The Investigation of Environmental Risk Perception and Attitudes towards the Environment in Secondary School Students.

In the study, secondary school students' perceptions of environmental risk perceptions and their attitudes towards the environment were investigated. The study was conducted on 1003 secondary school students from Ankara, Turkey. Survey method is used in this study which is a descriptive research. To determine state of students’ environmental risk perception the Environmental Appraisal Inventory (EAI) was used. New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale was used to determine student attitudes towards the environment. Multivariate analysis (MANOVA) has been used to determine whether class, school type and gender makes a difference in the risk perceptions. The relationship between environmental risk perceptions and environmental approaches were determined the Pearson correlation coefficient. In the MANOVA test, it was determined that the genders, school type and class levels showed significant difference in terms of scores obtained from the EAI scale. INTRODUCTION The dominant social structure in the world creates and shapes new environmental problems. In the history of humanity, human intervention in nature has never reached as large a scale as it is now. Humans have now become a fundamental and decisive factor in the system of the earth. Human activities cause global environmental changes which humans suffer from. Hazards that affect the environment can be either human-induced, such as technological risks, or an act of nature, such as volcanic eruptions or meteorites. There are two types of human-induced global environmental changes. The first type can be directly effective on a global scale, for example, on oceans or the atmosphere. The second type involves the accumulation of regional changes that cause a global impact; for example, though it is local, the destruction of a forest area as a habitat for a large number of species can be effective on a global scale as it will cause a substantial portion of all species in the world to disappear (Turner et al., 1990). Certain environmental problems that are influential today generally include the greenhouse effect or global warming, the depletion of ozone layer, hazardous materials and wastes, the degradation of water resources and wetlands, the destruction of forests, urbanization, and population growth. Environmental problems that arise as human intervention in nature increases have brought about risks that threaten the life on earth. In this regard, risk can be considered a social structure of modern society. Risk perception that is the main component of risk analysis is most often used in the context of natural hazards and threats to the environment or health (WHO, 2013). According to Ulrich Beck who introduced the concept of risk society in 1992, modern societies have been occupied in identifying and managing risks for a long time (Zwick & Renn, 2002). Risk here refers to the likelihood of the undesired side effects of an action or an event (Renn, 2003). Risks are also associated with incidents that have undefined origins and signs (Karger & Wiedemann 1996). Unlike the point of view of science and technology, the perception of risks by non-experts is not objective (Karger & Wiedemann, 1996; Meili, 2005). Risk perception refers to the evaluation and adoption of sensory perceptions or information about risks and hazards in an individual's mind. Experts usually equate a risk with the expected average loss (damage) per unit of time. However, non-experts perceive risks as a complex, multidimensional phenomenon that has a decisive impact on the perceived risk size in case of risky situations and in which even the subjective expectation of loss (damage) plays a secondary role (Renn, 2003). The factors of risk perception for non-experts include the following (Slovic 1987; Renn, 2003; Bennet & Calman, 2010): the identification of risk sources and the causes of risk (natural or anthropogenic), the possibility of dominance and personal control, the familiarity with risk sources, the willingness to take risks, the likelihood of a risk source causing a disaster, the objective distribution effect of benefit and risk, the reversibility of risk results, personal experiences with technology and nature, and exposure. Sandman has formulated the risk perception as Perceived Risk (R) = Hazard (H) + Outrage (O). Risk perception is the subjective judgment of people about the features and intensity of a risk. It is composed of two components: hazard and outrage. Hazard (technically and scientifically) refers to the combination of the likelihood of a particular event (e.g. an increase in cancer rate, a catastrophic accident) and the TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2017, Special Issue for INTE 2017 Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 436 severity of its consequence. Outrage (the subjective component) focuses on an opposite situation of the risk dimension. This category includes the nature management of risk. The basic components of outrage factors include "the involuntary nature of the issue, the artificial (industrial) nature of the risk, the use of cover-up or silence, attempts to engage message recipients to persuade them about the issue, the occurrence of accidents, double truths around the issue, conflicts of interest, contradictory messages and inequitable distribution of risk". Anantho (2008) defines risk perception as the subjective judgment of individuals about the seriousness and characteristics of a risk. since the 1970s, research on risk perception has focused on why people perceive risks differently (Chauvin, Hermand & Mullet, 2007) and has been conducted on the basis of different approaches and models. Research based on a techno-scientific approach (Marks, Martin & Zadoroznyj, 2008) considers risks to be identifiable and measurable and associates risk perception with the visible, familiar, clear, controllable, forgettable, voluntary and rapidly observable nature of risks. The psychometric model also accepts that risk perception is determined by risk characteristics as it is suggested by the technoscientific approach and it also suggests that there may be other factors that affect risk perception (Slimak, & Dietz, 2006). According to the comprehensive personality model, personal attributes such as extroversion, compatibility, conscientiousness, emotional consistency and mental capacity are considered in assessing risk perception (Chauvin, Hermand & Mullet, 2007; Slovic, 2007). According to the value-belief-norm theory, sociodemographic and sociostructural properties and religious beliefs as well as personal values affect risk perception either directly or through the worldview (Stern, et. al., 1999). The risk society approach that became widespread in the 1990s suggests that risk has played an increasing role in life and the concept of risk is related to the social structure composed of historical, social and cultural content (Yalçınkaya & Özsoy, 2003). Risk and risk perception are evaluated differently by people in line with their own attitudes and moral values. People generally do not want to be informed about undefined risks; they prefer to ignore them when they feel they have no effective defense against threats (e.g. in case of unavoidable risks, WHO, 2013). The 1989 report of the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) noted that the perception level of technological risks changed with the economic level. Similarly, Riechard and McGarrity (1994) found that the risk perception among young people significantly differed by socioeconomic status; however, there was no general change in the level of risk perception between the low and high socioeconomic level groups as the difference was specific to the risk source. Risk perception, on the one hand, is influenced by people's moral values, on the other hand, shapes their behavior (Sandman, 2013). In general, psychologists have identified two ways of thinking since the 1980s. The first is characterized by a simple reasoning that focuses on the relevant information filtered by intuition. The second is characterized by a mature capacity and a conscious analytical way of thinking that evaluate a broad range of knowledge (including statistical data). The second way of thinking is a typical scientific assessment, while the first is the common way of thinking shared by many people (scientists are included in this group if they act as "ordinary people"). Communication based on reasoned arguments such as effective risk management practices, relevant safety statistics, etc. cannot affect those who have the first way of thinking (Bennet & Calman, 2010). These two ways of thinking highlight how to reframe information, among the greatest challenges of risk communication, in a manner to be understood by ordinary people. The results of a multinational GlobeScan survey in 2013 demonstrate the importance of these studies. According to the results of this survey, environmental concerns among people around the world have been in decrease since 2009 and have now dropped to the lowest level of twenty years. It should be noted that protective measures taken by health care institutions are more effective when the risk is perceived more clearly by the society (Sandman, 2013; World Health Organization, 2013). Research of two decades ago reported increased public awareness of ecological risks in parallel with the growing awareness of environmental degradation and sustainability (Dunlap & Merting, 1995; Slovic, 1996). The decline in environmental concern in recent years despite the increased environmental problems indicates the complex nature of the interaction of factors that influence risk perception. The results of risk perception research based on different approaches and models are of key importance in guiding risk management and contributing to risk mitigation activities. Environmental risk analyses concerning public opinion focus on how people assess various technological and environme