People do not judge risks on facts alone. Familiar or dramatic hazards can seem more serious than slow, far-reaching problems that do more harm overall. If environmental education helps people judge risks more accurately, educators need to know what it changes and how.
The researchers surveyed 232 students at two colleges in Israel. Of these, 103 were studying environmental science, life sciences or geography, and 129 were in humanities and social science programs. Students rated 13 problems: the 10 most serious environmental problems in Israel according to a government report, plus earthquakes, fires and population growth. For each, they rated how certain, close, immediate, personally threatening, upsetting, predictable and widely reported in the media it was, and how serious it was overall. Students then ranked the 13 problems and explained their top choice.
What the researchers found:
- Students in environment-related programs rated most problems as more serious. The biggest gap was for population growth. The two groups rated littering and earthquakes about the same. Fires were the one problem the other students rated as more serious. The survey took place soon after a wave of wildfires and urban fires made headlines in Israel.
- Students in environment-related programs saw problems as closer and more personal. They rated the problems as more certain, closer to where they live, more immediate, more personally threatening and more upsetting. Both groups thought the problems got similar media coverage.
- Certainty and feelings drove judgments of seriousness for everyone. Two things predicted how serious students judged a problem to be: how sure they were that it would cause harm, and how strong their negative feelings about it were. This was true in both groups.
- Students in environment-related programs saw how problems connect. When the researchers mapped how students rated the problems, students in environment-related programs saw them as more closely related. For example, these students rated biodiversity loss and population growth much like pollution problems, while the other students saw them as separate from the rest.
- The groups agreed on the top problems but differed below them. Both groups ranked water, air, soil and sea pollution near the top. Students in environment-related programs ranked loss of biodiversity, loss of open space and population growth higher, and fires and earthquakes lower.
- Students gave different reasons for their choices. About two-thirds of students in other programs explained their top choice by its direct effect on people or on themselves. About 60% of students in environment-related programs described the effects on the whole system: chain reactions, harm to other species or far-reaching consequences. About 1 in 5 students in each group focused on whether the problem could be solved. Students in environment-related programs described possible solutions in more detail.
The researchers note that they cannot tell whether the programs caused these differences, or whether students who already cared about the environment chose those programs.
What this means for your practice:
- Teach the connections. Students in environment-related programs saw how problems feed into one another and reasoned about whole systems. Tracing a problem's chain of effects is a simple way to build this thinking. One student, for example, explained that losing open space leaves no room for waste, which then pollutes soil and sea. The researchers see this kind of systems thinking as a key skill environmental education can build.
- Give quieter problems their due. The biggest differences between the groups were for slow, less visible problems such as loss of biodiversity and of open space. Make sure these get attention alongside pollution, and help learners see how they connect to everyday life.
- Address both facts and feelings. How certain a harm seemed and how upsetting it felt shaped how seriously students took it. Clear evidence of harm, and chances for learners to connect emotionally with a problem, both matter.
- Expect recent events to loom large. Students in other programs rated fires as more serious than students in environment-related programs did, soon after fires had been in the news. A recent local event makes a good hook, but help learners weigh it against longer-term problems.
- Ask learners to rank and explain. Students' written reasons showed differences in thinking that their ratings alone did not. Asking learners to explain their top choice shows whether they think only about people or about whole systems.
- Present risk as having several parts. The researchers suggest teaching risk as a combination of likelihood, severity, uncertainty and consequences, shaped by both knowledge and values, and linking it to everyday decisions. They also suggest bringing environmental risk into courses outside environmental programs.
RETURN TO RISK AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION EERESEARCH COLLECTION
The Bottom Line
The researchers surveyed college students in environment-related programs and in other programs about the environmental problems Israel faces. Students in environment-related programs rated most problems as more serious, more certain, closer to home and more personal. The biggest differences were for complex, less visible problems such as loss of biodiversity, loss of open space and population growth. Students in environment-related programs also explained their choices by describing knock-on effects across whole natural and human systems. The other students mostly focused on direct harm to people. In both groups, how certain the harm felt and how strongly a problem stirred students' feelings drove how serious they judged it to be. For educators, the findings point to the value of helping learners see how environmental problems connect, and of attending to both facts and feelings when teaching about risk.