Many benefits of environmental education (EE) may exist, including positive impacts on individual participants, as well as society and the environment more broadly. Understanding the outcomes of an EE program is one way to evaluate its impact, which can help design better programs. Many programs are built on the “information deficit model,” which assumes that increasing environmental knowledge results in pro-environmental behaviors and attitudes. However, research shows that this link is tenuous and its widespread acceptance can be problematic for programs seeking to achieve related positive outcomes. This study explored what EE practitioners and participants in non-formal programs, which are structured but outside of the classroom, perceived as the outcomes of EE. The author argues that understanding how these might be similar or different is critical to creating a successful program that is relevant to participants.
This study took place in Yorkshire, United Kingdom. The author surveyed 42 EE practitioners across the UK and conducted focus groups with 28 practitioners (16 of these individuals took the survey as well). Both the questionnaire and the focus groups asked respondents to identify and discuss potential EE outcomes. The author also surveyed 48 participants in non-formal EE programs in Yorkshire, and asked about benefits and drawbacks of taking part in environmental projects. All of the survey respondents participated in an EE program run by the author or other practitioners participating in this study, and ages ranged from under 16 to over 65. The author also observed a residential EE program to learn more about participants' perspectives on EE outcomes. Focus group data were analyzed for themes, and the author created Wordles—a visual that corresponds the size of the word with its frequency—for the questionnaire responses.
The author identified four major groupings of EE outcomes based on both practitioner and participant responses: environmental, individual, community, and institutional. Participants most frequently mentioned an increase in knowledge about the environment as an outcome of the program. Among practitioners, outcomes for the environment and individual were most frequently mentioned, whereas participants mentioned individual outcomes more frequently. The practitioner and participant Wordles differed somewhat. While the word “environment” dominated in both Wordles, the practitioner Wordle featured “people,” “good,” and “community” more prominently. The author suggests several potential reasons for this difference, including that participants may see EE outcomes in a more local context than practitioners or might be less concerned about global environmental problems.
Somewhat surprisingly, the practitioners infrequently mentioned behavior change as a desired outcome of EE. The author believes that may be because practitioners assume that behavior change is a given result of increased knowledge of the environment. This finding supports the idea that many practitioners are using the information deficit model in their work. Few respondents mentioned potential negative outcomes of the environment, even when prompted. Both practitioners and participants most frequently discussed damage to the environment, and participants also mentioned physical discomfort and safety issues. This was a small study, and therefore the findings cannot be generalized to other geographic areas or formal education programs. More research is needed to understand whether perceptions of outcomes are similar or different in other geographic locations or program types.
Evaluating programs is critical to demonstrating their value, and listing outcomes can be a first step. In addition, the author recommends increased transparency around outcomes of EE programs. Specifically, she suggests that practitioners share intended outcomes with participants post-program, and to discuss discrepancies and any negative outcomes. That information can then be fed back into the program to ensure that it is relevant to participants.
The Bottom Line
<p>Although research has shown that the information deficit model over-simplifies the relationship between knowledge and behavior, many practitioners assume that increasing participants' environmental knowledge will achieve various EE outcomes. This study undertook an investigation of practitioner and participant perspectives of EE outcomes in Yorkshire, UK. Based on survey and focus group data, the author identified 4 groups of outcomes: environmental, individual, community, or institutional. In addition, the author found that participants in non-formal EE programs were more likely to mention individual outcomes than practitioners. Both practitioners and participants were unlikely to mention negative outcomes of EE. The study concludes that few practitioners mention behavior change as an outcome because they are likely operating under the information deficit model. The author recommends that practitioners get feedback from participants on intended versus perceived outcomes post-program, which can help ensure that programs are having a positive impact.</p>
Research Partner