaci—n de agua Contaminaci—n del suelo