Environmental literacy of youth movement members - is environmentalism a component of their social activism?

Abstract

Youth-movements in Israel are non-formal organizations that educate for social and political involvement and provide a broad platform for youth involvement in the community. This study explored the question: does the social activism of adolescents who both elect for membership in youth movements and a leadership role of instructing younger members also reflect itself in environmentalism? In a survey of 1496 young instructors drawn from 15 official youth movements, findings on environmental literacy variables show youth are only generally knowledgeable about environmental problems; express ‘technical-optimism’ which leads them to limited concern for the environment; show limited recognition of the importance of environmental education, and show limited acknowledgment of the necessity for changes in personal consumerism. Findings also show that environmental issues are not on their mind since they are not a conversation topic with peers or family. Nonetheless, these youth also demonstrate strong self-efficacy to effect change; view themselves as role models for younger members; and express willingness to include environmentally-supportive activities within regular youth movement activities. Their valuing of nature also provides a foundation for building other environmental values. Further analysis shows how these findings can contribute theoretical and practical tools for incorporating sustainability within the youth movement framework, and help realize their potential for promoting sustainability in society.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
Download by: [Victoria University] Date: 16 November 2015, At: 06:02
Environmental Education Research
ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20
Environmental literacy of youth movement
members – is environmentalism a component of
their social activism?
Daphne Goldman, Sara Pe’er & Bela Yavetz
To cite this article: Daphne Goldman, Sara Pe’er & Bela Yavetz (2015): Environmental literacy
of youth movement members – is environmentalism a component of their social activism?,
Environmental Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1108390
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1108390
Published online: 13 Nov 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Environmental literacy of youth movement members –is
environmentalism a component of their social activism?
Daphne Goldman
a
*, Sara Pe’er
b
and Bela Yavetz
c
a
Faculty of Education, Department of Environmental Science and Agriculture, Beit Berl
College, Kfar Saba, Israel;
b
Faculty of Education, Department of Science and Environment
Teaching, Oranim Academic College of Education, Tivon, Israel;
c
Faculty of Science,
Department of Biology and Environment, Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and
the Arts, Tel-Aviv, Israel
(Received 31 December 2014; accepted 11 October 2015)
Youth-movements in Israel are non-formal organizations that educate for social
and political involvement and provide a broad platform for youth involvement in
the community. This study explored the question: does the social activism of
adolescents who both elect for membership in youth movements and a leadership
role of instructing younger members also reflect itself in environmentalism? In a
survey of 1496 young instructors drawn from 15 official youth movements,
findings on environmental literacy variables show youth are only generally
knowledgeable about environmental problems; express ‘technical-optimism’
which leads them to limited concern for the environment; show limited
recognition of the importance of environmental education, and show limited
acknowledgment of the necessity for changes in personal consumerism. Findings
also show that environmental issues are not on their mind since they are not a
conversation topic with peers or family. Nonetheless, these youth also
demonstrate strong self-efficacy to effect change; view themselves as role models
for younger members; and express willingness to include environmentally-
supportive activities within regular youth movement activities. Their valuing of
nature also provides a foundation for building other environmental values.
Further analysis shows how these findings can contribute theoretical and practi-
cal tools for incorporating sustainability within the youth movement framework,
and help realize their potential for promoting sustainability in society.
Keywords: youth movements; environmental literacy; non-formal education;
psycho-social variables; consumerism in adolescents; environmentally
responsible behavior
Introduction
In view of humanity’s impact on Earth’s natural systems, today few would deny the
urgency of creating and embracing sustainable ways of living. Environmental educa-
tion (EE) is recognized as a key factor in achieving environmentally literate citizenry
(NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education) 2009; NEEAC
(National Environmental Education Advisory Council) 2005; UNESCO 2005).
Environmental literacy (EL) has been defined as ‘the capacity to perceive and
interpret the relative health of environmental systems and take appropriate action to
*Corresponding author. Emails: dafnag@netvision.net.il,dafnag@beitberl.ac.il
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
Environmental Education Research, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1108390
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

maintain, restore, or improve the health of those systems’(Roth 1992, 8), and the
environmentally-literate individual is one that has the knowledge, disposition,
commitment and skills that both motivate and enable environmentally responsible
behavior.
From the conception of EE in the Belgrade Charter and subsequent Tbilisi
Declaration, and throughout its ongoing development and evolution, non-formal edu-
cation has been recognized as an important framework for conducting EE, alongside
formal education (NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Educa-
tion) 2009; UNCED 1992; UNESCO 1978,2005; UNESCO-UNEP 1976). In Israel,
youth movements comprise one of the main agents involved in non-formal education
of youth. Since establishment of the state of Israel, youth movements have con-
tributed to society in general and to youth in particular in a diverse range of areas,
such as social values and human rights, reinforcing a sense of attachment to the coun-
try; encouraging coexistence, tolerance and social solidarity; reducing social gaps;
and cultivating leadership, democracy, responsibility and involvement (Ministry of
Education 2009; Shapira et al. 2003). Youth movements have the potential and should
be major targets for developing environmentally literate youth. This is anchored in a
number of premises: (1) The environmental-social challenges facing the Israeli soci-
ety; (2) A growing consensus on the need for effective environmental programs that
engage youth in environmental actions outside the classroom, and are based on a
socially transformative approach that promotes, among others, participatory demo-
cratic education, real-world contexts, action taking (Riemer, Lynes, and Hickman
2014). Criteria for Israeli youth movements require that they ‘develop and preserve
social values …respect for human rights, cultural diversity …contribute to the envi-
ronment and community’(Ministry of Education 2009, 12). In view of these attri-
butes, Israeli youth movements are inherently youth engagement programs which
promote civic engagement of their members. Therefore, youth movements in Israel
provide a pre-existing youth engagement framework in which the focus of civic
engagement can be expanded to address environmental challenges; (3) Moreover,
youth are increasingly acknowledged as a particularly good target group for civic
environmental engagement for a number of reasons, among them their ability to
effectively reach other young people as well as members of their community (Riemer,
Lynes, and Hickman 2014). With respect to this, Israeli youth movements provide a
unique situation in which youth educate youth (Ministry of Education 2009) and
work within the community. Thus, also from this perspective, youth movements
provide a built-in framework for youth promoting youth environmental engagement.
Despite this, there is absence of studies which have investigated EE in the con-
text of Israeli youth movements, with respect to its actual integration in the youth
movement activities or EL characteristics of members. Thus, relevant policy makers
lack the theoretical and practical tools necessary for effective incorporation of EE
within the agenda of youth movements, and realizing the potential of these organiza-
tions for promoting sustainability in the Israeli society.
Policy makers, education leaders, educators and researchers have identified the
need for assessment data on the status of EL of different target populations (Hollweg
et al. 2011; NEEAC (National Environmental Education Advisory Council) 2005;
UNESCO 1978), with data broken down by EL components (i.e. characteristics) and
by developmental levels (childhood–adults). Such data provides crucial information
for constructing meaningful EE. Evaluation studies (baseline and longitudinal ) can
contribute to pinpointing areas in which EE efforts are required and to determining
2D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

the extent at which different EE programs and approaches are effective in influenc-
ing constituents of EL (Hollweg et al. 2011; McBeth et al. 2011; UNESCO 1978).
In line with this, the aim of the present study was to characterize the environ-
mentalism of members of youth movements. Specifically, the study addressed the
question: What is the EL of adolescents who chose to be active in youth move-
ments, with special focus on those who also elect to function as leaders of the
younger age groups? This study is part of a larger national investigation, requested
by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MoEP) to provide an updated assess-
ment of the EL characteristics of young guides of the younger groups, if and how
EE is integrated within the Israeli youth movements, and to extract recommenda-
tions for strengthening the incorporation of EE within youth movements’agendas
and activities.
Theoretical background
Education is a crucial component towards creating an environmentally literate soci-
ety –one that embraces the concept of stewardship and demonstrates environmen-
tally and socially responsible attitudes and behaviors in daily lives (Ministry of
Education 2004; UNCED 1992; UNESCO 1978; UNESCO-UNEP 1976). The
ultimate goal of EE is to create an environmentally literate citizenry (Hollweg et al.
2011; NAAEE 2009; NEEAC 2005; Roth 1992). Meaningful EE is a process that
allows individuals to explore environmental issues, engage in problem solving, and
take action to improve the environment (EPA 2014;Pe’er, Yavetz, and Goldman
2013; Tilbury 1995, 2004). As a result, individuals develop a deeper understanding
and appreciation of the interdependence between the health of the environment and
human welfare, and cultivate the skills to make informed and responsible decisions.
EE does not advocate a particular viewpoint or course of action; rather, it teaches
individuals how to weigh various sides of an issue through critical thinking and thus
enhances their problem-solving and decision-making skills (EPA 2014).
Non-formal learning and EE for youth
While the formal educational system is traditionally viewed as a major framework
for conducting EE, from the conception of EE, the non-formal framework has been
recognized as an important context (Ben Peretz 1980; Hollweg et al. 2011; NAAEE
2009; UNESCO-UNEP 1978). In the effort to promote an environmentally literate
society, formal education and non-formal education are complementary and should
be viewed as such.
Non-formal learning occurs in a planned but highly adaptable manner in institu-
tions, organizations and situations beyond the spheres of formal education. It shares
with formal education the characteristic of being mediated, but the motivation for
learning may be wholly intrinsic to the learner and is voluntary (Eshach 2007;
Silberman-Keller 2003). Non-formal education is based on the assumption that social
and educational goals can, and should, be realized through content and principles
which are free of the rigid structure that usually characterizes the formal educational
system. Following are attributes of non-formal education and their relevance for EE
as a means for developing EL: According to Jeffs and Smith (1999), conversation is
the generative element of non-formal education. Conversation takes place in peoples’
ordinary lives; it expands experience, promotes learning and enhances democracy
Environmental Education Research 3
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

through practice of criticizing political life in its broadest sense. With respect to EE,
Orr (1992) acknowledges good conversation as one of the components of education
that can develop ecological literacy. Networks define the structure of the non-formal
educational system and represent its communicative pattern. Networks promote mul-
tidirectional and a more symmetric form of communication (Silberman-Keller 2003).
With respect to EE, networking is recognized as a crucial component for achieving
environmental change (Derek 2006). Non-formal education, contrary to formal edu-
cation, takes place in a variety of educational institutions such as ‘nests’,‘branches’,
‘clubhouses’or ‘community centers’. These are considered by the participants as
their ‘alternative home’; as such they reconstruct a family model and thus censure
alienation, lack of identity and instrumental functionality characteristic of school
(Silberman-Keller 2003). Non formal pedagogy is directed to enable mutual develop-
ment of the individual and the individual’s group of peers. It is based on mutual
development –the group will develop as long as its individuals develop and
visa-versa (Silberman-Keller 2003). This is a positive metaphor for the reciprocal
relationship between the individual and society and can thus enhance the social
responsibility required of environmentally responsible citizens. Experiential learning,
which involves social involvement, contributes to the developing of a sense of
responsibility, a ‘sense of place’, respect and motivation as well as environmental
awareness that, together, promote sustainable behavior (Stoss 2008).
From this concise overview of the attributes of non-formal education and their
relevance to EE, it can be deduced that this framework can be effective in develop-
ing affective components of EL. It is reasonable to assume that rational and authen-
tic decision-making will develop in non-formal educational situations. Furthermore,
non-formal institutions provide a more open framework that enables individuals to
interpret different experiences according to personal interests and to construct per-
sonal worldviews (Kahane 2007). These attributes of non-formal education are
inherent to EE, some of them are also characteristic of an educational approach ori-
ented to developing action competence (Jensen and Schnack 1997), and from them
stems the importance of the non-formal framework as a medium for engaging citi-
zens in sustainability.
Youth movements in Israel
In Israel, the ‘informal code’is epitomized in youth movements (Silberman-Keller
2003).Youth movements are non-formal organizations of young people active for
young people, that have a consolidated vision and membership is voluntary. From
an historical perspective, the roots of youth movements and organizations in Israel
are in Middle and Eastern Europe during the first decades of the twentieth century,
where they mediated modernization processes by offering liminality to Jewish youth
during a time of turbulent political and ideological developments that were taking
place in the modernizing societies in which they lived (Bekerman and Silberman
Keller 2003). The main outcome of the development of these youth movements in
Israel was the Kibbutz movement (Kahane 1997). This historical background laid
the foundations for the ideologies which direct Israeli youth movement goals, con-
tent and activities. They educate according to universal humanistic values, principles
of the declaration of independence and for cultivating respect for human rights and
fellow-men’s culture and opinions. Current criteria required to be fulfilled in order
that youth movements be formally recognized and supported by the Ministry of
4D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Education include value and educational criteria, such as: maintaining democratic
institutions at all organizational levels, involvement, social and community commit-
ment and responsibility, tolerance toward the other, and self-realization (Ministry of
Education 2009).
Each official youth movement has a specific‘statement-of-belief’. The topics
addressed vary among movements, but common to all is the instilling of values,
norms and aspirations at a personal and societal level. Changes that have occurred
in the Israeli society since the establishment of the state are reflected, as well, in the
youth movements: In recent years, activities have been adapted according to the
specific needs of the local communities in which the movements are situated or to
the identified needs of new target communities. Some examples of this evolution are
the establishment of ultra-orthodox youth movements or expansion of activity into
minorities groups such as Druse and Arabs, both as independent youth movements
or inclusion of minority’s branches within existing movements. These trends reflect
the social responsiveness of youth movements to the expanding multi-cultural char-
acteristic of the Israeli society and the requirements of different sectors of society.
Most movements currently conduct projects on issues such as socio-economic gaps,
integration of immigrants, deprived youth and youth with special needs, communi-
ties categorized by socio-economic preference. These features of Israeli youth move-
ments go hand in hand with many of the attributes of non-formal youth civic
engagement programs which Riemer, Lynes, and Hickman (2014) advocate for.
EE in Israeli youth movements
Historically, EE is deeply rooted in the early stages of education in the Land-of-
Israel. It was part of ‘knowing the land’and ‘conquering it by foot’as a means for
strengthening the ties with the land and creating the ‘new Jew’–the anti Ghetto-like
Tzabar (Almog 1997). This aspect is integral to youth movement activity: field-trips
and camps, which are important youth movement activities, include components
related to the value-of-nature and being familiar with the land (Kahane 2007).
Another typical youth movement activity is intellectual discourse (theoretical activ-
ity) which integrates different types of knowledge (scientific, philosophical, esthetic
and ideological). In relation to non-formal education, this discourse addresses funda-
mental questions or dilemmas alongside various options for solving these issues.
This discourse aims to establish a broad and open worldview which is translated into
behavioral principles relevant to current issues in the social agenda (Kahane 2007).
Thus, youth movements, through the various activities that characterize them, can
provide an effective platform for raising environmental awareness and promoting
environmentally responsible behavior within the movements as well as in society. In
view of this, it is questioned if and how current issues of sustainability, in all their
complexity, are integrated within this discourse?
A review of the literature indicates a lack of information regarding EE within the
Israeli youth movements, with respect to the position of this subject in their agenda,
how this subject is incorporated in activities, as well as members’EL-characteristics.
The Ministry of Education allocates substantial resources to support youth move-
ments, and views them as an important element in promoting democratic citizenship
and social involvement of both the active members as well as age groups who have
grown out of the movements. Furthermore, The Ministry of Education, in coopera-
tion with The MoEP, has been promoting a policy for integrative incorporation of
Environmental Education Research 5
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

EE within formal education (promoting EE in all age levels, as a coordinating theme
for curricula and addressing the multi dimensions of sustainability) (Ministry of
Education 2004; Ministry of Education and MoEP 2012,2014). These combined
national-level efforts to promote development of youth’EL both create the climate
and emphasize the importance for meaningful systematic incorporation of EE within
the framework of youth movements.
Theoretical framework for the EL variables measured
According to Roth (1992), the individual’s EL is the outcome of a number of
interplaying components: Knowledge of (a) ecological principles and processes
which are basic to comprehending the impact of humans on natural systems,
(b) interrelationship between human systems and natural systems, and environmental
issues that arise from these complex interactions, and (c) environmental action
strategies, including the ability to identify and critically evaluate alternative options
for remediation; Skills –scientific and citizenship –that enable effective use of these
environmental action strategies; and Affective (also termed psycho-social or
personality) components which include environmental awareness and sensitivity,
values, attitudes regarding general or specific aspects of the environment, locus-
of-control (self-efficacy) which represents an individual’s perception of his/her
ability to bring about change through his/her personal behavior; assumption of per-
sonal responsibility or obligation to the environment, and ‘verbal commitment’
which refers to an expressed intention to act upon a specific matter (Hollweg et al.
2011; Simmons 2001). These cognitive and affective attributes are crucial in
mediating and motivating environmentally responsible behavior (Bamberg and
Möser 2007; Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera 1986–87; Hollweg et al. 2011;
Hungerford and Volk 1990; Simmons 2001). Together, they equip the environmen-
tally literate person with the knowledge, values, attitudes, skills and commitment
that motivate and enable transformation of knowledge into effective responsible
action. Thus, the extent of a person’s EL will be reflected in his/her behavior with
respect to the environment. Developing EL is, therefore, enabling behavioral change
by influencing all those variables –cognitive and affective –which influence the
individual’s behavior.
Since environmentally responsible behavior is influenced by numerous
interacting variables –internal (such as, knowledge, values, attitudes) and external/
situational (such as, supportive infrastructure, economic factors) (Kollymus and
Agyeman 2002), much EE research attempts to elucidate the quantitative relation-
ship among the various EL variables, in pursuit of those that most strongly influence
behavior and can lead to responsible environmental behavior (REB). One of the key
models that describe the relationship among variables that influence environmental
behavior is the ‘Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior’proposed by Hines
et al. (1986–87). Based on meta-analysis of 128 studies of environmental behavior,
this model sequences the EL variables that may influence and predict REB. Accord-
ing to this model, as well as the Hungerford and Volk (1990) model of categories of
variables that contribute to behavior, and the more recent meta-analysis of psycho-
social determinants of pro-environmental behavior (Bamberg and Möser 2007), ‘ver-
bal commitment’(i.e. expressed intention to act) is the most direct variable that
mediates pro-environmental behavior: an individual who expresses an intention to
6D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

take action is more likely to report engaging in environmental behaviors than an
individual who expresses no intention. Results of Bamberg and Möser (2007) also
indicate awareness of and knowledge about environmental problems as an important
indirect determinant of pro-environmental behavior.
Relatively few studies have been published on the EL of Israeli teenagers.
Results of a national survey of a representative sample of 1530 12th-graders in the
formal education system revealed that while these pupils have generally positive
environmental attitudes, there are large gaps in their environmental knowledge, and
their environmental behavior –the desired end point of EE –was generally low,
especially when it required commitment (Marcinkowski et al. 2013). Another large-
scale study investigated the EL of 765 student teachers at the onset of their studies
in three large teacher-training colleges. Findings indicate that graduates of the educa-
tional system who elect to prepare themselves to be teachers demonstrated overall
pro-environmental attitudes, their environmental knowledge was limited and their
personal behavior reflected only modest commitment to the environment (Goldman,
Yavetz, and Pe’er 2006;Pe’er, Goldman, and Yavetz 2007).
Methodology
Participants and sampling procedure
The ‘Report of Youth Movements in Israel –2005–2006 Status’is the most recent
resource on the number and distribution of members among the different move-
ments. According to this report, the overall number of members (at the time the
study was conducted) in the 15 official youth movements, is 176,000 (Ministry of
Education 2009). This study was conducted in these youth movements. The sample
included 1496 active members belonging to the senior age group (ages 14–17, 10th–
11th grade). We refer to this age group as youth or young people (World Bank
2007). Of this sample, 78.5% have a role as guide of the younger age group mem-
bers in their respective youth movement (i.e. youth guides). The study focused on
this age group based on the following considerations: (a) Usually, members of this
age group have been active in the youth movement for a number of years, thus they
have been exposed to and have absorbed the values and spirit of their youth move-
ment; (b) Most of the youth guides, responsible for leading the educational activities
with the younger members, are found within this age level. Therefore, this is a
potential target population for promoting educational change within the younger age
groups; (c) From a methodological perspective, focusing on one age level enables
better control for intervening factors than can influence the results (such as emo-
tional maturity, comprehension of texts).
With aim to enable representation of youth movement branches from all areas of
the country, the country was divided into regions (northern, center, southern and east
central), and branches of the 15 youth movements were sampled in all four regions.
Within each movement and region, the study was conducted in randomly chosen
branches, or during summer seminars of the youth movement in which young guides
from all over the country participate. The questionnaire was distributed by the
researchers and filled by all the participants during their weekly meeting in their
respective branch or during the summer seminar. Filling the questionnaire encoun-
tered no refusal by any of the participants. Table 1presents background data of the
participants.
Environmental Education Research 7
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Instruments
Participants’EL was investigated with a questionnaire developed and validated for
the study through the following: The first draft was developed partially on the basis
of a questionnaire developed for characterizing student teachers’EL (Yavetz,
Goldman, and Pe’er 2009) and was adapted to the target population based on inter-
views conducted with the senior educational leaders and chief directors of the 15
youth movements. The content validity of this draft was evaluated by five specialists
with extensive experience in teaching environmental and science education in formal
and non-formal frameworks. The questionnaire was revised according to their
comments and suggestions. The content-validated draft was sent to the previously
interviewed youth movement educational leaders and chief directors for their com-
mentary. The re-evaluated, content-validated draft was then administered as a pilot
to 40 youth movement members and the final version was constructed according to
results of the pilot study.
The questionnaire consisted of five sections:
(a) Subjective knowledge of environmental issues The participants evaluated
their own knowledge of 16 topics and concepts on environment and sustain-
ability –major local and global environmental problems as well as key con-
cepts in current sustainability discourse (see Table 2). The structure of this
section was based on the Awareness of environmental issues section of the
2006 Pisa questionnaire (OECD 2007) in which the participants were asked
to rate how well they are informed on the topics using a 5-point Likert scale
(1 –I have never heard of this, 2 –I have heard about this but would not be
able to explain what it is really about, 3 –I know something about this and
could explain it in general, 4 –I am familiar with this and can explain it
pretty well, 5 –I am knowledgeable of this and can explain it in detail). This
inventory had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of 0.921.
(b) Environmental attitudes (i.e. psycho-social; personality variables) –This
section included 16 statements to which the respondents rated their extent of
agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1–strongly disagree to 5–
strongly agree). This section had a reliability coefficient of α= 0.830. The
items were grouped in four categories. In all categories, some of the items
were negatively phrased so that disagreement reflects pro-environmental
orientation.
Table 1. Background data of participants (n= 1496).
Variable Category
Participants
Missing(n) (%)
Gender Boys 570 38.0 82
Girls 847 56.5
Ethnicity Jewish 1261 84.1 87
Non Jewish 151 10.1
Role in youth movement Member, young instructor 1176 78.5 43
Member, not instructor 280 18.1
Region in Israel Northern 258 17.4 127
Central 588 17.4
Eastern central 287 19.4
Southern 219 14.8
8D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

(1) Concern for the environment: e.g. ‘Environmental problems can be
solved without major changes in our lifestyle’;‘Science and technology
will provide solutions for environmental problems so there is no reason
for worry’(3 items), α= 0.662.
(2) Self-efficacy (Sense of ability to influence situations; locus-of-control):
e.g. ‘I believe I can contribute to improving the environment in my com-
munity through my personal behavior’;‘I have the ability to influence
opinions of people around me on environmental issues’(4 items),
α= 0.641.
(3) Importance of EE: e.g. ‘It is important to include environmental subjects
in youth guides’training’;‘It is important to incorporate environmental
subjects in youth movement activities, trips and camps’(4 items),
α= 0.543.
(4) Value-of-nature: e.g. ‘Plants and animals have the right to exist just as
humans do’;‘Man has the right to alter nature as he sees fit’(5 items),
α= 0.501.
(c) Verbal commitment for environmentally supportive actions (i.e. behavioral
intention) –The participants’readiness for pro-environmental behavior was
investigated by 11 activities (see Table 4). Participants were ask to state the
extent at which they are willing to perform these activities, using a 5-point
Likert scale (from 1–I am not willing to 5–I am always willing). This sec-
tion had a reliability coefficient of α= 0.845. Exploratory factor analysis
conducted on the items resulted in two groups: actions performed within the
framework of youth movement (α= 0.817) and consumer-related actions per-
formed at a personal level (α= 0.744).
(d) Self-reported environmentally responsible behavior The participants rated the
frequency at which they perform eight activities in their daily lives on a
5-point Likert scale (from 1–never to 5–almost always). This section had a
reliability coefficient of α= 0.812.
(e) Background data The participants’age, gender, ethnicity, name of youth
movement and branch he/she belongs to, whether he/she is a guide, name of
home-town.
The questionnaire was administered in Hebrew or Arabic according to the
mother tongue of the participants.
Data analysis
Means, standard deviations and frequencies of sample were determined through
descriptive statistics, using SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 14).
Results for negatively phrased attitude items were reversed so that high scores reflect
pro-environmental orientation. Data were then analyzed as follows: (a) Factor
analysis was conducted on Verbal commitment for environmentally supportive
action;(b)T-test was used to examine for gender differences; (c) Pearson correlation
was used to determine the relationships among EL variables (subjective knowledge,
attitude categories, verbal commitment for REB within youth movement and at
personal level, self-reported REB at personal level); (d) Regression analyses were
conducted to investigate the models constructed for predicting the variables: verbal
commitment for REB at personal level and within the youth movement, and REB.
Environmental Education Research 9
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Results
Subjective knowledge of environmental issues
Table 2presents the participants’sense of knowledge of topics and concepts related
to environment and sustainability, organized according to decreasing scores. The
topic participants felt most knowledgeable about (mean > 4) was degradable materi-
als. This topic is related to recycling –an area which receives high visibility in the
media, in which national and local government have promoted significant projects
based on public participation (separation of waste materials at home or at local sepa-
ration points), and which receives considerable attention in the educational system.
Other relatively familiar topics were global warming (a highly communicated issue
also addressed in the education curriculum) and solar energy (a major potential alter-
native energy resource in Israel). The participants were less familiar with the topics
sustainable development, ecological footprint and environmental activism. High
standard deviation values indicate significant variance in the participants’sense of
knowledge of these subjects. The overall mean for subjective knowledge indicates
that youth movement members feel they have partial knowledge (‘I know something
about this and could explain the general issue’) of environmental issues.
Gender comparisons
Table 2includes comparison of subjective knowledge between boys and girls. For all
topics except three (environmental legislation, degradable materials, environmental
Table 2. Youth movement members’subjective knowledge of environmental issues (total
sample and gender comparisons). Scale from 1 (I’ve never heard of this) to 5 (I’m knowl-
edgeable of this and can explain it in detail).
Topic
Total sample
(n= 1387)
Gender comparisons
Girls
(n= 827)
Boys
(n= 553)
tpMean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
Degradable materials 4.02 ± 1.00 3.99 ± 1.016 4.06 ± 1.006 1.228 0.220 ns
Solar energy 3.81 ± 1.04 3.64 ± 1.075 4.02 ± 0.965 6.760 0.000
Global warming 3.76 ± 0.92 3.66 ± 0.935 3.91 ± 0.884 4.912 0.000
Relationship between use of
electricity and air pollution
3.68 ± 1.16 3.51 ± 1.170 3.89 ± 1.100 6.003 0.000
Environmental legislation 3.64 ± 1.08 3.59 ± 1.067 3.68 ± 1.110 1.420 0.156 ns
Health effects of ozone
depletion
3.63 ± 1.09 3.57 ± 1.079 3.76 ± 1.079 3.240 0.001
Stream pollution in Israel 3.51 ± 1.00 3.45 ± 1.014 3.58 ± 0.982 2.422 0.016
Consumerism as an
environmental problem
3.50 ± 1.27 3.42 ± 1.283 3.60 ± 1.247 2.498 0.013
Endangered species 3.49 ± 1.02 3.37 ± 1.034 3.64 ± 0.994 4.702 0.000
Importance of open areas 3.43 ± 1.28 3.35 ± 1.260 3.53 ± 1.288 2.463 0.014
Noise as an environmental
pollutant
3.33 ± 1.25 3.25 ± 1.251 3.43 ± 1.255 2.509 0.012
Environmental justice 3.09 ± 1.36 3.09 ± 1.362 3.15 ± 1.346 0.666 0.506 ns
Compost 3.08 ± 1.43 2.83 ± 1.454 3.36 ± 1.365 6.851 0.000
Ecological footprint 2.62 ± 1.47 2.49 ± 1.440 2.78 ± 1.468 3.599 0.000
Environmental activism 2.61 ± 1.50 2.47 ± 1.471 2.85 ± 1.497 4.564 0.000
Sustainable development 2.43 ± 1.47 2.31 ± 1.446 2.60 ± 1.500 3.597 0.000
Overall mean 3.35 ± 0.82 3.25 ± 0.814 3.49 ± 0.808 5.305 0.000
10 D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

justice), and for the overall mean, boys reported a significantly greater sense of
knowledge.
Attitudes and personality variables regarding the environment
Table 3present means and standard deviations for the attitude categories. Youth
movement members expressed strong sense of self-efficacy to influence on environ-
mental issues through their personal behavior as well as by persuading others
(mean = 4.0). This result is not surprising and may reflect the sense of leadership
that characterizes young people who chose to be guides in youth movements. The
lowest scores were given to the category concern for the environment. From the
overall mean for attitude categories (3.75), it appears that youth movement members
are characterized by only a modest pro-environmental orientation.
Gender comparisons
The significant difference in the overall mean for environmental attitudes between
boys and girls results from the significant differences in the categories concern for
the environment and importance of EE: Girls expressed significantly greater concern
for the environment and acknowledged significantly greater importance of EE. No
gender differences were measured in value-of-nature or self-efficacy (Table 3).
Verbal commitment for pro-environmental behavior
The participants’readiness for pro-environmental action was investigated at two
levels –within the youth movement framework and at a personal level. Results,
organized according to decreasing scores (Table 4), indicate that members are will-
ing to conduct pro-environment activities for the benefit of the community and to
conduct discussions and environmentally supportive activities within their respective
youth movement branch. Not surprisingly, collection and correct disposal of per-
sonal trash during field trips received the highest scores (4.47). The most limited
verbal commitment for pro-environmental behavior was found in the three actions
Table 3. Environmental attitudes of youth movement members (whole sample and gender
comparisons) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Attitude category
Total sample
(n= 1386)
Gender comparisons
Girls
(n= 808)
Boys
(n= 546)
tpMean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
Self-efficacy 4.00 ± 0.71 4.02 ± 0.69 3.96 ± 1.03 −1.638 0.102 ns
Value-of-nature 3.85 ± 0.74 3.88 ± 0.72 3.82 ± 0.76 −1.340 0.181 ns
Importance of
environmental education
3.67 ± 0.76 3.70 ± 0.76 3.62 ± 0.77 −2.090 0.037
Concern for the
environment*
3.39 ± 1.01 3.46 ± 0.99 3.31 ± 1.03 −2.736 0.006
Overall mean for attitudes 3.75 ± 0.55 3.79 ± 0.53 3.71 ± 0.56 −2.797 0.005
*Three items in this category were negatively worded. Results for these items were reversed so that high
scores reflect pro-environmental orientation.
Environmental Education Research 11
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Table 4. Youth movement members’(total sample and gender comparisons) verbal
commitment for pro-environmental action on a scale from 1 (not willing) to 5 (always
willing).
Pro-environmental action
Total sample
(n= 1397)
Gender comparisons
Girls
(n= 827)
Boys
(n= 553)
tpMean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
To ensure that, during
field-trips, members
collect their personal
trash (food remainders,
wrappings) and dispose
of it in trash cans
4.47 ± 0.941 4.57 ± 0.850 4.39 ± 0.995 −3.38 0.001
To serve as a role model
for responsible
environmental behavior
for the younger
members who I instruct
4.38 ± 0.910 4.45 ± 0.839 4.30 ± 0.952 −2.956 0.003
To take part in a youth
group activity dedicated
to protecting the
environment within the
local community
3.94 ± 1.057 3.93 ± 1.060 3.94 ± 1.014 0.117 0.907 ns
To initiate a discussion on
the environment in my
youth movement branch
3.85 ± 1.146 3.87 ± 1.136 3.91 ± 1.141 0.585 0.559 ns
To participate in
maintenance of a garden
(herbs, vegetables, wild
plants) in my youth
movement branch
3.84 ± 1.198 3.86 ± 1.165 3.91 ± 1.194 0.813 0.416 ns
To participate in the
ongoing management of
a recycling (waste
separation) corner in my
youth movement branch
3.84 ± 1.177 3.92 ± 1.146 3.90 ± 1.115 −0.333 0.739 ns
To take responsibility for
reduction of water use in
my youth movement
branch
3.77 ± 1.243 3.83 ± 1.192 3.88 ± 1.173 0.720 0.471 ns
To operate the collection of
second hand goods and
their distribution in the
local community
3.72 ± 1.220 3.76 ± 1.221 3.77 ± 1.183 0.123 0.902 ns
Mean for willingness for
action within youth
movement
3.96 ± 0.765 4.01 ± 0.766 3.99 ± 0.742 −0.436 0.633 ns
To reduce the rate at which
that I replace personal
electronic devices
(mobile phone, i-pad,
etc.) with new ones
3.61 ± 1.276 3.56 ± 1.269 3.64 ± 1.278 1.198 0.231 ns
(Continued)
12 D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

related to changes in personal lifestyle (reducing purchase of personal appliances,
reducing level of personal lifestyle and reducing purchase of new clothes). Nonethe-
less, the scores of these actions (3.1–3.61) don’t point to total rejection rather they
indicate some level of willingness for making change. The limited readiness for
change in personal consumption (mean = 3.39) stands in contrast to the extensive
readiness to serve as role models of REB for the younger group members whom
they guide (mean = 4.38).
Gender comparisons
For all the environmentally supportive activities that can be conducted within the
youth movement branches, no differences were found in verbal commitment for pro-
environmental action between boys and girls (Table 4). For actions specifically
related to function as young guides (ensuring proper disposal of trash during field-
trips; providing a role model for REB), girls showed significantly stronger verbal
commitment. Regarding commitment for changes in consumer-related personal life-
style, no gender differences were found for purchasing new personal electronic
devices or for general reduction of level of personal lifestyle, while, not surprisingly,
girls were less willing than boys to cut back on purchase of new clothes.
Self-reported personal environmental behavior
Youth movement members reported that they conduct environmentally responsible
actions at a frequency of sometimes to often (mean 3.0–4.0, Table 5). Actions per-
formed most often were those which are accompanied by a personal financial benefit
or receive extensive publicity (water conservation, support of recycling). Activities
conducted least frequently were discussing environmental issues with family or
friends. It is noteworthy that activities identified as part of environmental citizenship
(commenting to people who litter in public, or making effort to support public
cleanliness by picking up litter) are conducted more frequently than expected. This
Table 4. (Continued).
Pro-environmental action
Total sample
(n= 1397)
Gender comparisons
Girls
(n= 827)
Boys
(n= 553)
tpMean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
To reduce the level of my
person lifestyle in order
to protect the
environment
3.48 ± 1.168 3.43 ± 1.155 3.51 ± 1.132 1.247 0.213 ns
To buy less new clothes
and shoes
3.10 ± 1.390 2.93 ± 1.426 3.33 ± 1.352 5.054 0.000
Mean for willingness for
action at personal level
3.39 ± 1.042 3.30 ± 1.065 3.50 ± 1.013 3.299 0.001
Overall mean for
willingness for
environmental action
3.80 ± 0.746 3.81 ± 0.739 3.85 ± 0.752 0.946 0.344 ns
Environmental Education Research 13
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

might be one reflection of the involvement in socially responsible citizenship that
characterizes youth movements’activities.
Gender comparisons Significant differences in self-reported involvement in pro-
environmental behavior were evident in two activities: reuse of paper, in which girls
were more active, and discussing environmental problems with friends, in which
boys were more active (Table 5).
Correlation among EL variables
To obtain an indication of the relationships among the EL-characteristics of youth
movement members, correlations among variables were measured (Table 6). Results
indicate that members who expressed high verbal commitment for pro-environmen-
tal action at a personal level or in their youth group also reported the most involve-
ment in REB at a personal level (0.614 and 0.569, respectively ). The highest
correlation (0.614) was found between verbal commitment for pro-environmental
action at personal level and REB. The second highest correlation (0.587) was found
between subjective knowledge of environmental topics and REB. Subjective knowl-
Table 5. Frequency at which environmentally responsible actions are conducted as reported
by the participants (total sample and gender comparisons), on a scale from 1 (never) to 5
(almost always).
Environmentally
responsible activity
Total sample
(n= 1379)
Gender comparisons
Girls
(n= 827)
Boys
(n= 553)
tpMean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
Conserve water at home 3.85 ± 1.17 3.89 ± 1.17 3.83 ± 1.17 −1.05 0.314
Re-use used writing paper as
draft paper
3.72 ± 1.33 3.75 ± 1.35 3.60 ± 1.31 −2.06 0.049
Bring used things to
recycling collection points
3.65 ± 1.31 3.66 ± 1.32 3.65 ± 1.26 −0.14 0.896
Conserve energy by setting
the air conditioner to low
electricity use
3.57 ± 1.36 3.54 ± 1.38 3.83 ± 1.32 0.38 0.717
Comment to people who
throw trash in public space
or damage the
environment in any
manner
3.42 ± 1.33 3.51 ± 1.33 3.44 ± 1.27 −1.00 0.340
Collect things that people
have thrown in public
areas and dispose of them
in trash barrels
3.40 ± 1.30 3.44 ± 1.31 3.46 ± 1.27 0.19 0.860
Converse with my family on
topics such as: purchasing
environmentally-friendly
products and reducing use
of unnecessary packaging
3.17 ± 1.38 3.13 ± 1.39 3.27 ± 1.40 1.92 0.065
Converse with my friends
about problems related to
the environment
3.01 ± 1.33 2.95 ± 1.34 3.4 ± 1.34 2.56 0.014
Overall mean 3.47 ± 0.87 3.48 ± 0.87 3.48 ± 0.89 0.096 0.923 ns
14 D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Table 6. Correlations among environmental literacy variables.
Subjective
knowledge
Attitudes –
importance of
EE
Attitudes –
value-of-nature
Attitudes –
self-efficacy
Attitudes –concern
for the environment
Verbal commitment
within youth movement
Verbal commitment
at personal level REB
Subjective knowledge 1 −0.067* 0.037 0.462** −0.397** 0.469** 0.514** 0.587**
Attitudes –importance
of EE
1 0.507** 0.205** 0.468** 0.279** −0.044 0.058*
Attitudes –value-of-
nature
1 0.232** 0.422** 0.236** 0.018 0.060*
Attitudes –self-efficacy 1 −0.167** 0.543** 0.422** 0.517**
Attitudes –concern for
the environment
1−0.287** −0.298** −0.287**
Verbal commitment
within youth
movement
1 0.509** 0.569**
Verbal commitment at
personal level
1 0.614**
REB 1
*p< 0.05; **p< 0.01
Environmental Education Research 15
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

edge was also highly correlated with verbal commitment for pro-environmental
action at personal level (0.514), in the youth group (0.469), and with self-efficacy
(0.462). Significant correlations were also measured between self-efficacy and verbal
commitment for pro-environmental action within the youth movement (0.543), at
personal level (0.422) and REB (0.517).
Significant and strong correlations could be expected among categories of envi-
ronmental attitudes. This situation was found only partially. Contrary to the expected,
low correlations were measured between self-efficacy and value-of-nature (0.232),
and importance of EE (0.205), while self-efficacy was slightly negatively correlated
to concern for the environment (−0.167). Interestingly, a negative correlation was also
measured between subjective knowledge and concern for the environment (−0.397).
Predicting verbal commitment and responsible environmental behavior
Environmentally responsible behavior
Developing EL is enabling behavioral change by influencing all those variables which
influence the individual’s behavior. Therefore, to explain REB, a model was constructed
that includes the explanatory EL variables: subjective knowledge, attitude categories
(importance of EE, value-of-nature, self-efficacy and concern for the environment) and
verbal commitment for environmental action within the youth movement and at a per-
sonal level, as well as the background explanatory variable gender. This model explains
54% (R
2
=0.54,p< 0.001) of the variance in REB. Table 7shows that verbal commit-
ment at a personal level had the strongest positive effect on REB. Other variables which
had significant positive effects on REB were, in descending order: subjective knowl-
edge, verbal commitment within the youth movement and self-efficacy.
Verbal commitment for action at a personal level
To explain verbal commitment for environmental action at a personal level, a model
was constructed that includes the explanatory EL-variables: subjective knowledge,
attitudes (importance of EE, value-of-nature, self-efficacy, concern for the
environment) and verbal commitment for environmental action within the youth
Table 7. Regression values for predicting REB and for predicting verbal commitment for
environmental action within the youth movement and at a personal level.
Explanatory variables
REB
Verbal commitment
–personal level
Verbal commitment –
within youth movement
ββ β
Gender (male, female) −0.045* 0.060** −0.048**
Subjective knowledge 0.256*** 0.237*** 0.169***
Attitude- importance of EE 0.033 −0.121*** 0.246***
Attitude –value of nature −0.034 −0.010 0.082***
Attitudes –self efficacy 0.135*** 0.122*** 0.232***
Attitudes concern for the
environment
−0.042 −0.065* −0.078**
Verbal commitment –
within youth movement
0.196*** 0.392***
Verbal commitment –
personal level
0.319*** 0.330***
*p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001.
16 D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

movement, and the background explanatory variable gender. This model explains
40.5% (R
2
= 0.405, p< 0.001) of the variability in verbal commitment for environ-
mental action at a personal level. Verbal commitment for action within the youth
movement had the strongest positive effect, after which came subjective knowledge
and self-efficacy. Attitude regarding importance of EE had a significant negative
effect (Table 7).
Verbal commitment for action within the youth movement
To explain verbal commitment for environmental action in the framework of the
youth movement, a model was constructed that includes the explanatory
EL-variables: subjective knowledge, attitudes (importance of EE, value-of-nature,
self-efficacy, concern for the environment) and verbal commitment for environmen-
tal action at a personal level, and the background explanatory variable gender. This
model explains 49.9% (R
2
= 0.499, p< 0.001) of the variability in verbal commit-
ment for environmental action in the youth movement. Table 7shows that Verbal
commitment for action at a personal level had the strongest positive effect. Other
variables which had significant positive effects were, in descending order:
importance of EE, self-efficacy, subjective knowledge and value-of-nature.
Discussion
The focus of this study was to provide an updated account of the EL of young
people who are active members in youth movements and also elect to function as
leaders of the younger age groups. The study aimed to explore if the tendency for
social activism which characterizes these youth also translates into
environmentalism. The rationale for this study is grounded in a number of premises:
(1) At the heart of the Israeli youth movements is social commitment and responsi-
bility (Ministry of Education 2009; Shapira et al. 2003); (2) Membership in youth
movements is voluntary (Silberman-Keller 2003). Thus, youth movement members
represent a segment of youth committed to social activism and community involve-
ment, and those who elect to function as youth guides also express a tendency for
leadership; (3) In view of the social dimensions of sustainability (UNESCO 2002),
environmental responsibility can be viewed as a component of social responsibility,
thus environmentalism is one aspect of social commitment; (4) From a practical
perspective, characterizing the EL of youth movement members is a necessary step
toward incorporating EE within these groups in a manner that will realize the
potential of these organizations for developing environmental citizenship of youth,
and promoting sustainability in society (Hollweg et al. 2011; NEEAC 2005). This is
all the more meaningful in view of the unique population this study focused on –
young leaders who serve as educators of the younger members. Thus, the target
population of this study provides a leverage point for a ripple effect within the youth
movements. The discussion will provide insight into these youths’EL and the
implications of this for youth movements based on the characteristics of these
organizations. It will then address overall implications that might guide development
of these young leaders’EL within the non-formal framework of youth movements.
Environmental Education Research 17
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

EL characteristics of youth movement members
As could be expected, members feel most knowledgeable in topics which address
ecological problems of the environmental crisis which are studied in school curric-
ula. Topics members feel less familiar with are those emphasized in current sustain-
ability discourse, namely the social aspects of the environmental crisis which
contemporary EE for sustainability aims to address (Tilbury 1995, 2004). This
picture is similar to findings of youth in the Asia Pacific Region: they were more
knowledgeable of discipline-specific environmental topics while newer less disci-
pline-related and more SD-related concepts were less known (Fien 2007). These
topics are at the environment-society intersection; they reflect the dilemmas inherent
to sustainability issues. For example, environmental justice addresses issues such as
equitable distribution of environmental benefits and risks, recognition of the diver-
sity of impacted peoples and communities, and their participation in political pro-
cesses which create and manage environmental policy (Schlosberg 2004). Analyzing
our ecological footprint is a concrete tool that enables understanding how our rou-
tine behavior, including personal consumption, impacts nature’s resources (GFN
2014). As such, it is a concrete tool for demonstrating how social, economic and
political factors influence the way people utilize the environment. These concepts
are especially important for the youth movement framework which, by definition,
deals with social value discourse. Addressing these subjects within youth movement
activities can contribute to developing members’awareness and comprehension of
the complexity and dilemmas that characterize environmental issues and make
responsible decision-making in personal behavior a difficult endeavor.
The unique contribution of the youth movement framework to raising environ-
mental awareness lies not only in the choice of topics addressed, but also in the way
these are addressed. It is often critiqued that study of environmental issues in formal
education emphasizes the knowledge domain (Marcinkowski et al. 2013). Youth
movements, which are not required to adapt to standards or constraints of the formal
education system, may have an advantage over formal education in that they can
look deeper into the multiple dimensions (economic, social, political and ecological)
that characterize sustainability issues, and how these influence the way people, as
individuals and a society, exploit the environment. Furthermore, these organizations
provide a built-in opportunity to develop the activist aspect of environmental
citizenship, and can thus provide a significant complement to what is conducted in
the formal education system.
Variables of the affective domain concern the values, feelings and attitudes that
mediate and motivate REB. These variables are commonly grouped into categories
(Hines et al. 1986–87;Pe’er, Goldman, and Yavetz 2007; Simmons 2001). The
category self-efficacy is a psychological construct that represents the individual’s
perception of his/her capacity to influence a situation though personal behavior (i.e.
locus-of-control). One of the goals of EE in developing EL is to strengthen the indi-
vidual’s belief in his/her ability to contribute to the environment through personal
behavior, either as an individual or a group. The finding of this study that the major-
ity of young guides have a strong sense of ability to influence their environment is
not surprising and most likely reflects the characteristics of the sort of young people
who choose leadership roles. It is encouraging in that it provides a good starting
point for bringing EE into youth movement activities, and developing, in these
youth, the skills required to function as agents of environmental change, since
18 D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

chances are greater for motivating change in individuals characterized by a strong
sense of ability (i.e. internal locus-of-control). This is all the more significant in
view of the potential for a positive ripple effect within the youth movements
deriving from their role as youth guides.
Value-of nature is a fundamental environmental value. Positions on this value are
often described as a continuum whose one end reflects an anthropocentric orienta-
tion, which situates man and his needs in the center and acknowledges a utilitarian
value to non-human components of nature (the value of organisms and resources is
determined by a benefit they provide man) (Dunlap 2008). The other end of this
continuum represents an ecocentric orientation, which views humans as one compo-
nent of the ecological web and attributes an intrinsic value to non-human compo-
nents of nature, thus the moral consideration of nature is independent of services it
provides for humans (Dietz, Fitzgerald, and Shwom 2005; Wesley Schultz 2001).
Anthropocentric values, as part of the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) of western
industrialized societies, are often regarded as one of the barriers to promoting REB
(Dunlap 2008). The relatively strong support for the attitude category value-of-na-
ture indicates that the young guides have a relatively ecocentric orientation. Based
on the relevance of values to behavior (Dietz, Fitzgerald, and Shwom 2005), this
value orientation provides a foundation upon which to build their comprehension
and concern regarding the impacts of human activities on nature, and cultivate
responsible behavior in actions conducted in the youth movement and personal
lives.
Another personality component of environmentalism is sensitivity and sense of
personal responsibility for the environment –the comprehension that an intact
environment is crucial for all of us, and as citizens of this world we should embrace
personal responsibility to contribute to a healthy environment. The attitude category
‘concern for the environment’aimed to estimate this aspect. This category received
the least support. It included negatively phrased statements such as ‘Science and
technology will provide solutions for environmental problems so there is no reason
for worry’and ‘Environmental problems can be solved without large changes in our
lifestyle’. These results reflect ‘technological optimism’–a perception that typifies
the DSP (Dunlap 2008). In this aspect, these adolescents are mirroring current views
in western society that have also been demonstrated in other sectors of the Israeli
society (Goldman, Ben Zvi Assaraf, and Shemesh. 2014). Sustainability discourse
views ‘technological optimism’as one of the barriers to achieving changes in con-
sumption patterns and lifestyles (Basiago 1994; Kibert et al. 2012). The findings
exemplify this problem: youth movement members’reliance on the power of science
and technology to address the environmental outcomes of human activity was paral-
leled by limited willingness to make changes in their personal consumption patterns.
The overall mean of environmental dispositions indicates that youth movement
members do not express a noteworthy pro-environmental approach in all aspects of
the affective domain. This is somewhat surprising in view of their socially active
orientation and stands in contrast to the generally environmentally supportive atti-
tudes often found in studies of young people (Fien 2007; Negev et al. 2008;Pe’er,
Goldman, and Yavetz 2007), and points to the necessity to invest, within this non-
formal framework, in cultivating values and attitudes as a foundation for changes in
the behavioral domain. Changes in behavior cannot be expected without changes in
values, including increased awareness that achieving the goals of sustainability
cannot rely on technological development alone but requires changes in our personal
Environmental Education Research 19
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

lifestyles. The fact that one of the central focuses of youth movements is value
education (Ministry of Education 2009; Shapira et al. 2003) provides a built-in
platform for incorporating environmental values.
Unmonitored consumption practices that characterize western, industrial ‘throw-
away’societies are acknowledged as one of the key sources of environmental and
social problems that threaten the environment and human lives, and any remedy will
require urgent changes in human behavior and cultural practices to reduce consump-
tion (GFN 2014; Hume 2010; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Tan and
Lau 2009; Wals and Corcoran 2012). A survey conducted by the Israeli Ministry of
Industry, Commerce and Employment on young Israeli’s (ages 12–15) consumerism
found that youth have significant impact on family consumption, most specifically
with respect to youth-related products (food products, games, clothing). Findings of
the survey also indicate that for the majority of purchases made by youth, parents
had no influence on the choices made by these young people (Bar-Tzori 2007). In
view of this, in addition to exploring the behavioral intentions of participants for
involvement in pro-environmental action within the youth movement framework,
this study also explored their willingness to curb their personal consumerism. The
results obtained are in line with the growing body of literature which addresses the
central role of consumerism in the lives of young people –the Y generation –as dis-
cussed in the following. Youth movement members’reservation to make changes in
personal consumption stands in contrast to their noteworthy willingness to serve as
models of REB for the children they instruct in the youth movement. This gap sug-
gests that these young people disconnect between their conduct as youth guides in
their youth movement and their behavior in personal lives. The fact that factor anal-
ysis of the activities for which behavioral intention was investigated created two
groups: willingness for involvement in pro-environmental activities within the youth
movement framework and willingness for changes in personal consumption, sup-
ports this disconnect. Moreover, youth movement members expressed readiness
(mean = 3.94) for being involved in, and even leading, various pro-environmental
actions as part of the regular activities conducted in their youth movement branch.
The discrepancy between these pro-environmental behavioral intentions as part of
their activity in the youth movement and limited readiness to reduce personal con-
sumption may reflect a conflict between positive sustainability values and consump-
tion patterns as one of the characteristics of the Y generation, as was reported by
Hume (2010). Thus, results of the present study support that adolescents in Israel
are mirroring consumer characteristics of the Y generation.
In line with this, despite their declaration of a certain level of familiarity with
consumerism as an environmental problem, it appears that these youth don’t fully
comprehend the inter-relationship between consumer patterns and environmental
impact, including the practical implications of environmental degradation which
require changes in consumer patterns. Along this line, it has been suggested that the
discrepancy between youths’concern for the environment and their lack of willing-
ness to change personal life-styles may result from the fact that their environmental
knowledge is mainly about the environment and not how to work for the environ-
ment (Fien 2007). Other barriers and reasons for not acting according to comprehen-
sion may also exist, for example their inclination towards ‘technical optimism’as
described above. This conclusion is also in line with one of the conclusions of the
study conducted by Hume concerning the Generation Y: ‘Although these groups of
consumers are considered economically and environmentally conscious, a clear
20 D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

pattern of contradiction exists between what they know and what they practice in
regards to sustainability efforts’(2010, 20).
Since ‘Shopping is an activity that is intrinsic to a commercialized childhood
and adolescence as well as to maturity’(Brusdal and Lavik 2008, 394), young con-
sumers are a key stakeholder in the effort to achieve sustainable lifestyles (Fien,
Neil, and Bentley 2008). Furthermore, young people are society’s future leaders and
decision makers. Therefore, from both a present-oriented and future-oriented per-
spective, young people are crucial candidates to enlighten regarding issues related to
developing and achieving sustainable strategies. Regarding this, youth movement
members’positions on their personal consumption are all the more challenging in
view of their strong self-efficacy for promoting change through their personal behav-
ior. The internal locus-of-action that characterizes these adolescents enhances the
urgency to develop their awareness and comprehension that all (of their) behavior
embodies a hidden message, thus, as youth guides, they provide, intentionally or
unintentionally, a personal example for the younger members who they educate and
who, therefore, look up to them as role-models (Pe’er, Yavetz, and Goldman 2013).
At the same time, it testifies to their potential to function as leaders-of-change, and
deriving from this, to the importance and worth whileness of investing in developing
their awareness and personal commitment for sustainable behavior, including
changes needed in personal lifestyles, such as consumerism.
Support for recycling, and for energy and water saving at home are examples of
‘light green’changes in personal behavior (Selby 2000). Of the environmentally
responsible actions investigated in this study, these were the actions the participants
reported they conduct most frequently. While such ‘light green’actions are meaning-
ful steps at a personal level, and accumulation of such changes can make a differ-
ence, it is increasingly critiqued that they reflect ‘feel-good sustainability’that
essentially leaves intact unsustainable routines and moves us toward unsustainability
(Wals and Corcoran 2012). Hyper-consumption and the drive to consume are still
currently much greater than the drive to sustain (Wals and Corcoran 2012). The rela-
tively high involvement in these ‘light green’actions reported by the youth investi-
gated in this study, paralleled by their reserved willingness to conduct more radical
changes in personal consumption, indicate that educational efforts in Israel, via the
media, formal education as well as non-formal frameworks should step up and
address the more fundamental transitions required in lifestyles and in order to
re-orient society towards sustainability.
REB is influenced by numerous interacting variables –internal (such as knowl-
edge, values, attitudes) and external/situational (such as supportive infrastructure,
economic factors) (Kollymus and Agyeman 2002). Regression analyses in this study
show that verbal commitment for pro-environmental action at personal level is the
EL variable that most strongly impacts REB. This is in line with other studies which
have found that pro-environmental behavioral intention is the most direct variable
that effects behavior and mediates the impact of all other psycho-social variables on
pro-environmental behavior (Bamberg and Möser 2007; Hines et al. 1986–87).
According to Hines et al. (1986–87), verbal commitment for pro-environmental
action is influenced by other internal interacting variables, one of them being cognitive
knowledge of problems. In this study, subjective knowledge of environmental issues
strongly predicted both verbal commitment for action at personal level and REB. This
indicates that when young people feel they are knowledgeable of environmental issues,
they are more likely to take action on them. The role of knowledge in developing REB is
Environmental Education Research 21
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

debated in the literature and empirical results are inconsistent. Some studies indicate a
positive but weak correlation between the individual’s environmental knowledge and
REB (Marcinkowski et al. 2013;Pe’er, Goldman, and Yavetz 2007) while other studies
demonstrate no significant correlation between knowledge and behavior (Kuhlemeier,
Bergh, and Lagerweij 1999; Negev et al. 2008). The study conducted by Bamberg and
Möser (2007) on psycho-social variables as predictors of pro-environmental behavior
found knowledge of environmental problems as an important, but indirect, determinant
of pro-environmental behavior.
This study conducted both correlation analyses among the EL variables and
regression analyses, controlling for the different variables. After verbal commitment
at a personal level, subjective knowledge was the variable which most strongly cor-
related positively and predicated REB, indicating the significantly positive direct
cause-effect relationship between these youths’sense of knowing about environmen-
tal topics and their pro-environmental behavior. This supports the importance of
enriching people’s knowledge base of environmental issues as one of the founda-
tions toward promoting REB.
Studies indicate a more significant positive correlation between attitudes and
behavior (Kuhlemeier, Bergh, and Lagerweij 1999; Marcinkowski et al. 2013;
Negev et al. 2008;Pe’er, Goldman, and Yavetz 2007), supporting the role of
attitudes in pro-environmental behavior. In this study, the attitude category which
positively mediated both REB and verbal commitment was self-efficacy.The com-
bined results that a sense of knowledge of environmental issues as well as sense of
ability to personally influence situations are variables that mediate both intention for
pro-environmental behavior and reported pro-environmental behavior, suggest that
for these young people, a sense of ownership and empowerment are important fac-
tors that determine the tendency for responsible behavior.
Gender differences in EL attributes of youth movement members
Gender has received considerable attention in research that characterizes youths’EL.
Albeit inconsistencies in the empirical literature, it is often found that while females
hold more pro-environmental attitudes and are more concerned about the environ-
ment than males (Boeve-de Pauw, Donche, and Van Petegem 2011; Boeve-de Pauw
and Van Petegem 2010; Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000), their environmental
knowledge is lower. A study of the environmental awareness of ~5000 Flemish ado-
lescents that took part in the 2006 PISA found that boys are more aware of environ-
mental issues than girls (Coertjens et al. 2010). Results of the present study are in
line with this: while boys feel more knowledgeable of most of the environmental
topics investigated, girls expressed more pro-environmental attitudes, especially
greater concern for the environment and acknowledgment of the importance of EE.
They also expressed greater verbal commitment for responsible behavior in their role
as young guides (being a role-model of REB for the younger members). Conversely,
regarding changes in personal consumption, in keeping with findings on Norwegian
youth which support that shopping is a gendered activity and girls shop more fre-
quently (Brusdal and Lavik 2008), girls were less willing to cut back on purchase of
new clothes. Concerning self-reported environmental behavior, the more frequent
inclusion of environmental issues in social discourse with friends reported by boys
may be related to the fact that these boys feel more knowledgeable of environmental
topics compared to girls.
22 D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Conclusions and implications for incorporating sustainability within the youth
movements
Findings of this baseline study create a picture of moderate environmentalism but
also make room for optimism. These young people report themselves as having only
general knowledge of environmental problems. They are characterized by a techno-
logically optimistic approach which leads them to limited concern for the environ-
ment, limited recognition of the importance of EE and limited acknowledgment of
the necessity for making personal life-style changes. Environmental issues do not
seem to be on their mind since they are not a topic of conversation with peers or
family. On the other hand, these youth exhibit many personality attributes which
provide strong anchors upon which to build for cultivating their EL and for incorpo-
rating sustainability within the youth movement agenda and activities. Most signifi-
cant, they demonstrate a strong sense of personal ability to bring about change and
they view themselves as role-models for the younger members. Furthermore, they
are willing to include environmentally supportive actions as part of the regular youth
movement activities: to include the environment as a topic of discussion (theoretical
activity), to conduct various resource conserving actions in their branch, and to con-
duct environmentally-socially responsive actions for the community. Jensen and
Schnack (1997) offer the idea of ‘action competence’as an educational approach for
EE. This approach supports that participants in an educational program take active
part in the problem-solving process and actively decide if and how to act. Findings
of this study indicate that the young guides have some attributes of action compe-
tence, such as willingness for environmental action in the youth movement and a
sense-of empowerment to act, suggesting that adopting this educational approach
may be an effective means for further development of these young peoples’environ-
mentalism in the context of youth movements.
The findings lead to a number of recommendations for strengthening the incor-
poration of EE within youth movement agenda and activities: (1) To certify ‘green
youth movement branches’as part of the national process lead jointly by the MoEP
and The Ministry of Education for ‘greening’educational institutions (MoEP 2013).
In the context of youth movements, this process aims to promote environmentally
responsible management of the youth movement institutions. It provides a motive
and framework for the young guides (who stated their willingness to include envi-
ronmental activities in the youth movement) to define the goals, the focuses of
action as well as the ways to act so that these are congruent with local environmen-
tal challenges as well as their interests. Such a process of ‘greening’youth move-
ments branches is compatible with the action competence educational approach to
EE (Jensen and Schnack 1997). (2) All the Israeli youth movements conduct yearly
summer seminars for the training of the young guides. The EL attributes of young
guides found in this study pinpoint those components of EL on which these educa-
tional seminars should focus. Since Israeli youth movements are, by definition,
youth engagement organizations, the model for youth environmental engagement
programs proposed by Riemer, Lynes, and Hickman (2014) may be suitable for
guiding the ways in which the environmental component is imbedded within these
summer seminars. (3) All youth movements develop educational materials as
resources for their educational activities. In view of the action competence which
appears to characterize the young guides, it is suggested that these materials be
developed according to the action competence educational approach (Jensen and
Environmental Education Research 23
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Schnack 1997) so as to strengthen the environmentalism of these youth and enhance
their capacity as young leaders for environmental change.
In view of the recognition of the potential of young youth movement guides to
function as agents of change, from both a present-oriented approach (youth for
youth and youth for community) and a future-oriented approach (as future citizens),
it is noteworthy that the above directions, which were included among the recom-
mendations provided in the research report of this study submitted to the MoEP
(Yavetz, Goldman, and Pe’er 2011) are currently in initial stages of implementation
as part of the joint efforts of the MoEP, Ministry of Education and Council of Youth
Movements to promote engagement of the youth movements in sustainability
(MoEP 2013). This development is evidence to the contribution of this baseline
study to realizing policy change with respect to EE.
A built-in limitation of this study, which focused on the case of Israeli youth
movements, is the ability to infer from the findings which are relevant to the Israeli
social, cultural and political context to a broader international perspective. Despite
this limitation, since the study addressed general (and not environmentally-oriented)
youth movements, it may be expected that some of the attributes found of the youth
that participated in this study will be relevant to socially-active youth who choose to
be active in broad-spectrum youth organizations in other countries. The fact that in
many of their EL attributes Israeli youth movement members were similar to youth
in other countries (Fien 2007; Hume2010) supports this assumption.
In view of the recent joint efforts of the Government and Youth Movement
Council to bring sustainability into the youth movements, we see directions for
future research on a number of fronts: (1) One direction is to return and explore if
the steps that have been taken have had impact and created a different picture of
young guides’EL in comparison to the current situation. Such a study should focus
not only on participants’outcomes but also on the educational process and try to
elucidate what attributes of these programs are effective. (2) In view of the increas-
ing acknowledgment of the value of youth educating youth paralleled by a paucity
of studies addressing this, Israeli youth movements provide a built-in opportunity to
address this void and explore the specific contribution of EE activity carried by
young guides to the younger members. (3) Another direction is to compare between
young guides and other members of the same age group that do not function as
guides. Directions two and three are complementary and may provide insight as to
the role of youth leadership and engagement in program governance in promoting
the individual’s environmental responsibility. While the value of leadership and
youth participation in decision-making in environmental programs is acknowledged,
there is little empirical evidence as to what programs are effective and what makes
them effective (Riemer, Lynes, and Hickman 2014).
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their gratitude to the Unit for Research and Evaluation of Beit Berl
Academic College, and especially to Mrs Tali Zeiger, for assistance in conducting this study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
24 D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Funding
This work was supported by the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection [grant number
8-202].
Notes on contributors
Daphne Goldman is former chair (2 terms) of the Department of Environmental Science and
Agriculture at Beit Berl College, where she is senior lecturer. She led the accreditation of her
college as a ‘green college’and spearheaded the National Annual Conference on Environ-
mental Education. She currently sits on the National Committee for Accrediting Green Cam-
puses, Ministry of Environmental Protection, and on the Committee for the high school
Environmental Science Curriculum (and stand-in chair), Ministry of Education. Her PhD is
in environmental biochemical toxicology. Current fields of research: influence of environmen-
tal education on the development of environmental literacy and environmental citizenship in
formal and non-formal settings, addressing diverse target populations –university students,
student teachers, teacher educators, school students, youth movements; theoretical and
practical aspects of environmental education; environmental education policy in Israel;
green-school accreditation.
Sara Pe’er is former head of the Department of Science and Environmental Teaching and cur-
rent head of Science discipline in the M.Ed. program for Teaching Mathematics and Sciences
in the Elementary School at Oranim College of Education, where she is senior lecturer. Her
PhD is in plant pathology. Sara chaired the Think Tank on sustainability education in teacher
training at the MOFET Institute. Her research focuses on education for sustainability in col-
leges of education and in youth movements.
Bela Yavetz is former head of the Department of Biology and Environment at the Kibbutzim
College for Education, Technology and the Arts. Bela is former head of the Committee for
Science and Technology Curriculum for junior high schools, Ministry of Education. Her PhD
is in endocrinology. Her field of research is environmental education for sustainability.
References
Almog, O. 1997. The Tzabar –A Portrait [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Am Oved.
Bamberg, S., and G. Möser. 2007. “Twenty Years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A
New Meta-analysis of Psycho-social Determinants of Pro-environmental Behavior.”
Journal of Environmental Psychology 27: 14–25. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002.
Bar-Tzori, R. 2007. Consumption Patterns of Children and Youth in the Ages 12–15 in Israel
[in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Mid report for the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Employ-
ment. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://www.moital.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/1625F9A0-
E4D3-4C98-A17C-14DBB98AAEB2/0/X7583A.pdf
Basiago, A. D. 1994. “The Limits of Technological Optimism.”The Environmentalist 14 (1):
17–22. doi:10.1007/BFO1902656.
Bekerman, Z., and D. Silberman Keller. 2003. “Professing Informal Education.”Educational
Research for Policy and Practice 2: 237–256.
Ben Peretz, M. 1980. “Environmental Education is Too Important to be Left in the Hands of
Teachers Alone.”In Environmental Education: Principles, Methods and Application,
edited by T. S. Bakshi and Z. Naveh, 19–30. New York: Plenum Press.
Boeve-de Pauw, J., V. Donche, and P. Van Petegem. 2011. “Adolescents’Environmental
Worldview and Personality: An Explorative Study.”Journal of Environmental
Psychology 31: 109–117. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.003.
Boeve-de Pauw, J., and P. Van Petegem. 2010. “A Cross-national Perspective on Youth
Environmental Attitudes.”The Environmentalist 30: 133–144. doi:10.1007/s10669-009-
9253-1.
Brusdal, R., and R. Lavik. 2008. “Just Shopping –A Closer Look at Youth and Shopping in
Norway.”Youth-Nordic Journal of Youth Research 16 (4): 393–408. doi:10.1177/
110330880801600403.
Environmental Education Research 25
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Coertjens, L., J. Boeve-de Pauw, S. De Maeyer, and P. Van Petegem. 2010. “Do Schools
Make a Difference in their Students’Environmental Attitudes and Awareness? Evidence
from PISA 2006.”International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 8 (3):
497–522.
Derek, E. 2006. “UNESCO’s Approach to Implementing the Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development (DESD) in Asia and the Pacific.”Australian Journal of
Environmental Education 22 (1): 83–86. doi:10.1017/S0814062600001695.
Dietz, T., A. Fitzgerald, and R. Shwom. 2005. “Environmental Values.”Annual Review of
Environmental Resources 30: 335–372. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444.
Dunlap, R. E. 2008. “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to World-
wide Use.”The Journal of Environmental Education 40 (1): 3–18. doi:10.3200/
JOEE.40.1.3-18.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. What is Environmental Education? Accessed
July 30, 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/education/what-environmental-education
Eshach, H. 2007. “Bridging In-school and Out-of-school Learning: Formal, Non-formal, and
Informal Education.”Journal of Science Education and Technology 16 (2): 171–190.
doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1.
Fien, J. 2007. “Young People and the Environment: Implications of a Study of Youth
Environmental Attitudes and Education in the Asia Pacific Region for Curriculum
Reform during the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.”International
Textbook Research (Internationale Schulbuchforschung) 29 (2): 205–227.
Fien, J., C. Neil, and M. Bentley. 2008. “Youth Can Lead the Way to Sustainable Consump-
tion.”Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 2 (1): 51–60. doi:10.1177/
097340820800200111.
GFN (Global Footprint Network) 2014. Accessed September 20, 2014. http://www.footprint
network.org/en/index.php/GFN
Goldman, D., O. Ben Zvi Assaraf, and J. Shemesh. 2014. “Human Nature: Chemical
Engineering Students’Ideas about Human Relationships with the Natural World.”
European Journal of Engineering Education 39 (3): 325–347. doi:10.1080/03043797.
2013.867313.
Goldman, D., B. Yavetz, and S. Pe’er. 2006. “Environmental Literacy in Teacher Training in
Israel: Environmental Behavior of New Students.”The Journal of Environmental
Education 38 (1): 3–22. doi:10.3200/JOEE.38.1.3-22.
Hines, J. M., H. R. Hungerford, and A. N. Tomera. 1986–87. “Analysis and Synthesis of
Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.”The Journal of
Environmental Education 18 (2): 1–8. doi:10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482.
Hollweg, K. S., J. R. Taylor, R. W. Bybee, T. J. Marcinkowski, W. C. McBeth, and P. Zoido.
2011. Developing a Framework for Assessing Environmental Literacy. Washington, DC:
North American Association for Environmental Education. Accessed November 28,
2014. http://www.naaee.net
Hume, M. 2010. “Compassion without Action: Examining the Young Consumers
Consumption and Attitude to Sustainable Consumption.”Journal of World Business 45
(4): 385–394.
Hungerford, H., and T. Volk. 1990. “Changing Learner Behavior through Environmental
Education.”The Journal of Environmental Education 21 (3): 8–21. doi:10.1080/
00958964.1990.10753743.
Jeffs, T., and M. K. Smith. 1999. Informal Education. London: YMCA, George Williams
College.
Jensen, B.B., and K. Schnack. 1997. “The Action Competence Approach in Environmental
Education.”Environmental Education Research 3 (2): 163–178.
Kahane, R. 1997. The Origins of Postmodern Youth: Informal Youth Movements in a
Comparative Perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kahane, R. 2007. Youth and the Informal Code –Youth Movements in the Twentieth Century
and the Sources of Postmodern Youth [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik.
Kibert, C. J., M. C. Monroe, A. L. Peterson, R. R. Plate, and L. P. Thiele. 2012. Working
toward Sustainability: Ethical Decision Making in a Technological World. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
26 D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Kollymus, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why do People Act Environmentally
and what are the Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior?”Environmental Education
Research 8 (3): 239–260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401.
Kuhlemeier, H., H. V. D. Bergh, and N. Lagerweij. 1999. “Environmental Knowledge,
Attitudes, and Behavior in Dutch Secondary Education.”The Journal of Environmental
Education 30 (2): 4–14. doi:10.1080/00958969909601864.
Marcinkowski, T., D. Shin, K. Noh, M. Negev, G. Sagy, Y. Garb, B. Mcbeth, et al. 2013.
“National Assessments of Environmental Literacy: A Review, Comparison, and Analy-
sis.”In International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education, edited by R.
B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, and A. E. J. Wals, 310–330. New York: Routeledge.
McBeth, B., H. Hungerford, T. Marcinkowski, T. Volk, K. Cifranick, J. Howell, and R.
Meyers. 2011. National Environmental Literacy Assessment, Phase Two: Measuring the
Effectiveness of North American Environmental Education Programs with Respect to the
Parameters of Environmental Literacy –Final Research Report. NOAA and NAAEE.
Accessed November 28, 2014. http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/outreach/reports/NELA_Pha
se_Two_Report_020711.pdf
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
Washington, DC.: Island Press. Accessed August 8, 2014. http://www.millenniumassess
ment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
Ministry of Education. 2004. General Director’s Decree ‘Implementing Education for
Sustainable Development in the Educational System’[in Hebrew]. Accessed November
28, 2014. http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/applications/mankal/arc/sd5bk9_
4_5.htm
Ministry of Education. 2009. Youth Movements in Israel –Status for the Years 2005–2006
[in Hebrew]. Accessed June 9, 2015. http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/
E052DFB4-3DFA-40ED-82B7-D5B9B541BB0D/105117/tnuot4.doc
Ministry of Education and MoEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection). 2012. Education
for Sustainability –Weaving Life Together [in Hebrew]. Accessed November 28, 2014.
http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/B1706F28-F850-4EA2-A017-93F32E855EE4/
135201/ChinuchLekayamutSeptember26.pdf
Ministry of Education and MoEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection). 2014. The Inte-
grated Program on Education for Sustainability –Policy Paper [in Hebrew]. Accessed
November 28, 2014. http://meyda.education.gov.il/files/madatech/madaim/policy2014.pdf
MoEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection). 2013. Youth Movements. Accessed
June 9, 2015. http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Education/MoecoopEducation/youth
movement/Pages/YouthMovements.aspx
NEEAC (National Environmental Education Advisory Council). 2005. Setting the Standard,
Measuring Results, Celebrating Successes –A Report to Congress on the Status of Envi-
ronmental Education in the United States. Accessed November 10, 2014. http://nepis.epa.
gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20017F9F.PDF?Dockey=20017F9F.PDF.
Negev, M., Sagy, G., Garb, Y., Salzberg, A., and A. Tal. 2008. “Evaluating the
Environmental Literacy of Israeli Elementary and High School Students.”The Journal of
Environmental Education 39 (2): 3–20.
NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education). 2009. Non Formal
Environmental Education Programs: Guidelines for Excellence. Washington, DC.
Accessed November 10, 2014. http://resources.spaces3.com/b85e2c0a-f321-40c2-9857-
19a5f29d750b.pdf
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2007. Science Compe-
tencies for Tomorrow’s World. Paris: OECD Publications. Accessed September 20, 2014.
http://www.nbbmuseum.be/doc/seminar2010/nl/bibliografie/opleiding/analysis.pdf
Orr, D. W. 1992. Ecological Literacy –Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pe’er, S., D. Goldman, and B. Yavetz. 2007. “Environmental Literacy in Teacher Training:
Environmental Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior of Beginning Students.”The Journal
of Environmental Education 39 (1): 45–59. doi:10.3200/JOEE.39.1.45-59.
Pe’er, S., B. Yavetz, and D. Goldman. 2013. “Environmental Education for Sustainability as
Values Education –The Challenge for Teacher Educators.”In Embracing the Social and
the Creative: New Scenarios for Teacher Education, edited by M. Ben-Peretz,
Environmental Education Research 27
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

S. Kleeman, R. Reichenberg, and S. Shimoni, 135–153. MD: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishing Group Inc. in partnership with the MOFET Institute.
Riemer, M., J. Lynes, and G. Hickman. 2014. “A Model for Developing and Assessing
Youth-based Environmental Engagement Programmes.”Environmental Education
Research 20 (4): 552–574. doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.812721.
Roth, C. E. 1992. Environmental Literacy: Its Roots, Evolution and Directions in the 1990s.
Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental
Education.
Schlosberg, D. 2004. “Reconceiving Environmental Justice: Global Movements and Political
Theories.”Environmental Politics 13 (3): 517–540. doi:10.1080/0964401042000229025.
Selby, D. 2000. “A Darker Shade of Green: The Importance of Ecological Thinking in
Global Education and School Reform.”Theory into Practice 39 (2): 88–96. doi:10.1207/
s15430421tip3902_5.
Shapira, R., M. Gal, Y. Dror, A. Cohen, D. Nvo, and S. Frish. 2003. Report of the Committee
for Evaluating the Youth-movement Characteristics as a Base for Funding Criteria [in
Hebrew]. Ministry for Education, Culture and Sport. Accessed November 28, 2014.
http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/3EB24524-D5FD-4D67-935E-2681486E92B6/
20031/01doch_noa1.doc
Silberman-Keller, D. 2003. “Toward the Characterization of Non-formal Pedagogy.”Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Chicago IL, April 21–25. Accessed August 8, 2014. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED477508
Simmons, B. 2001. “Education Reform, Setting Standards, and Environmental Education.”In
Essential Readings in Environmental Education, edited by H. R. Hungerford, W. J.
Bluhm, T. L. Volk, and J. M. Ramsey, 65–72. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C.
Stoss, F. 2008. “If We are So Smart, Why Do We Need Environmental Education?”Elec-
tronic Green Journal 26. Accessed July 30, 2014. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/
7h12c5zp;jsessionid=E619DF79810EAD445CABD91B41B86ED6#page-1
Tan, B., and T. Lau. 2009. “Examining Sustainable Consumption Patterns of Young
Consumers: Is there a Cause for Concern?”The Journal of International Social Research
2 (9): 465–472.
Tilbury, D. 1995. “Environmental Education for Sustainability: Defining the New Focus of
Environmental Education in the 1990s.”Environmental Education Research 1 (2):
195–212. doi:10.1080/1350462950010206.
Tilbury, D. 2004. “Environmental Education for Sustainability: A Force for Change in Higher
Education.”In Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability –Problematics,
Promise and Practice, edited by P. B. Corcoran and A. E. J. Wals, 97–112. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
UNCED. 1992. Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development. New York: United Nations.
UNESCO. 1978. Final Report –Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education.
Organized by UNESCO in Cooperation with UNEP, Tbilisi, USSR, 14–26 October 1997.
Paris: UNESCO ED/MD/49.
UNESCO. 2002. Four Dimensions of Sustainable Development. Accessed March 18, 2014.
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/popups/mod04t01s03.html
UNESCO. 2005. United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
2005–2014 –International Implementation Scheme. Accessed December 4, 2014. http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001399/139937e.pdf
UNESCO-UNEP. 1976. “The Belgrade Charter.”Connect: UNESCO-UNEP Environmental
Education Newsletter 1 (1): 1–2.
Wals, A. E. J., and P. B. Corcoran. 2012. “Re-orienting, Re-connecting and Re-imagining:
Learning-based Responses to the Challenge of (Un)Sustainability.”In Learning for
Sustainability in Times Change, edited by A. E. J. Wals and P. B. Corcoran, 21–32.
Wageningen: Wageningen Academic.
Wesley Schultz, P. 2001. “The Structure of Environmental Concern: Concern for Self, Other
People, and the Biosphere.”Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (4): 327–339.
doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0227.
World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2007: Development and the Next Generation.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
28 D. Goldman et al.
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015

Yavetz, B., D. Goldman, and S. Pe’er. 2009. “Environmental Literacy of Pre-service Teachers
in Israel: A Comparison between Students at the Onset and End of Their Studies.”
Environmental Education Research 15 (4): 393–415. doi:10.1080/13504620902928422.
Yavetz, B., D. Goldman, and S. Pe’er. 2011. Environmental Education in Youth Movements –
A Survey of Environmental Awareness and Willingness for Environmental Action, and
Recommendations for Incorporating the Environment into These Organizations [in
Hebrew]. The Ministry of Environmental Protection, Chief Scientist (Research no.
8-202).
Zelezny, L. C., P. Chua, and C. Aldrich. 2000. “New Ways of Thinking about Environmen-
talism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism.”Journal of Social
Issues 56 (3): 443–457. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00177.
Environmental Education Research 29
Downloaded by [Victoria University] at 06:02 16 November 2015