Assessment Level of Environmental Literacy among Applied Science
Private University (ASU) Students
TALA SASA1, WAFA`A. AHMAD1, NAWAL H. BAHTITI1, MAHA ABUJABER1,
ABEER ADEYLEH1, OMNIYA MIRI2
1Department of Basic Science and Humanities, Faculty of Arts and Science,
Applied Science Private University,
JORDAN
2Department of Basic Science,Preparatory Year and Supporting Studies.
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University. Damam,
SAUDI ARABIA
Abstract:- Environmental literacy EL is a significant aspect that must be implanted in education; to continuously
protect environment systems, communities, and future generations. Students should understand skills and
motivation to make responsible decisions for a sustainable environment. This research aimed to assess student EL
and evaluate the influence of demographic factors on the EL level among students at Applied Science Private
University in Jordan.
A total of 323 students; 53.6% male, and 46.4% females- took the EL test. The test had three parts: student’s
demographic profile, environmental knowledge, and attitude.
The findings indicated that students had high environmental knowledge of energy, pollution, and recycling. The
results also showed that students had a moderate level of environmental knowledge on issues such as
environmental concerns, ecology, water scarcity, global warming, and ozone layer depletion. The lower mean
scores were determined for items on time of gardens irrigation and flue gas. It also revealed no differences between
Gender, faculty, cumulative average, and income levels affect EL.
Multimedia alongside books and school environmental experience served as the key source of environmental
information. It concluded that environmental knowledge does not always influence the behavioral intentions, so a
national strategy is needed to improve current curricula in higher education institution
Key-words:- Environmental Literacy, Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Behaviors and Attitudes, Applied
Science Private University (ASU).
Received: September 17, 2021. Revised: June 21, 2022. Accepted: July 2, 2022. Published: July 28, 2022.
1 Introduction
Environmental literacy is a way to promote
individual behavioral changes towards a more
sustainable lifestyle to interact consciously with
environmental challenges[1, 2]. Fostering
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors provides a sound
basis for setting up positive communities[2]. All
segments of society, primarily the youth, participate
in this change[3]. Environmental problems are
currently the main threat to the ecosystem.
Overpopulation, economic development,
industrialization, pollution, urbanization, and
resource depletion worldwide are significant
environmental challenges [4]. Moreover, recognition
of the impact of humankind on the environment is
becoming more and more important nowadays [5].
Anthropogenic influences on nature have produced
and will produce major consequences for societies.
Therefore, it is necessary to foster appropriate
environmental education and raise individual
awareness of the consequences of human activities.
In addition, highlighted select positive behavior, the
heightened relevance of environmental education
efforts that aims to enhance knowledge, promote
attitudes toward nature, and ultimately positively
influence environmental behavior as the main
objectives that influence our societies [6].
The importance of raising environmentally educated
people is increasing. Educational institutions play a
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.96
Tala Sasa, Wafa A. Ahmad, Nawal H. Bahtiti,
Maha Abujaber, Abeer Adeyleh, Omniya Miri
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1012
Volume 18, 2022
critical role in raising awareness about environmental
literacy, attitudes, and behavior towards the
environment [7]. The more persistent requirement of
environmental education is an understanding of the
relationship between attitudes, behaviors, and the
value of the ecosystem [3]. Therefore, Higher
education institutes focus their efforts on
understanding students' this relationship, and the
need to change both attitudes and behaviors, argued
from a range of perspectives and positions on what
lE is [8].
ASU is an ideal model for sustainability through EL
among students, which is critical to addressing
current and emerging environmental challenges and
facilitating the transition to a safer society. ASU also
contributes to increasing the strategic EL among
students by activating curricula related to the
environment, learning from experience, and building
new insights regarding critical conditions to
accelerate the transition to a sustainable society [9].
The goal is to empower students to become different;
to overcome all these challenges. Since the
assumption is that environmentally educated people
will exhibit more responsible behavior towards
environmental protection. Herein lies the significance
of this study, which aims to gain more insights into
EL for ASU students. In addition to evaluating the
role of the university in increasing the energy
efficiency necessary to build a conscious generation
capable of protecting the environment [6].
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to reveal the
environmental consciousness levels of undergrad
university students based on evaluating the attitudes
and behavior they exert. It also focuses on the
determination of the effect of the socio-economic
demographic factors like gender, age, class, faculty,
cumulative average, educational status of their
parents, and the income level of their families
contributing the environmental awareness,
knowledge about its significance, the attitude and
sensitivity and vulnerability toward current
environmental issues. [10].
2 Materials and Methods
This cross-sectional survey was conducted during the
second semester of the 2020/2021 academic year as a
campus-wide sample of undergraduate students
across all faculties at ASU. It was comprised of 323
students: 150 females (46.4%) and 173 males
(53.6%). The sample included students with
humanities or science backgrounds. The students
with a humanities background comprise 164 students
(50.8%). The students with a science background
comprise 159 students (49.2%). An E-questionnaire
was distributed using the Google Form, and shared
through the Microsoft Teams platform. Participants
were recruited randomly and volunteered in this
study. A 3-part survey was implemented, used by
Şahin et al. [11]. The first part of the survey
comprised variables aimed at defining the student
profiles (gender, faculty, class, cumulative average,
age educational level of the father, educational level
of the mother, and income level). The second part
included 20 subjects to test the environmental
knowledge of students. In the third stage, the students
were administered a different evaluation scale
comprising 20 elements to evaluate environmental
behavior [12]. Five Likert-type gradings were applied
to both scales, and the students' opinions on the scale
were graded as “strongly disagree=1”, “disagree=2”,
“neither agree nor disagree =3”, and “agree=4”,
“Strongly agree=5”. The components on the behavior
scale were graded as “never=1”, “rarely=2”,
“sometimes=3”, “often=4”, and “always=5”.
Statistical analysis was carried out using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (version 22.0,
SPSS, Inc.) software. Analysis of variance ANOVA
test was used to determine the result independent
variables have on the dependent variable amid a
regression study. Results were expressed as means ±
SD (standard deviation). Parametric variables were
analyzed using students’ t-test, while chi-squared
analyses were conducted for non-parametric
variables The reliability coefficient (Cronbach's
Alpha) of the study is 0.886. The statistical
significance level was set at p < 0.05 (two-sided). A
Cronbach’s alpha test on a sample of 112
respondents was used to validate the reliability of the
research instrument.
3 Results
3.1 Profile of the Respondents
A wide variety of academic majors were represented
in the sample of 323 students. The majority of
respondents fell within the age range of 20 to 22
years (50.8%), gender distribution was approximately
even (53.6% male and 46.4% female). The ASU
student population constituted undergraduate
students, and among these, 21.1% of respondents
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.96
Tala Sasa, Wafa A. Ahmad, Nawal H. Bahtiti,
Maha Abujaber, Abeer Adeyleh, Omniya Miri
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1013
Volume 18, 2022
were 1st-year students, 28.5 2nd-year students,
21.7% 3rd-year students, 16.81.6% 4th-year students,
and 10.2% 5th-year students. About 36.8% of the
total sample were students with a cumulative average
greater than or equal to 84. According to the findings
in Table 01, 68.4% of the fathers and 44.3% of the
mothers were university graduates holding a BS
degree. The income levels of 32.5% of them were in
the interval from 500 to 999 JOD per month. As for
the source of environmental information, 28.8% were
from Multi-Media sources. Meanwhile, only 5.00%
were from seminars
Table 1. Individual Features of the Students
Variable
Group
Number
n=232
Percentage
(%)
Gender
Male
173
53.6
Female
150
46.4
Faculty
Humanities
164
50.8
Scientific
159
49.2
Class
1st year
68
21.1
2nd year
92
28.5
3rd year
70
21.7
4th year
60
18.6
5th year
33
10.2
Cumulative Average
60-67.9
60
18.6
68-75.9
73
22.6
76-83.9
71
22.0
≥ 84
119
36.8
Age
17-19 yrs.
67
20.7
20-22 yrs.
164
50.8
23-25 yrs.
65
20.1
>26 yrs.
27
8.4
Educational Level of the father
None
9
2.8
Primary Education
5
2.5
Secondary Education
43
13.3
Bachelor Degree
221
68.4
Graduate Studies (MS & PhD)
42
13.0
Educational Level of the mother
None
29
9.0
Primary Education
19
5.9
Secondary Education
90
27.9
Bachelor Degree
143
44.3
Graduate Studies (MS & PhD)
42
13.0
Income Level
< 500 JOD
45
13.9
500-1000 JOD
105
32.5
1000 -1500 JOD
75
23.2
> 1500 JOD
98
30.3
Environmental Information Source
School
63
19.5
TV
35
10.8
Multi-Media
93
28.8
Seminars
16
5.0
Books
28
8.7
University Courses
62
19.2
From Parents
26
8.0
3.2 Environmental Knowledge
Students responded to an environmental knowledge
scale consisting of 20 items.
Table 02 presents the results obtained from the
student response to each item on the scale.
Measurement of the environment knowledge
ranged from 0 to 2.48 as low-level knowledge, 2.49 –
3.49 as mid-level knowledge, and 3.50 – 5.00 as
high-level knowledge. According to the findings, the
general environmental knowledge level of the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.96
Tala Sasa, Wafa A. Ahmad, Nawal H. Bahtiti,
Maha Abujaber, Abeer Adeyleh, Omniya Miri
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1014
Volume 18, 2022
students was found to be above average at 3.63.
Results showed that students had a high level of
knowledge about “broken mirrors, pieces of bottles
and returnable glass bottles should be deposited in
the glass recycling bin” and “buying a recyclable
paper is important in terms of protecting the
environment” This indicated that students were well-
informed about major waste pollution and disposal
problem. The results also showed that students had a
moderate level of environmental knowledge on
issues such as environmental concerns, ecology,
water scarcity, global warming, and ozone layer
depletion. The lower mean scores were determined
for items on time of gardens irrigation and flue gas.
Table 2. Analysis of the Environmental Knowledge Levels of the Students
Items
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Cronbach’s
Alpha
W1. Noise irritates humans, not diseases
1.73
0.84
0.860
W2 Keep batteries and small equipment until the end of the emergency period
and deliver them to stores.
3.76
1.30
W3. Taking a shower rather than a bath causes less damage to the environment.
3.91
1.00
W4. Carbon dioxide gas is the only gas responsible for ozone layer depletion.
3.70
1.09
W5. Flue gas harms trees, not humans.
3.67
1.31
W6. There are alternative energy sources such as the sun and the wind that can
be used to produce electrical energy, apart from the ones that are harmful to the
environment.
3.89
1.15
W7. In order to ensure radiators use less energy, windows should be kept wide
open for a short time, rather than keeping them slightly open for longer periods.
3.64
1.39
W8. Recycling means making some wastes reusable.
3.86
1.22
W9. Buying our beverages in returnable bottles, instead of single-use cans, is
more beneficial in terms of protecting the environment.
3.87
1.11
W10. Buying recyclable paper is important in terms of protecting the
environment.
3.86
1.14
W11. Not to conduct sanitary extermination of mosquitoes, ants and rodents at
home while family members are present.
4.07
1.06
W12. Products have labels on their packages indicating whether they are
environmentally friendly.
4.03
1.14
W13. It is claimed that the reason why some regions on earth will be submerged
is ozone layer depletion.
3.95
1.19
W14. Waste should be collected separately as glass, plastic, paper, special waste
and other waste.
3.14
1.49
W15. Broken mirrors, pieces of bottles and returnable glass bottles should be
deposited in the glass recycling bin.
3.44
1.40
W16. Placing furniture such as wardrobes in front of radiators in houses or
schools causes energy waste.
3.68
1.24
W17. The sharp reduction in the movement of people during the pandemic has
led to a decrease in carbon emissions and thus a decrease in the level of air
pollution.
3.44
1.38
W18. Low levels of nitrogen oxides during a pandemic.
3.91
1.17
W19. In summer, the best time to irrigate gardens at noon time with the highest
temperature of the day.
3.32
1.38
W20. The economic repercussions of the Corona pandemic will slow down the
development of technology used in green energy.
3.25
1.40
GENERAL
3.61
0.62
Scale: (1). strongly disagree. (2). disagree. (3). neither agree nor disagree. (4). agree. (5). strongly agree
3.3 Attitude and Sensitivity TOWARD the
Environment Table 03 shows the results of student responses to an
environmental attitude scale consisting of 20 items.
The environmental attitude scale for students was
divided into three, ranging from 0 to 2.49 as a
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.96
Tala Sasa, Wafa A. Ahmad, Nawal H. Bahtiti,
Maha Abujaber, Abeer Adeyleh, Omniya Miri
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1015
Volume 18, 2022
negative attitude, to 2.50 to 3.49 as a moderate level
attitude to 3.50 to 5.00 as a positive attitude using
means of responses.
The results show that students had no negative
attitudes toward any of the items. They had a
moderate level attitude to statements on
environmental protection measures, convenient
recycling wastes methods, water conservation
actions, and the disastrous consequences of human
activities. Students, however, showed a positive
attitude toward items related to energy conservation,
plastic waste disposal, and eco-friendly measures.
Table 3. Analysis of the Environmental Attitude and Behavior of the Students
Items
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Cronbach’s
Alpha
V1. Don't waste water when washing hands.
4.46
0.78
0.73
V2. When buying laundry powders/liquids or washing up liquid, I consider
whether they are harmful to the environment.
3.93
1.07
V3. I separate unused paper in the house and inform the collectors or deliver the
paper to them.
3.85
1.10
V4. We make sure to wear a cloth mask instead of a medical mask to reduce waste.
3.62
1.19
V5. I pay attention to whether notebooks and papers are made out of recyclable
paper.
4.45
0.71
V6. Keep batteries and small equipment until the end of the emergency period and
deliver them to stores.
3.81
0.98
V7. I deposit used bottles in glass recycling bins.
4.03
1.06
V8. Use electronic files instead of printing more than once.
4.36
0.86
V9. My family and I give our old things and books to people in need or to
organizations collecting them.
3.91
1.12
V10. I don’t keep doors and windows open while the radiator is working.
3.83
1.19
V11. I pay attention not to leave the lights, radio and television on unnecessarily.
3.86
0.98
V12. I discuss environmental pollution with my friends.
3.42
1.24
V13. I buy new cell-phones and computer s when I have enough money.
4.34
0.99
V14. We are careful not to throw masks and gloves in public places.
3.71
1.12
V15. I participate in conferences or other meetings regarding the protection of the
environment.
2.43
1.30
V16. I inform a journal or journalist or politician or any responsible authority of
problems to prevent environmental pollution.
3.39
1.46
GENERAL
3.84
0.49
Scale: (1). never. (2). rarely. (3). sometimes. (4). often. (5). always.
3.4 Scales Reliability
The Cronbach’s Alpha values of scales were
measured as 0.860 for the knowledge scale and as
0.73 for the behavior scale once the reliability
coefficients in Table 02 and Table 03 were tested.
Such values indicate a high degree of reliability for
the utilized scales.
3.5 Evaluation of the Variables Affecting EL
Quantitative variance analysis was carried out to
identify variables that affected EL among the
participants. Dependent variables were the two
environmental scales (knowledge and behavior), with
demographic variables of gender, faculty, class,
cumulative average, age, parent's education, income
levels, and EE experience as predictors. The results
are summarized in Table 04.
According to Table 04, it was contemplated that four
variables had a significant influence on EL (p-value
< 0.05). Gender, faculty, cumulative average, and
income level were related to EL. Furthermore, results
showed a statistically significant effect of family
income level on the students’ environmental
knowledge. Similarly, consistent with [20] work,
results indicated a statistically significant effect of
gender, and faculty on attitude and sensitivity toward
the environment.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.96
Tala Sasa, Wafa A. Ahmad, Nawal H. Bahtiti,
Maha Abujaber, Abeer Adeyleh, Omniya Miri
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1016
Volume 18, 2022
Table 4. The Relation of the Environmental Knowledge and Behaviors of Students with their
Individual Characteristics
Variable
Group
Knowledge
Behavior
Mean
S.D
P value
Mean
S.D
P value
Gender
Male
3.64
0.62
0.266
3.84
0.53
0.915
Female
3.56
0.62
3.83
0.45
Faculty
Humanities
3.64
0.68
0.327
3.88
0.53
0.128
Scientific
3.57
0.56
3.79
0.46
Class
1st year
3.54
0.54
0.021
3.79
0.35
0.000
2nd year
3.72
0.67
3.87
0.56
3rd year
3.59
0.58
3.95
0.41
4th year
3.68
0.66
3.90
0.53
5th year
3.32
0.59
3.48
0.48
Cumulative
Average
60-67.9
3.64
0.62
0.032
3.79
0.58
0.642
68-75.9
3.78
0.57
3.89
0.52
76-83.9
3.56
0.65
3.86
0.42
≥ 84
3.51
0.62
3.81
0.47
Age
17-19 yrs.
3.50
0.52
0.056
3.73
0.37
0.173
20-22 yrs.
3.69
0.66
3.89
0.53
23-25 yrs.
3.49
0.61
3.83
0.48
>26 yrs.
3.63
0.59
3.83
0.56
Educational
Level of the
father
None
3.21
0.37
0.143
3.72
0.22
0.117
Primary Education
3.71
0.70
3.44
0.58
Secondary Education
3.76
0.60
3.92
0.49
Bachelor Degree
3.60
0.63
3.85
0.49
Graduate Studies
3.56
0.61
3.79
0.49
Educational
Level of the
mother
None
3.72
0.58
0.223
3.76
0.38
0.176
Primary Education
3.81
0.47
4.00
0.42
Secondary Education
3.50
0.60
3.78
0.50
Bachelor Degree
3.63
0.67
3.89
0.51
Graduate Studies
3.57
0.57
3.78
0.48
Income Level
< 500 JOD
3.73
0.49
0.002
3.88
0.46
0.004
500-1000 JOD
3.75
0.66
3.96
0.51
1000 -1500 JOD
3.54
0.62
3.76
0.48
> 1500 JOD
3.44
0.60
3.74
0.47
Environmental
Information
Source
School
3.63
0.68
0.766
3.84
0.49
0.099
TV
3.57
0.64
3.81
0.40
Multi-Media
3.61
0.62
3.91
0.49
Seminars
3.55
0.59
3.72
0.44
Books
3.74
0.63
3.80
0.59
University Courses
3.62
0.59
3.90
0.47
From Parents
3.45
0.57
3.59
0.55
3.6 Correlations among Components of EL
Consistent with other work [13], the results shown in
table 05 demonstrate that environmental knowledge
and attitude had a moderate level correlation r =
0.552. Meanwhile, the linear regression
model, where the environmental knowledge (EK)
was considered as an independent variable and the
environmental behavior (EB) was the dependent
variable, was found to be statistically significant and
positive F=140.734; p-value < 0.05, and the formula
was as follows;
EB = 2.256+0.438EK
This means that a 1 unit increase in the level of
environmental knowledge results in a 0.438 unit
increase in the level of environmental behavior.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.96
Tala Sasa, Wafa A. Ahmad, Nawal H. Bahtiti,
Maha Abujaber, Abeer Adeyleh, Omniya Miri
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1017
Volume 18, 2022
Table 5. The Relationship between Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Behavior
Model
Coefficients
βi
Std.
Error
t
P value
R
R2
ANOVA
(Constant)
2.256
0.135
16.66
0.000*
0.552
0.305
F = 140.734
P = 0.000*
Environmental
Knowledge
0.438
0.037
11.863
0.000*
4 Discussion
Attracting attention to the growing environmental
crisis and the increasing focus on youth education,
particularly in colleges and universities, is crucial to
protecting the ecosystem from human activity that
does not observe environmental balance [6, 8]. This
study highlights the awareness of building
environmental knowledge among undergraduates to
improve sustainable environment management.
Accordingly, in this research, EL levels have been
assessed in university students to explore the
interaction between EL components and
sociodemographic indicators. It provided further
empirical data about the validity of the EL structure.
This study explored EL among ASU students in
Jordan. However, according to other researchers [14]
and based on the principle of predictable behavior,
the impact of gender, level of parental education,
ambient educational experiences, and age on
students’ EL, as well as relations between
endogenous variables were examined (EL
components). We, therefore, consider various
strategies and conclude with suggestions for a
detailed classification system of participants in
transitions to sustainability.
Descriptive results of the EL test indicated that the
students had higher mean scores on knowledge,
while they had relatively moderate scores on attitude
and behavior. According to the results of this study, it
was established that students were well-informed
about major waste pollution and disposal problems
and had a high level of environmental knowledge.
Also, it pointed out that the students had transformed
the knowledge they had acquired about recycling
waste and other eco-friendly measures into action,
but despite having high levels of knowledge about
water scarcity and climate change, they could not
reflect that in their behaviors.
Similarly, [6, 7, 15] found a positive but moderate
correlation between knowledge and attitude. Since
the direction of the relationship was significant,
regardless of its size, students with adequate
environmental knowledge may often maintain a more
ambivalent attitude. Interestingly, students with
higher attitudes may be asserted for being able to
develop environmental knowledge. In this context,
previous studies have indicated that recognition of an
ultimate objective would intensify attitudes relevant
to that objective [6, 8].
Results also statistically revealed a good relationship
between the level of environmental literacy and the
attitude of both male and female students that will
help in instilling environmentally friendly behaviors
in the long term. These results confirm the extent to
which males are aware of environmental issues and
are contrary to many studies that implicitly indicate
that females And students of health majors showed
higher positive environmental attitudes and behaviors
than male students in humanities or sciences.
Similarly, Bord and O'connor suggest that gender
differences in environmental attitudes stem from
gender differences in the perceived vulnerability to
risk from the environment, rather than differences in
ecological sensibility between women and men [16].
The results also revealed the effect of faculty, GPA,
and income levels similar to Yilmaz and Erka [13];
Mudrisoglu and Altanlar research studies on positive
responses at the level of environmental literacy and
environmental protection [17]. According to the
arguments in Roth [1], EL is equivalent to
developing REB. In addition, after evaluating
variance assessment results for several or more
semesters, it was noted that the levels of
environmental knowledge and behavior of students
with educated parents were higher than those of those
with a college degree and that students with incomes
of 500-1000 dinars were higher than other income
levels. Similarly, the results of this study are similar
to Çelik et al. [18] that parents, especially the mother,
have a positive influence on students' sensitivity to
the environment and their actions. Parents of college
graduates are more environmentally conscious than
students with primary school students and have more
advantages [19, 20].
The results of this study revealed that the majority of
ASU students recognized that “school education” is
the primary provider of information for their
environmental awareness [21] in addition to the role
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.96
Tala Sasa, Wafa A. Ahmad, Nawal H. Bahtiti,
Maha Abujaber, Abeer Adeyleh, Omniya Miri
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1018
Volume 18, 2022
of parents [18]. While university courses, media,
seminars, and books were sources of environmental
information without giving preference to any other
source of less influence. We conducted this study to
find out the extent of the role of higher education
institutions in raising awareness of environmental
issues and defining their real role in increasing EE.
The results also indicated the importance of the role
of multimedia in raising the attention to
environmental issues to the public and assessing
environmental problems. The results also show that
higher media coverage is closely related to higher
environmental knowledge and greater environmental
responsibility.
5 Conclusion
Environmental problems today have been a major
concern in the country, so educating individuals is
the best solution to reduce environmental challenges
by raising environmental consciousness and
sensitivity. Environmental education successfully
affects the mindset and actions of students in the
community. Education is a long-term cycle, and it is
necessary to educate society at all levels, from
preschool to university education.
The future leaders ought to be university graduates of
today. Those might be engineers at major facilities or
management staff in public and private regions in the
future or senior policymakers who may put leverage
on environmental issues to lessen. Therefore,
universities should include a course covering
environmental sciences for all disciplines to improve
the awareness and consciousness of students towards
the environment, which is currently found at ASU as
an elective university course within the student's
study plan of all majors. As a result, it has been
observed that generally, the level of environmental
literacy of the students of ASU Campus is
“knowledgeable”. Females have an edge over the
males, scientific disciplines over humanities, older
over younger, those with a moderated cumulative
average in the university over others, those with well-
educated family members and moderate-income
levels shown by their higher means. This shows that
students hold a pro-environmental literacy toward
global issues.
Acknowledgement: The authors acknowledge
Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan,
for the full financial support granted of this research
article. Sincere thanks to all my Colleagues at basic
science department, for creating inspiring conditions
for work.
References:
[1] C.E. Roth, Environmental Literacy: Its Roots,
Evolution and Directions in the 1990s., ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and
Environmental Education, Columbus, OH
(1992).
[2] A. Biswas, A nexus between environmental
literacy, environmental attitude and healthy
living, Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 27(6) (2020)
5922-5931.
[3] K. Shephard, J. Harraway, T. Jowett, B.
Lovelock, S. Skeaff, L. Slooten, M. Strack, M.
Furnari, Longitudinal analysis of the
environmental attitudes of university students,
Environmental Education Research 21(6) (2015)
805-820.
[4] I. Hanif, P. Gago-de-Santos, The importance of
population control and macroeconomic stability
to reducing environmental degradation: An
empirical test of the environmental Kuznets
curve for developing countries, Environmental
Development 23 (2017) 1-9.
[5] I. Turok, G. McGranahan, Urbanization and
economic growth: the arguments and evidence
for Africa and Asia, Environment and
Urbanization 25(2) (2013) 465-482.
[6] R. Abdelrahman, Attitudes and Behavior of
Ajman University of Science and Technology
Students Towards the Environment, IAFOR
Journal of Education 4 (2016).
[7] S.-Y. Liu, S.-C. Yeh, S.-W. Liang, W.-T. Fang,
H.-M. Tsai, A National Investigation of
Teachers’ Environmental Literacy as a Reference
for Promoting Environmental Education in
Taiwan, The Journal of Environmental
Education 46(2) (2015) 114-132.
[8] T. Kromydas, Rethinking higher education and its
relationship with social inequalities: past
knowledge, present state and future potential,
Palgrave Communications 3(1) (2017).
[9] Othman A Alfuqaha, A Aladwan Dua'a, Yazan Al
Thaher, Fadwa N Alhalaiqa Measuring a panic
buying behavior: the role of awareness,2022,8,5,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09372
[10] N. Yılmaz, S. Erkal, Determining
Undergraduate Students’ Environmental
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.96
Tala Sasa, Wafa A. Ahmad, Nawal H. Bahtiti,
Maha Abujaber, Abeer Adeyleh, Omniya Miri
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1019
Volume 18, 2022
Attitude, European Journal of Sustainable
Development 6(4) (2017).
[11] H. Şahin, İ. Kılıç, S. Erkal, An Analysis of the
Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes of
Unıversity Students, International Journal of
Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies 7 (2013)
1-11.
[12] S. Erten, OKUL ÖNCES Ö RETMEN
Adaylarinda Çevre Dostu Davranilarin
Aratirilmasi Investigation Of Preservice
Preschool Teachers' Behaviors Related To
Environmental Awareness, (2022).
[13] V. Yilmaz, T. Arslan, Examining The University
Students' Environmental Protection
Commitments And Environment-Friendly
Consumption Behaviors, Anadolu University
Journal of Social Sciences 11 (2022) 1-10.
[14] G. Teksoz, E. Sahin, C. Tekkaya-Oztekin,
Modeling Environmental Literacy of University
Students, Journal of Science Education and
Technology 21 (2012) 157-166.
[15] Z. Binti, S. Zakariya, A.S. Hadi, M. Sakari,
Relationship Between Awareness, Knowledge
and Attitudes Towards Environmental Education
Among Secondary School Students in Malaysia,
2013.
[16] R.J. Bord, R.E. O'connor, The gender gap in
environmental attitudes : The case of perceived
vulnerability to risk : Research on the
environment, Social Science Quarterly 78 (1997)
830-840.
[17] H. Muderrisoglu, A. Altanlar, Attitudes and
behaviors of undergraduate students toward
environmental issues, International Journal of
Environment Science and Technology (ISSN:
1735-1472) Vol 8 Num 1 8 (2010).
[18] H. Çelik, T. Arslan, V. Yilmaz, Examination of
satisfaction from family medicine by structural
equation modeling: The example of Turkey,
African journal of business management 6 (2012)
3282-3287.
[19] M. Ayyash, M.A.A. Al-Najjar, K. Jaber, L.
Ayyash, R. Abu-Farha, Assessment of public
knowledge and perception about the use of
probiotics, European Journal of Integrative
Medicine 48 (2021) 101404.
[20] S. Thiab, M. Barakat, R.a. Qudah, R. Abutaima,
R. Jamal, P. Riby, The Perception of Jordanian
Population Towards Concomitant
Administration of Food, Beverages and Herbs
with Drugs and Their Possible Interactions: A
Cross Sectional Study, International Journal of
Clinical Practice 75 (2020).
[21] M. Yeşilyurt, M. Balakoğlu, M. Erol, The
Impact of Environmental Education Activities on
Primary School Students' Environmental
Awareness and Visual Expressions, Qualitative
Research in Education 9 (2020) 188-216.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_
US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2022.18.96
Tala Sasa, Wafa A. Ahmad, Nawal H. Bahtiti,
Maha Abujaber, Abeer Adeyleh, Omniya Miri
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
1020
Volume 18, 2022
