3.3 6.

Article

A Nationwide Survey Evaluating

the Environmental Literacy of
Undergraduate Students in Taiwan

Shih-Wu Liang, Wei-Ta Fang, Shin-Cheng Yeh, Shiang-Yao Liu, Huei-Min Tsai, Jui-Yu Chou and
Eric Ng

https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061730
 sustainability

Article
A Nationwide Survey Evaluating the Environmental
Literacy of Undergraduate Students in Taiwan
Shih-Wu Liang 1 , Wei-Ta Fang 2, *, Shin-Cheng Yeh 2 , Shiang-Yao Liu 3 ID
, Huei-Min Tsai 2 ,
Jui-Yu Chou 4 and Eric Ng 5
1 Department of Public Relations and Advertising, Shih Hsin University, Taipei 231, Taiwan;
wuu@mail.shu.edu.tw
2 Graduate Institute of Environmental Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 116, Taiwan;
scyeh@ntnu.edu.tw (S.-C.Y.); hmtsai@ntnu.edu.tw (H.-M.T.)
3 Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 116, Taiwan;
liusy@ntnu.edu.tw
4 Department of Biology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua 500, Taiwan;
jackyjau@cc.ncue.edu.tw
5 School of Management and Enterprise, University of Southern Queensland, Queensland 4350, Australia;
eric.ng@usq.edu.au
* Correspondence: wtfang@ntnu.edu.tw; Tel.: +886-2-7734-6558




Received: 17 April 2018; Accepted: 23 May 2018; Published: 25 May 2018


Abstract: The aim of this nationwide survey was to assess undergraduate students’ environmental
literacy level in Taiwan. A total of 29,498 valid responses were received from a number of selected
colleges and universities in Taiwan, using stratified random sampling method. A total of 70 items
were used to assess the environmental literacy and the results revealed that undergraduate students
had a relatively low level of environmental knowledge and behavior, while a moderate level
of environmental attitudes was attained. The findings also indicated no significant correlations
between knowledge and attitudes or between knowledge and behavior. However, a higher level
of environmental knowledge correlated significantly with a higher degree of pro-environmental
behavior, and a higher level of environmental knowledge correlated with stronger attitudes.
The results also suggested that females outperformed the males in all categories. Results from
this study could contribute towards further relevant policy discussion and decision-making,
curriculum design and development to the improvement of environmental education in the higher
education sector.

Keywords: assessment; environmental education; environmental literacy; higher education; Taiwan

1. Introduction
The on-going environmental problems nowadays can be attributed to the increasing population,
economic development and industrialization, pollution, urbanization, and resource depletion globally.
The fundamentals of these on-going problems are predominantly associated with people’s lifestyles
and their extensive activities occurring in the natural surroundings [1,2], which gives rise to the
importance of balancing the relationship between human and natural environments that was already
recognized and supported by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987.
The development of environmental awareness, knowledge and skills are considered as essential to help
minimize environmental problems, and environmental education is seen as a key element in creating
an environmentally literate society [3,4]. Through this, a responsible environmental behavior can be
developed and help prevent and minimize environmental problems in a sustainable manner [5,6].

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730; doi:10.3390/su10061730 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 2 of 21

Current environmental education literature reveals a range of prior studies conducted that
consistently related to the development of an environmentally literate citizenry [7,8]. Some of
these areas of studies include: reviews of environmental education literature [9,10], definitions
and frameworks [11,12], purpose and goals [13,14], and responsible environmental behavior [15,16].
However, there are limited studies conducted on a national scale and in the higher education context,
which is the focus of this study.

1.1. Environmental Education in Taiwan

In Taiwan, the government has recognized the importance of environmental education and
substantial efforts have been made to promote it in the past decades, with the intention to develop
responsible environmental behavior [17]. In fact, environmental education has been taught in
elementary, junior and middle level schools in the 1980s and 1990s, where the curricula incorporate
basic environmental concepts that mainly seek to generate children’s awareness about the environment
and its related issues. The success of this has led to the extension in the curricula to include
motivation and commitment elements that further enhance children’s knowledge and skills in solving
environmental problems. And consequently, environmental education was formally incorporated into
the national curriculum framework in 2000. The government’s support is evident by the environmental
education development plan initiated by the National Science Council in 1993, which has recommended
that more environmental behavior studies to be conducted in order to establish a responsible
environmental behavior model appropriate for the Taiwanese. Despite this acknowledgement, there
are still inadequate evidences in both practice and research in environmental education in Taiwan
and this may be attributed to the early stage of environmental behavior research and development
in the country itself [18]. Although there are numerous EE studies [15,19] conducted and responsible
environmental behavior model developed but most of which have focused on Western developed
countries and may not be appropriate in the context of Eastern countries, specifically for Taiwan.
Accordingly, formal education system plays an important role in environmental education efforts
and in particular at the higher education level where transdisciplinary curriculum is offered that can
help to further facilitate and enhance university students’ environmental literacy that aims to develop
their responsible environmental behavior [20,21]. Over the years, significant efforts had been made to
the design and development of environmental education curriculum in Taiwan’s higher education
sector in order to create the necessary awareness, and develop critical knowledge and skills towards
achieving a responsible environmental behavior. However, there has been inadequate evidence to
provide greater insights about the success or failure of these efforts. Given that there is a general lack
of existing empirical knowledge about the significant aspects of environmental literacy in Taiwan,
this study aims to fill this gap by investigating the level of environmental literacy in university students
whom have been exposed to transdisciplinary curriculum that can potentially further enhance the
development of their responsible environmental behavior.
The significance of this study includes the provision of greater insights into the considerable
efforts that the Taiwanese government has made towards environmental education over the years by
assessing university students’ environmental literacy on a national scale. This contributes towards
further relevant policy discussion and decision-making, curriculum design and development to the
improvement of environmental education, so that an environmentally literate society can be achieved.
More importantly, the findings can also provide a benchmark for any future studies on environmental
literacy at different levels in Taiwan and other countries, especially those that are developing and
characterized by rapid industrialization and urbanization. Furthermore, this study contributes to the
literature of environmental literacy as well as in the field of responsible environmental behavior.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 3 of 21

1.2. Framework and Elements of Environmental Literacy

Although environmental literacy has been investigated in numerous research studies since 1960s,
but there is still no one single agreed definition of it. Many of these prior studies had attempted
to define environmental literacy by considering their scope of research and the context involved,
and some of these definitions include: the possession of basic skills, understanding, and feelings for the
human-environment relationship [21,22]; an understanding of the interaction between human beings
and their natural environment in terms of living and non-living things [23,24]; the cognitive skills
and knowledge needed at macro level for behavioral change towards a better environment [25,26];
knowledge of the environment that also involves values, attitudes, and skills that can be converted
into actions [21,27]. For the purpose of this study, environmental literacy is regarded as an individual’s
knowledge and attitudes about the environment and its related issues, and through the acquired skills
to help minimize and/or resolve environmental problems and remain an active participation that
contributes towards an environmentally literate society [28].
The key environmental literacy variables to be investigated in this study are based on the
environmental literacy framework developed by the Environmental Literacy Assessment Consortium
and this framework has been used by researchers to undertake national assessments of environmental
literacy in several countries such as South Korea [29], Israel [30], Turkey [31], and the United States [32].
This framework outlines three key elements that need to be considered when evaluating environmental
literacy, and these include: (1) cognitive (knowledge and skills), (2) affective, and (3) behavioral.
The cognitive element refers to the ability to identify, investigate, analyze and evaluate environmental
problems and issues based on the knowledge of ecological and socio-political foundations. This element
also includes having the necessary knowledge and ability to develop and evaluate appropriate
action strategies that seek to influence outcomes on environmental problems and issues. The key
purpose of this element is to assess people’s understanding of natural systems, environmental issues,
and action strategies.
The affective element considers an individual’s empathetic and caring attitude towards the
environment who recognizes the values of environmental quality and is willing to take on appropriate
actions to help prevent and resolve environmental problems and issues. This element seeks to evaluate
people’s environmental awareness and sensitivity, decision-making attitude on environmental issues
and taking environmentally responsible action, and environmental values on ethical considerations
and reflective thinking about the relationships between humans and the environment.
The behavioral element focuses on the belief of an individual or a group of individuals about
their ability to influence outcomes of environmental problems and issues. There is also an assumption
of personal responsibility to take reasonable actions that help influence the environment. These
environmentally responsible actions are generally classified into five categories: (1) eco-management
such as recycling, energy conservation, (2) economic/consumer action focuses on the use of monetary
support or financial pressure such as financial donation to environmental groups, (3) persuasion
to appeal to others to help minimize or resolve environmental problems/issues, (4) political action
through voting, lobbying over concern for environmental problems/issues, and (5) legal action such as
lawsuits, reporting pollution violations to authorities that aim to enforce existing laws. The key
focus of this element is to investigate people’s intentions to act upon environmentally friendly
behaviors, environmental action strategies and skills to identify and evaluate environmental issues,
and involvement in responsible environmental behavior.
Based on the above, the respective elements and components to be explored in this study are as
shown in Table 1 below.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 4 of 21

Table 1. Elements and components of environmental literacy.

Elements Components
Cognitive • Knowledge of natural systems
• Knowledge of environmental issues
• Knowledge of appropriate action strategies
Affective • Environmental awareness and sensitivity
• Environmental values
• Decision-making attitude on environmental issues
Behavioral • Intentions to act
• Environmental action strategies and skills
• Involvement in responsible environmental behavior

The key purpose of this study is to examine the undergraduate students’ environmental literacy
level on a nationwide scale in Taiwan by considering the three key environmental literacy elements as
outlined in the literature. Specifically, the following objectives are investigated.

• To assess the level of environmental literacy of undergraduate students in Taiwan on the following
elements: (1) cognitive (knowledge and skills), (2) affective, and (3) behavioral.
• To identify any significant correlations in the undergraduate students’ scores on the three elements.
• To identify information sources from which undergraduate students gather environmental
information.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was part of a nationwide survey assessment in Taiwan that was carried out with
32,321 undergraduate students by using an environmental literacy instrument developed based on
the established environmental literacy framework. The large-scale survey adopted in this study was
regarded as valuable in educational research domains, especially when “education policy debates are
framed by questions about ‘what works’ and how ‘big’ the effects of specific educational practices are”
on learning performance [33].

2.1. Participants
The participants of the study consisted of first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year undergraduate
students in Taiwan. According to the annual report of Education Statistical Indicators published by the
Ministry of Education, the target population was 1,077,396 students from 163 colleges and universities
in Taiwan in the 2012 academic year when this survey was conducted. A sample of 57 colleges and
universities were selected based on a stratified random sampling method with key considerations
given to geographic (22 regions) and demographic (size and level of colleges and universities) stratum.
With an average sampling rate of 3%, a total of 32,321 questionnaires were distributed and surveyed in
the selected colleges and universities, of which 29,498 valid responses were received that represented a
return rate of approximately 91.3%. To determine the representativeness of the sample, the chi-square
(χ2 ) test was used to test between sample and population demographics, which resulted in Pearson
chi-square (χ2 ) being 393.901, and a p value of approximately 0.000. Thus, the sample size of 29,498
was deemed to be representative of the population. The key demographic profiles of the respondents
were briefly outlined in Table 2.
The findings revealed that both male and female were equally represented in this study with a
respond rate of 49.1% and 49.6% respectively. In terms of the year level, first-year students accounted
for 28.4% and this was followed by second-year (25.6%), third-year (23%) and fourth-year (22.4%)
students. While majority of the students lived with their families (40%), other accommodation
arrangements also included outside school rentals (30%) and school dormitory (27.5%). The most
common type of family structure identified was nuclear family (65.9%) with the remaining being three
generations (19.1%) and single-parent families (11.1%).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 5 of 21

Table 2. General descriptive information of the sample (N = 29,498).

Variables Frequency Percent (%)

Gender
Male 14,483 49.1
Female 14,626 49.6
Unanswered 389 1.3
Year level
Freshman (first-year) 8370 28.4
Sophomore (second-year) 7544 25.6
Junior (third-year) 6774 23.0
Senior (fourth-year) 6598 22.4
Other 212 0.7
Accommodation arrangement
With family 11,795 40.0
School dormitory 8115 27.5
Renting out 8854 30.0
Other 272 0.9
Unanswered 462 1.6
Family structure
Three generations 5621 19.1
Nuclear family 19,436 65.9
Single-parent families 3271 11.1
Unanswered 1170 4.0

2.2. Instrument and Instrumentation

When designing these questionnaire items, the following steps were undertaken that
acknowledged the differences of various assessment frameworks in existence and sociocultural
contexts, which in this case the environmental literacy instrument was compiled with consideration
given to the alignment of the contextual issues in Taiwan.

• Step 1: More than 30 research papers and articles related to environmental literacy in Taiwan and
abroad [27,31,32,34] were reviewed to establish the item pools to be considered.
• Step 2: Using a similar process by Erdogan and Ok [31], items in the pool were selected in accordance
to the research objectives guided by the definition of each elements and related components.
The table of specifications, and the initially compiled questions items were subsequently prepared
for panel review.
• Step 3: This initially compiled question items were given to a panel of 10 experts from various
areas of specialization, such as environmental education, earth science, geography, and urban
planning, for their formal review and expert opinions. The experts were required to evaluate the
items on their appropriateness, relevance and language used from which content validity has to
be reached. Each question item had received at least 80% agreement by the experts.
• Step 4: The instrument was revised based on the experts’ opinions and feedback, and subsequently
pre-tested with 20 randomly selected undergraduate students. The item analysis with regards
to difficulty and discrimination for knowledge items and the factor analysis for scale items
were conducted to determine the question items to be included in the final version of the
questionnaire survey.

The final questionnaire survey consisted of two main sections; (1) demographic items,
and (2) environmental literacy assessment items. Although there were 12 survey items in the
demographic section, only some items were presented as variables for analysis as shown in Table 1.
As for the environmental literacy assessment section, there were a total of 70 items used to assess the
three main elements (i.e., cognitive, affective, and behavioral) as discussed in the literature.
Sixteen question items were developed for the cognitive element that aimed to assess
undergraduate students’ knowledge and understanding of natural systems, environmental issues,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 6 of 21

and action strategies. Of these 16 questions, nine were True-False questions and remaining seven were
Multiple-Choice questions. Next, 23 items were included in the affective element which sought to
assess undergraduate students’ environmental awareness and sensitivity, values, and decision-making
attitude on environmental issues. These 23 question items were designed in the form of a five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The score was reversed
when the question item was presented in a negative manner. Lastly, the behavioral element was
designed to investigate undergraduate students’ intentions to act, their action strategies and skills,
and involvement in responsible environmental behavior. It consisted of 31 question items using a
five-point frequency scale (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always) that focused on undergraduate
students’ environmentally responsible actions, including persuasion, eco-management, consumer and
economic action, and legal and political action.

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

The questionnaire survey was conducted face-to-face with undergraduate participants at the
respective randomly selected colleges and universities in Taiwan. The study involved data collection,
data analysis using descriptive statistics, item analysis, an independent sample t-test, a one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA), and structural equation models (SEMs). Each of these methods is
further illustrated as follows.

2.3.1. Descriptive Statistics

The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the test were used to determine the distributions
of the participants’ background variables and environmental literacy in the cognitive, affective,
and behavioral dimensions [35].

2.3.2. Item Analysis

Item analysis was used to determine a set of quality question items suitable for inclusion in the
questionnaire. In this study, the critical ratio (CR) was analyzed and the item-total correlation (ITC)
was corrected to measure environmental literacy in the three elements, namely cognitive, affective,
and behavioral. Through these procedures, unsatisfactory items were eliminated and resulting in only
those question items that were highly relevant to the alignment of the contextual issues in Taiwan.

2.3.3. Reliability Analysis

Cronbach’s α coefficient was used to determine the reliability of the data obtained from the
questionnaires at the pretest and actual survey stages. If the Cronbach’s α coefficients of the individual
factors were 0.70 or greater, then the factors have exhibited satisfactory reliability. If the Cronbach’s
α coefficients of the factors were 0.80 or greater on a total scale, then the questionnaire has achieved
overall reliability.

2.3.4. Independent Samples T-Test

A t-test was used to examine if there were any differences between two groups. The implementation
of the dichotomous variables at object background variables were examined and used to determine
whether significant variations existed in each set of samples on their environmental literacy (i.e., cognitive,
affective, and behavioral dimensions). Specifically, the gender and club participations were investigated
in this study.

2.3.5. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)

A multivariate statistical technique combining factor analysis and path analysis from a series
of formulas were used to determine the causal relationships among the variables [36]. A series of
formulas in structural equation modeling (SEM) includes a diverse set of mathematical formulas to
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 7 of 21

report a selection of different fit measures, such as chi-squared test and confirmatory factor analysis.
Of the 29,498 valid questionnaires received, only 27,249 were used in the SEM, since the remaining
questionnaires were incomplete and therefore rejected.

3. Results

3.1. General Descriptive Findings

The findings indicated that majority (85.7%) of the survey participants did not participate in
any clubs or societies at the university/college, while only 13.2% were involved. Approximately
three-quarter (75.1%) of the undergraduate students spent two-hour or less per week to obtain
environmental related information, 8.8% spent two or more hours and the remaining 15.8% never
spent time on it. Television news (61.5%), online learning (48.4%), and television programs (32.6%)
were considered to be the three major sources for acquiring environmental related information. The top
five-favored type of environmental education were outdoor experiential learning (45.8%), watch
movies (43.7%), visiting museums or conservation centers (35.6%), online learning (29.3%), and attend
lectures (23.4%). A more detailed descriptive statistics summary findings for each of the variables
highlighted above is provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Descriptive information of the sample on club and society participation, and environmental
information search.

Variables Frequency Percent (%)

Participation in clubs or societies
Yes 3897 13.2
No 25,290 85.7
Unanswered 311 1.1
Average weekly search for environmental information (by hours)
Never 4665 15.8
Less than 30 min 10,814 36.7
30 min to one hour 7796 26.4
One to two hours 3554 12.0
Two to three hours 747 2.5
Three to four hours 818 2.8
More than four hours 1024 3.5
Unanswered 80 0.3
Major information source to gather environmental information
Television news 18,151 61.5
Online learning 14,286 48.4
Television programs 9612 32.6
Class lectures 7418 25.1
Books and magazines 7110 24.1
Environmental NGOs 3503 11.9
Textbooks 3393 11.5
Friends and relatives 3060 10.4
Radio 1400 4.7
Others 151 0.5
Favorite types of environmental education
Outdoor experiential learning 13,504 45.8
Watch movies 12,901 43.7
Visit museums/conservation centers 10,501 35.6
Online learning 8654 29.3
Attend lectures 6903 23.4
Discussion with classmates 5889 20.0
Experiment 4650 15.8
Classroom studies 3915 13.3
Others 112 0.4
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 8 of 21

3.2. Environmental Literacy

3.2.1. Cognitive Element

In the cognitive element, the component on knowledge of natural systems was evaluated by four
True-False questions (i.e., K1 to K4) and five Multiple-Choice questions (i.e., K5 to K9). The participants
answered 58.1% of the questions correctly, indicating that their environmental knowledge of natural
systems was generally inadequate. As shown in Table 4, only Question K7 on the “description of the
function of tropical rainforests” exhibited a correct response rate of greater than 80%, whereas the
correct response rates for Questions K1, K2, K5, K8, and K9 were below 60%. This indicated that the
undergraduate students’ knowledge about the natural systems was generally insufficient, particularly
on the cognitive issues of biodiversity, greenhouse gases, natural disasters, and ecological conservation.

Table 4. Mean and standard deviation for the cognitive element.

Correct Rate
Items
% 95% C. I.
K1. The ultimate goal for natural environment conservation is to attain “Biodiversity”,
41.9 41.3 ≤ p̂ ≤ 42.5
which signifies the utmost variety of different species.
K2. Greenhouse effect is perfect for the earth’s surface temperature to maintain an
41.3 40.7 ≤ p̂ ≤ 41.9
appropriate environment suitable for living organisms.
K3. Excessive burning of coal, oil, and fossil fuels will lead to ozone depletion. 69.2 68.7 ≤ p̂ ≤ 69.7
K4. Having algae in the rivers can help the ecological balance of the river system. 70.9 70.4 ≤ p̂ ≤ 71.4
K5. Which of the following gas type is not a greenhouse gas? 24.1 23.6 ≤ p̂ ≤ 24.6
K6.Which of the following type of power generation is most environmentally friendly? 61.0 60.4 ≤ p̂ ≤ 61.6
K7. Rainforest ecosystem is important to the earth, which of the following statement is not
86.4 86.0 ≤ p̂ ≤ 86.8
a function of tropical rainforests?
K8. What is the major reason contributing to the problems associated with natural disaster
39.0 38.4 ≤ p̂ ≤ 39.6
in Taiwan?
K9. Which of the following statement about information on conservation is correct? 59.8 59.2 ≤ p̂ ≤ 60.4
K10. “Kyoto Protocol” is an agreement signed for global economic development. 67.2 66.7 ≤ p̂ ≤ 67.7
K11. Ancestors like to drink realgar wine as part of their traditional customs in
45.5 45.0 ≤ p̂ ≤ 46.1
Mid-autumn Festival, to protect them from diseases.
K12. The wisdom pass down by our ancestors is adequate to help us cope with the current
85.9 85.5 ≤ p̂ ≤ 86.3
climate problems and environmental changes.
K13. Which of the following statement is not correct about the damage done on the nature
61.0 60.4 ≤ p̂ ≤ 61.6
from acidic rain?
K14. The reason for uneven distribution of the earth’s natural resources is due to the high
61.6 61.0 ≤ p̂ ≤ 62.2
resource consumption in high population countries. Is this statement correct?
K15. The road work maintenance in Saharan Africa is to prevent landslides due to debris
59.1 58.8 ≤ p̂ ≤ 59.7
flows and reduce the loss of life and property. Is this statement correct?
K16. Which of the following icons represent environmental-friendly labelling?
89.3 88.9 ≤ p̂ ≤ 89.7
Please select one correct icon.

The second component, knowledge of environmental issues in the cognitive element was assessed
through three True-False questions (i.e., K10 to K12) and one Multiple-Choice questions (i.e., K13).
The participants answered 64.9% of the questions correctly, suggesting that their environmental
knowledge of social, cultural, political, and economic issues was at a moderate level. In particular, only
Question K12 on “The wisdom pass down by our ancestors is adequate to help us cope with the current
climate problems and environmental changes” achieved a correct response rate greater than 80%,
while the correct response rate of Question K11 was below 50% (refer to Table 4). This indicated that
the undergraduate students’ environmental knowledge about the customary cultural issues (such as
the Chinese tradition of drinking realgar wine during the autumn season to protect themselves from
illness and stay healthy) was generally inadequate.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 9 of 21

When assessing the knowledge of appropriate action strategies component in the cognitive
element, two True-False questions (i.e., K14 to K15) and one Multiple-Choice question (i.e., K16) were
used. The participants answered 61.5% of the questions correctly, revealing that their knowledge of
appropriate action strategies was moderately inadequate. Although Question K16 on the “identification
of environmental labelling” had attained a correct response rate greater than 80%, however, the correct
response rate for Question K15 was below 60% (refer to Table 4). This indicated that undergraduate
students’ knowledge of appropriate action strategies was generally insufficient, particularly regarding
the concern of the “cognitive awareness level of resource consumption ratio”.

3.2.2. Affective Element

In the affective element, the environmental awareness and sensitivity component was evaluated
with seven questions ranked on a five-point Likert scale. All of the questions were positive. The average
score with the standard deviation was 3.75 ± 0.688 (a maximum of 5 points on the Likert-type scale).
Question A6, “I have the initiative to learn environmental knowledge,” elicited a relatively low average
score (3.45 ± 0.844), whereas Question A3, “I believe that toxic emissions from anthropogenic waste
can cause a negative environmental impact” had achieved a relatively high average score. A moderate
degree of environmental awareness and sensitivity was evident in the undergraduate students.
There were eight questions ranked on a five-point Likert scale used to assess the environmental
values component in the affective element. All of the questions were positive. The average score with
the standard deviation was 3.95 ± 0.769 (a maximum of 5 points on the Likert-type scale). The average
scores for Questions A10, A12, and A15 were 4 points or more, and the average scores of the remaining
questions were 3.5 points or more. The items in the environmental values component demonstrated
relatively high scores by the undergraduate students.
The component on decision attitude about environmental issues in the affective element involved
eight questions ranked on a five-point Likert scale for evaluation. All of the questions were positive.
The average score with the standard deviation was 3.71 ± 0.69 (a maximum of 5 points on the
Likert-type scale). The average scores for all of the items ranged between 3.5 and 4. The items
in the decision attitude about environmental issues component revealed relatively high scores in
the affective element. However, the attitudes of “discussed with colleagues” (3.46 ± 0.90) and
“advised misconducted behavior” (3.54 ± 0.897) indicated relatively low scores, which suggested that
undergraduate students disregard the incentive of environmental justice and the altruistic perspective
for making correct decisions. A summary finding of the affective elements is presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Mean and standard deviation for the affective element.

Standard
Items Mean
Deviation
A1. I am aware of environmental issues related to air pollution, food safety, and habitat destruction. 3.64 0.874
A2. I care about environmental problems caused by climate change. 3.71 0.849
A3. I believe that toxic emissions from anthropogenic waste (i.e., motor vehicles, factories, etc.) can
4.09 0.957
cause a negative environmental impact.
A4. I think human lives are critically dependent on the supply of the earth’s natural resources. 3.96 0.973
A5. I think the practice of environmentally friendly behavior can solve many environmental
3.58 0.976
problems in lives.
A6. I have the initiative to learn environmental knowledge (i.e., interactions between people and the
3.45 0.844
environment), to enhance my understanding of the natural world.
A7. I will be very angry if I saw someone throw trash on the road or into the river. 3.82 0.932
A8. I will give thanks and cherish “Mother Nature” more for a better environment. 3.93 0.910
A9. Earth’s resources are limited, so I will cherish resources. 3.96 0.920
A10. I think there is a meaning and value for the existence of the plants and trees. 4.06 0.957
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 10 of 21

Table 5. Cont.

Standard
Items Mean
Deviation
A11. I think the aboriginal customary manners are worthy of respect and learning, given that they
3.86 0.949
contribute towards a positive ecological relationship.
A12. I think there is no way to restore the original look of the nature if it is destroyed. 4.11 1.018
A13. I think environmental and ecological protection are more important than that of the
3.84 0.951
economic development.
A14. I believe that technological advances cannot solve all the environmental pollution problems. 3.83 1.023
A15. I think the environmental pollution problems in other countries will also affect Taiwan. 4.02 0.951
A16. I think that polyethylene terephthalate bottled drinks affect the environment. 3.83 0.919
A17. I know my lifestyle can affect the environment. 3.68 0.924
A18. I have a responsibility to participate in activities that will help slow down global warming. 3.86 0.909
A19. As long as I am willing to try, I can solve or minimize environmental problems. 3.67 0.936
A20. I can discuss environmental issues with other students to clarify the cause and effects. 3.46 0.900
A21. I will advise others to stop environmental destruction (e.g., dumping trash and waste water, etc.). 3.54 0.897
A22. While traveling through local communities, I will respect local customs and traditions, and to
3.90 0.894
reduce interference on the local environment and residents.
A23. I believe no advanced technology can solve all pollution problems. 3.84 1.35

3.2.3. Behavioral Element

In the behavioral element, the intentions to act component was evaluated through eight questions
ranked on a five-point Likert scale. All of the questions were positive regarding whether the participants
participated in private acts, shallow green behavior, or altruistic behavior. The average score with the
standard deviation was 3.54 ± 0.679 (a maximum of 5 points on the Likert-type scale). The participants
obtained relatively high scores for Questions BEH1 to BEH4. In contrast, the participants attained
relatively lower scores for Questions BEH5 to BEH8, which indicated that students exhibited a certain
responsibility and sense of mission and were willing to cooperate with government policy regarding
the implementation of environmental actions. However, the undergraduate students’ environmental
behavioral intentions were relatively negative regarding participation in discussions on environmental
concerns, provision of opinions, and initiatives to attend environmental activities.
The assessment of the environmental actions and skills component in the behavioral element
consisted of 19 questions ranked on a five-point Likert scale. All of the questions were positive.
The average score with the standard deviation was 3.16 ± 0.742 (a maximum of 5 points on
the Likert-type scale). The participants obtained relatively low scores for all of the items in this
component, indicating that undergraduate students maintained negative behavior and acted as
bystanders regarding environmental action. Only items on the basic classification of garbage recycling
exhibited higher scores than the other items did, and all of the other items received relatively low
scores regarding learning from the environment, suggestions of environmental protection, idea
communication, and action capabilities.
The responsible environmental behavior component in the behavioral element was measured by
four questions ranked on a five-point Likert scale. All of the questions were positive. The average
score with the standard deviation was 3.717 ± 0.878 (a maximum of 5 points on the Likert-type scale).
On the scale, Questions R1 to R4 displayed averages scores between 3.74 ± 0.876 and 3.65 ± 0.882,
and the results did not reveal any particular prominent signs for this element. Table 6 provides a
summary of the results for the behavioral elements.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 11 of 21

Table 6. Mean and standard deviation for the behavioral element.

Standard
Items Mean
Deviation
BEH1. While I go out, I am willing to give priority to walking, cycling, taking public transportation,
3.67 0.966
and other transportation modes.
BEH2. I am willing to turn on air conditioner’s temperature at 26 ◦ C~28 ◦ C to save energy. 3.84 0.988
BEH3. I am willing to take care of our living environment (including school and neighborhood) and
3.59 0.870
make changes to the environmental conditions.
BEH4. I am willing to take the initiative to find out more about climate change, carbon reduction,
3.63 0.853
and other related information.
BEH5. I am willing to take the initiative to follow through in my daily life on the opinions and ideas
3.43 0.861
I have about the environmental issues.
BEH6. I am willing to discuss environmental issues as the main theme in the school report. 3.36 0.876
BEH7. I support the reduction on the number of household garbage collection days, in order to reduce
3.44 0.963
air pollution generated by garbage truck.
BEH8. I am willing to participate in the environmental events (i.e., natural conservation, monitoring,
3.36 0.897
and maintenance activities).
BEH9. I am capable of classifying different types of recyclable items. 3.67 0.926
BEH10. I know how to use different recycling methods. 3.24 0.941
BEH11. I am capable of observing the terrain to determine if a place will be flooded or not. 2.84 1.043
BEH12. I will use multi-media, such as newspapers, magazines, or the Internet to obtain information
3.29 0.974
related to environmental issues.
BEH13. I am able to identify environmental problems and find solutions to them. 3.00 0.964
BEH14. I can integrate different viewpoints on environmental issues and form my personal opinions. 3.10 0.975
BEH15. I can reflect on my own behavior about the social and environmental impacts. 3.31 0.933
BEH16. I am able to communicate relevant environmental-related information to others. 3.18 0.956
BEH17. I am able to convince my family members and friends to undertake environmental actions. 3.14 0.999
BEH18. I know how to use appropriate channels to promote environmental knowledge and
3.09 0.974
environmental friendly policies.
BEH19. I use appropriate channels to appeal environmental complaint issues, to help avoid
2.95 1.036
environmental pollution incident.
BEH20. I will buy polyethylene terephthalate bottled beverages. 3.14 0.895
BEH21. I will bring my own personal water bottle when I go out. 3.28 1.156
BEH22. I will carry reusable utensils (i.e., chopsticks, spoons, etc.). 2.69 1.102
BEH23. I will convey environmental protection information to my family members or friends. 2.90 0.941
BEH24. I have participated in environmental organizations (i.e., green squad, green campus groups, etc.)
2.21 1.020
on campus.
BEH25. I have attended schools’ or extracurricular experiences in environmental activities (i.e., beach
2.30 1.021
cleaning, ecological ponds’ cleaning, and other ecological activities).
BEH26. I have used appropriate channels on environmental complaint issues to help appeal
2.00 1.066
environmental pollution incident (i.e., open burning, free dumping wastes).
BEH27. I have participated in related rallies, marches, or petition activities on environmental policies. 3.14 0.895
R1. I have the responsibility to improve the surrounding environment. 3.74 0.876
R2. It is my duty to prevent environmental pollution incidents. 3.69 0.878
R3. It is my responsibility to solve any environmental problems caused by myself. 3.79 0.876
R4. It is my responsibility to influence the people around me to have better awareness on
3.65 0.882
environmental protection.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 12 of 21

3.3. T-Test and Chi-Square Test

Gender and participation in clubs and societies at universities/colleges were investigated to
determine their relationship with environmental literacy. According to the level of clustering, three
categories were identified based on the average scores; (1) lower quartile group (i.e., the lowest 20%
of the average scores from 0.99 to 2.99), middle quartile group (i.e., between 20% and 80% of the
average scores from 3.00 to 3.73), and top quartile group (i.e., top 20% of the average scores from 3.74
to 4.86). The test of independence in calculating the chi-square (χ2 ) was then used to determine the
associations between gender (χ2 = 393.901, df = 2, p = 0.000; likelihood ratio tests = 396.577, df = 2,
p = 0.000) and participation in clubs and societies at universities/colleges (χ2 = 233.102, df = 2, p = 0.000;
likelihood-ratio tests = 232.369, df = 2, p = 0.000) on environmental literacy. The test results indicated
that gender and participation in clubs and societies were positively associated with undergraduate
students’ environmental literacy.
Female undergraduate students scored higher than the male students in seven of the nine
components of environmental literacy investigated in this study, namely (1) knowledge of natural
systems, (2) knowledge of environmental issues, (3) knowledge of appropriate action strategies,
(4) environmental awareness and sensitivity, (5) environmental values, (6) decision-making attitude
on environmental issues, and (7) intentions to act. In contrast, male students performed better in
the remaining two components (i.e., environmental action strategies and skills, and involvement in
responsible environmental behavior). Table 7 below provides a summary result of the t-test between
gender and environmental literacy. As shown in Table 8, undergraduate students who participated in
clubs and societies at the university/college exhibited a higher level of environmental literacy in all
nine components than their counterparts who did not.

Table 7. T-test between gender and environmental literacy.

Elements Components Gender Mean SD t Value p Value

Male 2.85 0.738
Knowledge of natural systems −13.153 <0.000 ***
Female 2.97 0.716
Cognitive Male 3.17 1.340
Knowledge of environmental issues −9.695 <0.000 ***
Female 3.33 1.306
Male 3.06 0.937
Knowledge of appropriate action strategies −4.553 <0.000 ***
Female 3.11 0.851
Male 3.66 0.735
Environmental awareness and sensitivity −22.4023 <0.000 ***
Female 3.84 0.621
Affective Male 3.82 0.810
Environmental values −28.618 <0.000 ***
Female 4.08 0.702
Male 3.62 0.725
Decision-making attitude on environmental issues −24.239 <0.000 ***
Female 3.81 0.638
Male 3.46 0.715
Intentions to act −18.818 <0.000 ***
Female 3.61 0.629
Behavioral Male 3.18 0.762
Environmental action strategies and skills 4.734 <0.000 ***
Female 3.14 0.719
Male 2.60 0.718
Involvement in responsible environmental behavior 7.071 <0.000 ***
Female 2.54 0.612
*** At the significant level of 0.001 (two-tailed).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 13 of 21

Table 8. T-test between students’ participation in clubs/societies and environmental literacy.

Participation in
Elements Components Mean SD t Value p Value
Clubs/Societies
Yes 3.02 0.674
Knowledge of natural systems 11.249 <0.000 ***
No 2.89 0.736
Cognitive Yes 3.46 1.236
Knowledge of environmental issues 11.217 <0.000 ***
No 3.22 1.335
Yes 3.14 0.852
Knowledge of appropriate action strategies 4.329 <0.000 ***
No 3.07 0.903
Yes 3.88 0.665
Environmental awareness and sensitivity 12.884 <0.000 ***
No 3.73 0.687
Affective Yes 4.11 0.739
Environmental values 13.888 <0.000 ***
No 3.93 0.769
Yes 3.84 0.680
Decision-making attitude on environmental issues 12.141 <0.000 ***
No 3.70 0.688
Yes 3.65 0.686
Intentions to act 11.373 <0.000 ***
No 3.52 0.675
Behavioral Yes 3.27 0.741
Environmental action strategies and skills 9.117 <0.000 ***
No 3.15 0.741
Yes 2.62 0.640
Involvement in responsible environmental behavior 4.602 <0.000 ***
No 2.56 0.672
*** At the significant level of 0.001 (two-tailed).

3.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To test the integrity of the measurement model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
conducted. The following conventional goodness-of-fit criteria were recorded for evaluating this
model [37,38]: GFI = 0.929, AGFI = 0.870, RMSR = 0.033, RMSEA = 0.107, TLI = 0.894, NFI = 0.931,
χ2 = 11,162.750, df = 36, Sig. = 0.000, n = 27,249, and χ2 /df = 310.076. The coefficients were significant
for all of the pro-environmental elements of the Analysis of a Moment Structures (AMOS) model.
The χ2 = 11,162.750, with 11 degrees of freedom at a significance level of 0.000. However, it should
be noted that the large sample size of 27,249 in this study could be regarded as vulnerable to the
overestimation of the significant differences [39].
The composite reliability (CR) of cognitive element was considerably low (ρ = 0.273) (knowledge
of natural systems, ρ = −0.025; knowledge of environmental issues, ρ = 0.356; and knowledge of
appropriate action strategies, ρ = −0.153). This low reliability could potentially be explained by
the nature of the dichotomous (i.e., True-False questions), and Multiple-Choice questions, and also
a lack of adequate number of items, which prevented the removal of unrepresentative items that
can result in improving the reliability. On the other hand, the reliability of the affective element
was considerably high (ρ = 0.957) with the respective components as follow: environmental values
(ρ = 0.920), decision-making attitude on environmental issues (ρ = 0.883), and environmental awareness
and sensitivity (ρ = 0.870). The reliability of the behavioral element was also high (ρ = 0.903), and this
included the following components: involvement in responsible environmental behavior was high
(ρ = 0.921), as were the items of the environmental actions and skills (ρ = 0.928), intentions to act
(ρ = 0.886), and environmental action experience (ρ = 0.797).
From Figure 1, the standardized regression weights, which indicate convergent validity were
calculated for knowledge of appropriate action strategies (0.386), knowledge of environmental issues
(0.427), and knowledge of natural systems (0.398) within the cognitive element. The standardized
regression weights for the affective element (please refer to Figure 2) were relatively high
in the decision-making attitude on environmental issues (0.927), environmental values (0.893),
and environmental awareness and sensitivity (0.875) components. In terms of the behavioral element
(as shown in Figure 3), the standardized regression weights for the involvement in responsible
environmental behavior (0.710), environmental actions and skills (0.491), and intentions to act (0.980)
components were relatively high value.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 14 of 21

Figure 1. The AMOS model estimates of parameters in structural model of the cognitive element
(with standardized estimates of coefficients of standardized value, coefficients in t values, coefficients
of determination).

Figure 2. The AMOS model estimates of parameters in structural model of the affective element
(with standardized estimates of coefficients of standardized value, coefficients in t values, coefficients
of determination).

Figure 3. The AMOS model estimates of parameters in structural model of the behavioral element
(with standardized estimates of coefficients of standardized value, coefficients in t values, coefficients
of determination).

4. Discussion and Implications

This study was a nationwide assessment conducted to evaluate the Taiwanese undergraduate
students’ level of environmental literacy, specifically in three key elements (i.e., cognitive, affective,
and behavioral). On the whole, the undergraduate students’ environmental literacy indicated a
relatively low level of environmental knowledge and behavior, while a moderate level of environmental
attitudes was attained. The findings also revealed no significant correlations between knowledge and
attitudes or between knowledge and behavior. However, a higher level of environmental knowledge
correlated significantly with a higher degree of pro-environmental behavior, and a higher level of
environmental knowledge correlated with stronger attitudes.

4.1. Relationships between Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior

There had been substantial debates over the years about environmental literacy and the
relationships among knowledge, attitudes, and behavior [30,31,40]. Through the SEM technique
used in this study, it was observed (as shown in Table 9) that there were no significant correlations
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 15 of 21

between cognitive (r = 0.215) and behavioral elements, and cognitive and affective elements (r = 0.385).
However, the results determined that affective and behavioral elements were highly correlated with r
value of 0.76 [32,41]. The results suggested that the possession of only environmental knowledge and
awareness of environmental issues could not always be successfully transformed into environmental
action [42].

Table 9. AMOS correlations between each element by their estimates for all students.

Elements Cognitive Affective Behavioral

Cognitive 1 0.385 0.215
Affective 0.385 1 0.760
Behavioral 0.215 0.760 1

While some studies [2,30,43] had reported no positive relationship between environmental
awareness and knowledge and pro-environmental behavior, but researchers have continued to be
inspired to investigate the relationships among intrinsic, self-determined, and self-esteemed motivation
induced by personal behavior since personal self-efficacy is directly associated with pro-environmental
behavior [44,45]. In this study, the highest average score observed was in the attitude element (M = 3.73,
SD = 0.631), followed by the behavioral element (M = 3.09, SD = 0.546), with the lowest average value
being the knowledge element (M = 3.08, the average correct response rate = 60.5%). The correlation
between students’ environmental attitudes and environmental behaviors was moderate, and the
value of this correlation was low in the knowledge element. Overall, the undergraduate students’
environmental literacy indicated low environmental knowledge, moderate environmental attitudes,
and low environmental behavior. Further analysis revealed that these students could be broadly
divided into two groups according to the following continuum of the states of environmental literacy:
ecocentric and egocentric [46,47].
Ecocentric engaged students accounted for about 60.2% of the entire sample in this study.
A high ratio of these ecocentric students were female, lived in school dormitories, enjoyed searching
environmental information, and participated in clubs and societies. The results showed that
these students had a moderate level of environmental knowledge (M = 3.35, SD = 0.455), strong
environmental attitudes (M = 4.07, SD = 0.398), and moderate environmental behavior (M = 3.03,
SD = 0.493). In contrast, the remaining 39.8% of the sample that represented the egocentric engaged
students were mainly male who lived with their families or rented apartments, did not enjoy acquiring
environmental information, and limited participation in clubs and societies. Findings suggested
that these students had a low level of environmental knowledge (M = 2.82, SD = 0.731), moderate
environmental attitudes (M = 3.31, SD = 0.581), and a low value of environmental behavior (M = 2.86,
SD = 0.512).
From Table 10 above, the results revealed that there were no significant correlations between
cognitive (r = −0.261) and affective elements, or affective (r = −0.392) and behavioral elements for
egocentric engaged students. However, the findings indicated a moderate relationship between cognitive
(r = −0.552) and behavioral elements whereby egocentric engaged students might have the environmental
knowledge and awareness, but did not necessarily converted into environmental actions.

Table 10. AMOS correlations between each element by their estimates for the bottom 20% of egocentric
engaged students.

Elements Cognitive Affective Behavioral

Cognitive 1 −0.261 −0.552
Affective −0.261 1 −0.392
Behavioral −0.552 −0.392 1
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 16 of 21

4.2. Gender Comparison on Environmental Literacy

Overall, female undergraduate students exhibited a more satisfactory fit in environmental literacy
than male undergraduate students did, which is consistent with previous studies [48,49]. The females
in the top 20% with excellent environmental literacy accounted for approximately 56%, while the
remaining 44% were males. On the other hand, about 38.5% of the females and 61.5% of the males in the
bottom 20% were regarded as having poor environmental literacy. The higher level of environmental
literacy attained by females could be explained by their social status and norms expectation in
the Eastern society. For example, females in Taiwan have traditionally been taught to love and
maintain cleanliness, and their home caring role of being responsible for household cleaning have also
contributed to this effect. A brief summary of the findings is provided in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Cross-tabulation for gender—bottom 20%, 20% to 80%, and top 20%.

Total Clustering
Total
Bottom 20% 20% to 80% Top 20%
Male 3293 7577 2461 13,331
Gender
Female 2062 8432 3071 13,565
Total 5355 16,009 5532 26,896

4.3. Relationship between Clubs and Societies Participation and Environmental Literacy
Undergraduate students who participated in clubs and societies at universities/colleges generally
performed better in their environmental literacy than those who did not. This could be explained with
the fact that being involved in activities through clubs and societies provide more opportunities for
creative thinking, problem solving, leadership, and prosocial behavior than regular courses do [50].
In addition, participants who had pro-environmental experience in these activities gained considerably
self-respect, self-esteem, and self-confidence [51–53]. Majority (91%) of the undergraduate students in
the bottom 20% who had poor environmental literacy did not participate in clubs and societies while
the remaining 9% had participation. Table 12 below provides a summary of the findings.

Table 12. Cross-tabulation for participation in clubs and societies—bottom 20%, 20% to 80%, and top 20%.

Total Clustering
Total
Bottom 20% 20% to 80% Top 20%
Participate in clubs Yes 471 2103 1039 3613
and societies No 4892 13,949 4526 23,367
Total 5363 16,052 5565 26,980

4.4. Sources of Environmental Information

In this study, television news (61.5%), online learning (48.4%), and television programs
(32.6%) were determined to be the three major sources from which undergraduate students acquire
environmental knowledge. These results were similar to those discovered in a prior study [54] about the
perception of environmental problems by young people at the University of Maria Curie-Sklodowska
(UMCS) and the Technical University (TU) in Poland whereby television (53.5% at the UMCS and 70%
at the TU) and newspapers (52% at the UMCS and 32% at the TU) had been identified as key sources
to acquire environmental information. These results indicated that the majority of students perceived
television as the mainstream medium for gathering environmental knowledge.
The findings in this study revealed that only a minority (11.5%) of the undergraduate students
acquired their knowledge from ecological textbooks, and this was consistent with Pawlowski’s
study [54]. This suggested a need to further investigate the appropriateness of using the textbook as a
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 17 of 21

medium to disseminate environmental knowledge. With the increasing ease of access and vast amount
of information available via the internet, online learning has become an important environmental
knowledge source and this was supported by approximately 48.4% of the undergraduate students
who participated in this study. Given this, a focus on utilizing the online channel as a source of
environmental knowledge is deemed to be critical since students nowadays are more internet savvy
than ever.

4.5. Study Implications

Firstly, environmental education in Taiwan primarily emphasizes on knowledge and cognitive
memory; therefore, developing students’ capabilities to explore environmental issues and engage
in environmentally friendly behavior and responsible environmental behavior (attitudes, personal
investment, locus of control) have been neglected [8,55,56]. Relevant studies in the past have also
suggested that environmental knowledge is acquired from the teaching materials offered by the
university/college and learners automatically generate positive environmental attitudes and behavior
in Western societies. However, the results of this study suggested that environmental knowledge
did not create positive environmental behavior and skills; the association between the environmental
literacy elements was considerably low. Simply focusing on teaching environmental knowledge does
not fully achieve the goal of environmental education. As such, environmental knowledge based on
science itself is insufficient for eliciting attitudes, values, and behavior, which constitute a substantial
part of environmental literacy [57]. Therefore, it is recommended that environmental attitudes should
be enhanced through interaction with the environment, which enables students to learn useful skills,
develop a sense of responsibility, and increase a personal and collective sense of competence for
promoting responsible environmentally friendly behavior [15].
Next, understanding students’ perceptions and interpretations of processes, as well as the
reasons behind certain behavior is crucial in assessing sustainable education perspectives [58]. Thus,
it is important to understand how knowledge can be converted into a person’s actual attitude,
emphasizing altruism in all civic actions, and focusing on learners’ affective areas of goals are current
challenges facing environmental education in Taiwan. It is recommended to strengthen the curriculum
development specifically in the areas of environmental education in students’ learning materials
to enrich their learning content. For example, students are encouraged to explore the outdoors,
maintain correct perceptions, and obtain environmental information from the nature. Environmental
pedagogy does not always provide accurate answers, but should provide opportunities for students
and encourage them to investigate the causes for and solutions to problems [30], recognize lifelong
environmental subjectivity, and appreciate multiple perspectives [59,60].
Lastly, the university curriculum can be designed to teach students how to differentiate between
issues of fact from those of value, and how to study various levels of uncertainty based on paradoxical
information in a chaotic world [61,62]. Higher education can be facilitated through an educational
strategy that enhances environmental stewardship through a “greening outdoor curricula”, referring
to science-based actions for sustainability [63]. In addition, students are encouraged to participate and
form environmental-related organizations and activities (e.g., the International Youth Conference on
the Environment, green camp, nature exploring) to enhance life experiences towards a dynamic and
synthetic essence and learning opportunities.
In conclusion, this built-in framework addresses practical pedagogies for hands-on experience
and is crucial to reforming environmental education for undergraduate students in Taiwan, as well as
serving as a reference point for other similar investigations in the future.

4.6. Study limitations

This study has three key limitations. The first being the research focused on a huge sample from
Taiwan [64]. The results are based on the current values and skills covered in the national curriculum
and mainly considered the major environmental threats affecting Taiwan. Therefore, the identified
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 18 of 21

components and corresponding items were more closely related to local issues and dimensions in the
Taiwanese context. However, it is recommended that the results in this study be used as a benchmark
for comparison with other similar studies conducted in other countries, especially those that are
developing and characterized by rapid industrialization and urbanization.
Next, prior studies investigated the predictions about pro-environmental behavior based on moral
or ethical elements have found that personal norms played a critical role. However, since this study
did not explore the effects of the moral and ethical elements, therefore, conclusions could be provided
in this aspect. Thus, it is recommended that further detailed studies about the impact of moral and/or
ethical norms on environmental literacy could be conducted in Taiwan in the future, in order to gain
further insights and understanding in this field.
Lastly, the low composite reliability of the cognitive element was an indication that some items
were not necessarily representative but because of the limited number of items, therefore the removal
of some odd items was deemed unsuitable. Thus, it is recommended to increase the items (in interval
measurement Likert-type scale format) in the questionnaire to improve the reliability.

Author Contributions: S.-W.L., W.-T.F., S.-C.Y., S.-Y.L. and H.-M.T. conceived and designed the experiments;
S.-W.L. performed the experiments; S.-W.L. and W.-T.F. and E.N. analyzed the data; S.-W.L., W.-T.F., S.-C.Y., S.-Y.L.,
H.-M.T. and J.-Y.C. contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; W.-T.F., J.-Y.C. and E.N. wrote the paper.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Environmental Protection Administration, Taiwan, R.O.C.
under Grant number EPA-100-EA11-03-A264; and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. under
Grant number MOST-105-2511-S-003-021-MY3 to W.-T.F. Our gratitude also goes to the financial supports from
National Taiwan Normal University.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Barr, S.; Gilg, A. Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and around the home. Geoforum
2006, 37, 906–920. [CrossRef]
2. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to
pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [CrossRef]
3. Potter, G. Environmental education for the 21st century: Where do we go now? J. Environ. Educ. 2009,
41, 22–33. [CrossRef]
4. Short, P.C. Responsible environmental action: Its role and status in environmental education and
environmental quality. J. Environ. Educ. 2009, 41, 7–21. [CrossRef]
5. Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of
psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [CrossRef]
6. Mobley, C.; Vagias, W.M.; DeWard, S.L. Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible
behavior: The influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environ. Behav. 2009, 42,
420–447. [CrossRef]
7. Moseley, C. Teaching for environmental literacy. Clear. House 2000, 74, 23–24. [CrossRef]
8. Hsu, S.-J. The effects of an environmental education program on responsible environmental behavior and
associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students. J. Environ. Educ. 2004, 35, 37–48.
[CrossRef]
9. Han, H.; Hsu, L.-T.J.; Sheu, C. Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: Testing
the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 325–334. [CrossRef]
10. Kudryavtsev, A.; Krasny, M.E. Urban Environmental Education: Preliminary Literature Review; Cornell
University Civic Ecology Lab: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2012.
11. Tilbury, D. Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education
in the 1990s. Environ. Educ. Res. 1995, 1, 195–212. [CrossRef]
12. Yanniris, C. 20+ Years of Environmental Education Centers in Greece: Teachers’ Perceptions and Future
Challenges. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2015, 14, 149–166. [CrossRef]
13. Stevenson, R.B. Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in purpose and practice.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2007, 13, 139–153. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 19 of 21

14. Hungerford, H.; Peyton, R.B.; Wilke, R.J. Goals for curriculum development in environmental education.
J. Environ. Educ. 1980, 11, 42–47. [CrossRef]
15. Chawla, L.; Cushing, D.F. Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environ. Educ. Res. 2007, 13,
437–452. [CrossRef]
16. Sia, A.P.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior:
An analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1986, 17, 31–40. [CrossRef]
17. Environmental Protection Administration. Environmental White Paper; Environmental Protection Administration:
Taipei, Taiwan, 2010.
18. National Science Council. Annual Report on Environmental Education Research; National Science Council:
Taipei, Taiwan, 1995.
19. Simmons, D.A. Are we meeting the goal of responsible environmental behavior? An examination of nature
and environmental education center goals. J. Environ. Educ. 1991, 22, 16–21. [CrossRef]
20. Moody, G.; Alkaff, H.; Garrison, D.; Golley, F. Assessing the environmental literacy requirement at the
University of Georgia. J. Environ. Educ. 2005, 36, 3–9. [CrossRef]
21. Pe’er, S.; Goldman, D.; Yavetz, B. Environmental literacy in teacher training: Attitudes, knowledge,
and environmental behavior of beginning students. J. Environ. Educ. 2007, 39, 45–59. [CrossRef]
22. Smyth, J.C. Environment and education: A view of a changing scene. Environ. Educ. Res. 1995, 1, 3–120.
[CrossRef]
23. Morrone, M.; Mancl, K.; Carr, K. Development of a metric to test group differences in ecological knowledge
as one component of environmental literacy. J. Environ. Educ. 2001, 32, 33–42. [CrossRef]
24. Scholz, R.W. Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to Decisions; Cambridge University
Press: Sydney, Australia, 2011.
25. Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.R. Notes from Harold Hungerford and Trudi Volk. J. Environ. Educ. 2003, 34, 4–6.
[CrossRef]
26. Hartsell, B. Teaching toward compassion: Environmental values education for secondary students. Prufrock J.
2006, 17, 265–271. [CrossRef]
27. Tuncer, G.; Tekkaya, C.; Sungur, S.; Cakiroglu, J.; Ertepinar, H.; Kaplowitz, M. Assessing pre-service teachers’
environmental literacy in Turkey as a mean to develop teacher education programs. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2009,
29, 426–436. [CrossRef]
28. Roth, C.E. Environmental Literacy: Its Roots, Evolution and Directions in the 1990s; ERIC Clearinghouse for
Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education: Columbus, OH, USA, 1992.
29. Shin, D.; Chu, H.; Lee, E.; Ko, H.; Lee, M.; Kang, K.; Min, B.; Park, J. An assessment of Korean students’
environmental literacy. J. Korean Earth Sci. Soc. 2005, 26, 358–364.
30. Negev, M.; Sagy, G.; Garb, Y.; Salzberg, A.; Tal, A. Evaluating the environmental literacy of Israeli elementary
and high school students. J. Environ. Educ. 2008, 39, 3–20. [CrossRef]
31. Erdogan, M.; Ok, A. An assessment of Turkish young pupils’ environmental literacy: A nationwide survey.
Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33, 2375–2406. [CrossRef]
32. McBeth, W.; Volk, T.L. The national environmental literacy project: A baseline study of middle grade students
in the United States. J. Environ. Educ. 2009, 41, 55–67. [CrossRef]
33. Rowan, B.; Correnti, R.; Miller, R.J. What Large-Scale, Survey Research Tells Us about Teacher Effects on Student
Achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of Elementray Schools; Consortium for Policy Research in
Education: Pennsylvania, PA, USA, 2002.
34. McKeown-Ice, R. Environmental education in the United States: A survey of preservice teacher education
programs. J. Environ. Educ. 2000, 32, 4–11. [CrossRef]
35. Arbuthnot, J. The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environmental behavior
and knowledge. Environ. Behav. 1977, 9, 217–232. [CrossRef]
36. Grob, A. A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 1955, 15, 209–220.
[CrossRef]
37. Rodríguez-Barreiro, L.M.; Fernández-Manzanal, R.; Serra, L.M.; Carrasquer, J.; Murillo, M.B.; Morales, M.J.;
Calvo, J.M.; del Valle, J. Approach to a causal model between attitudes and environmental behaviour.
A graduate case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 116–125. [CrossRef]
38. Story, P.A.; Forsyth, D.R. Watershed conservation and preservation: Environmental engagement as helping
behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 305–317. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 20 of 21

39. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.;
Pearson Education: Cranbury, NJ, USA, 2006.
40. Duerden, M.D.; Witt, P.A. The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental
knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 379–392. [CrossRef]
41. Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sáinz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Environmental knowledge and other
variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from emerging and
advanced countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 130–138. [CrossRef]
42. Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.L. Changing learner behavior through environmental education. J. Environ. Educ.
1990, 21, 8–21. [CrossRef]
43. Teksoz, G.; Sahin, E.; Tekkaya-Oztekin, C. Modeling environmental literacy of university students. J. Sci.
Educ. Technol. 2012, 21, 157–166. [CrossRef]
44. Fielding, K.S.; McDonald, R.; Louis, W.R. Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in
environmental activism. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 318–326. [CrossRef]
45. Tabernero, C.; Hernández, B. Self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation guiding environmental behavior.
Environ. Behav. 2011, 43, 658–675. [CrossRef]
46. Stanger, N.R.G. Moving “eco” back into socio-ecological models: A proposal to reorient ecological literacy
into human developmental models and school systems. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2011, 18, 167–173.
47. McMillan, E.E.; Wright, T.; Beazley, K. Impact of a university-level environmental studies class on students’
values. J. Environ. Educ. 2004, 35, 19–27. [CrossRef]
48. Cincera, J.; Krajhanzl, J. Eco-Schools: What factors influence pupils’ action competence for pro-environmental
behaviour? J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 117–121. [CrossRef]
49. Wongchantra, P.; Nuangchalerm, P. Effects of environmental ethics infusion instruction on knowledge and
ethics of undergraduate students. Res. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 5, 77–81. [CrossRef]
50. Morrissey, K.M.; Werner-Wilson, R.J. The relationship between out-of-school activities and positive youth
development: An investigation of the influences of communities and family. Adolescence 2005, 40, 67–85.
[PubMed]
51. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, A. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across
14 countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 255–265. [CrossRef]
52. Meinhold, J.L.; Malkus, A.J. Adolescent environmental behaviors: Can knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy
make a difference? Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 511–532. [CrossRef]
53. Tsevreni, I. Towards an environmental education without scientific knowledge: An attempt to create an action
model based on children’s experiences, emotions and perceptions about their environment. Environ. Educ. Res.
2011, 17, 53–67. [CrossRef]
54. Pawlowski, A. Perception of environmental problems by young people in Poland. Environ. Educ. Res. 1996,
2, 279–285. [CrossRef]
55. Hsu, S.-J.; Roth, R.E. An assessment of environmental literacy and analysis of predictors of responsible
environmental behaviour held by secondary teachers in the Hualien area of Taiwan. Environ. Educ. Res.
1998, 4, 229–249. [CrossRef]
56. Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental
behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8. [CrossRef]
57. Haverkos, K.; Bautista, N. Environmental Literacy through Relationships: Connecting Biomes and Society in
a Sustainable City. Sci. Scope 2011, 35, 63–70.
58. Hares, M.; Eskonheimo, A.; Myllyntaus, T.; Luukkanen, O. Environmental literacy in interpreting endangered
sustainability: Case studies from Thailand and the Sudan. Geoforum 2006, 37, 128–144. [CrossRef]
59. Ibrahim, R.; Amin, L.; Yaacob, M. Promoting Environmental Literacy through General Education at the
University Level: UKM’s experience. Int. J. Learn. 2011, 17, 151–160.
60. Preston, L. Green pedagogy–guidance and doubt in teaching Outdoor and Environmental Education.
Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2011, 39, 367–380. [CrossRef]
61. Krasny, M.E.; Tidball, K.G. Applying a resilience systems framework to urban environmental education.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2009, 15, 465–482. [CrossRef]
62. Schneider, S.H.; Marin-Spiotta, E. Distinguishing fact from value: A Primer for Environmental Literacy by
FB Golley. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1999, 14, 205–206. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1730 21 of 21

63. Aighewi, I.T.; Osaigbovo, U.A. Students’ perspectives on worldwide “greening” of tertiary education
curricula. Res. Sci. Educ. 2010, 40, 625–637. [CrossRef]
64. Liu, S.-Y.; Yeh, S.-C.; Liang, S.-W.; Fang, W.-T.; Tsai, H.-M. A national investigation of teachers’ environmental
literacy as a reference for promoting environmental education in Taiwan. J. Environ. Educ. 2015, 46, 114–132.
[CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).