FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 1 [616999]

FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 1
FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA AND TURKEY 2
3
Sinan Saraçli1, Gratiela Dana Boca2* 4
5
1Afyon Kocatepe University, Faculty of Science, Department of Statistics, ANS Campus 6
03200 Afyonkarahisar, Turkey 7
2 Technical University of Cluj Napoca, Department of Economics, 430122 Baia Mare, 8
76 Victoriei street, Maramures County, Romani a 9
10
Abstract 11
12
The article, proposes to identify important factors contributing to a cross -cultural environmental 13
education, an essential element of the concept of sustainable environment. For the purpose of the 14
article, a questionnaire was developed to assess the students’ environmental behavior in Turkish 15
and Romanian universities, and was applied to 2038 students from both count ries. The results of the 16
research show that, despite differences between the two countries, the same factors, i.e. the need for 17
environmental protection, the necessity to stimulate environment protection and care for the 18
environment, influence environmenta l behavior. The results show that environmental behavior is 19
influenced by the mother’s education level and by traditional culture. For both universities, results 20
reflect that although the students have information about environment and its specific problem s, 21
they do not want to be directly involved. As a cross -cultural research we can mention some 22
differences: while fo r Turkish students the highest score was obtained for ‘Care’ and 23
‘Environmental Behavior’ and the lowest score was obtained for ‘Environment Protection’, for 24
Romanian students the research shows that they pay more attention to environmental protection 25
than Turkish students and they are more involved in protection activities and participate actively in 26
nature preservation. Romanian students are also more inclined towards environmental protection 27
than Turkish students because they are involved in volunteering activities such as taking care of the 28
environment and cleaning it. The results reflect that enviro nmental education needs a new 29
orientation, a new type of learning, a new learning path and education changes towards a pro – 30
environmental behavior. 31
32
Keywords: environmental education, behavior, attitude , cross culture , sustainable development 33

*Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: E -mail: [anonimizat] and [anonimizat], Phone: +[anonimizat]

1. Introduction 34
35
Environmental education as a component of Sustainable Education was defined for the first 36
time at the March UNESCO (1990) conference . The first model for Environmental Education 37
accepted in the literature was created by Ramsey et al (1996) in 1996. It states that knowledge 38
increase leads to fav orable attitudes. Environmental Education (EE) is considered a process that 39
allows people to explore environmental elements, solving nature ’s problems and taking measures to 40
improve the environment. Environmental Education does not require a certain way of action but it 41
teaches individuals how to act and improve their own skills and also how to solve problems by 42
making the right decisions EPA (2019) . 43
Environmental Education is more than information and education, having components like 44
environmental awarene ss and sensitivity, knowledge and understanding of environmental attitudes 45
of environmental concern and motivation to improve or maintain the quality of the environment, 46
skills to identify and help solve environmental challenges and participation in activi ties that solve 47
environmental problems (Hungerford and Volk, 1990 ). 48
Environmental education for Liu and Guo (2018) is a process that develops relationships 49
with the environment and fundamental elements of life, providing people with the tools they need to 50
solve and prevent enviro nmental problems. Between 1986 and 1987, Hines et al. (1987) create d a 51
model of responsible environmental behavior after an analysis of 128 studies in the literature about 52
environmental education. They establish ed in their new mode l that individuals must possess 53
knowledge to act, skills to apply that knowledge and also they must possess the desire to act, in 54
addition of being personally responsible. Hines et al (1987), Koslowsky et al , (1988), Simpson 55
(1994) and Sivek (1986), bring a new concept and create a new environmental behavior model 56
taking into consideration three variables which can influence people ’s behavior. 57
These variables are environmental sensitivity, personal investment in environment and 58
knowledge and skills on how to use the environment. Ramsey et al. (1996) state that responsible 59
environmental behavior became something classic in the field of environmental education. Students 60
behavior is a result of accumulation of knowledge about environmental education and it sho uld help 61
in building and sustaining new types of environmental education, new laws and methods for 62
environmental protection, and also in educating new citizens with good ethical principles, 63
encourage their involvement in volunteering and self -involvement a ctivities in environmental 64
protection, setting the basis of a new vision for the future global environment. 65
Also Bogner (2002) state that environmental values and attitudes are cr ucial to the 66
development of environmental behavior. 67

Even environmental behaviors are influenced by knowledge, behavior and attitude, 68
Hunderford and Volk (1990) have noticed that environmental knowledge has no influence on 69
environmental education but can change the environmental decisions that people make. Liu and 70
Guo (2018), Gomez (2015) highlighted the importance of education for the individual change of 71
human behavior that automatically aims at changing at titudes towards the environment and at 72
developing a more responsible environmental behavior. 73
Because the correla tion between the three factors Knowledge, Attitude and B ehavior (K -A- 74
B) was difficult to measure, as Cincera (2019) emphasized in the literatur e, studies were conducted 75
only on the correlation of behavior and attitude towards the environment by Hungerford and Volk 76
(1990), Hines et al. (1987), Heimlich and Ardoin (2008) who stressed the need for change through 77
education. According to Ramsey et al. (1996 and 1989) and Yucel and Ozkan (2016) environmental 78
education aims at improving behavior and attitude towards the environment, cultivating and 79
enhancing individual environmental knowledge. 80
Environmental education has also focused in recent years on the problems faced by 81
humankind today , such as global climate change or some important environmental issues that 82
countries need to find solutions to and respond to. Cecere et al. (2014) leaned on individual 83
behavior and its relation with waste reduction, a relationship that is not directly influenced by 84
economic incentives or pressures in society or social norms, but which is associated directly with 85
altruistic reasons. The theme was taken over by Ebreo and Vining (2000), Barr(2007), Chu and 86
Chiu (2013) and Sidique et al. (2010) who have noticed that the individual behavior in domestic 87
and organizational waste recycling actions is most influenced by the personal knowledge in the 88
field, the attitude towards the environment and the personal norms. 89
The pioneer of ‘culture’ as a factor of influence on attitude and behavior towards the 90
environment was Butterfied (1965), Stern (2000) followed by Bogner (2002 ) and later by Giddens 91
(2012). They have defined ‘culture’ as the environment in which we are born and gro w to maturity, 92
and it is a factor of essential influence in the social context and cannot be neglected. In conclusion, 93
school is an important factor in shaping the attitude towards the environment but has not yet 94
revealed the worth and attention it deserve s. 95
Fiorillo and Senatore (2016) establish ed the relationship among self -image, pro – 96
environmental attitudes and behavior in Italy. On the other hand Crociata et al. (2014) extend the 97
association to cultural participation, while Agovino et al. (2016) includ e environmental associations 98
and voluntary activities. 99
Kashdan (2013) , who made an inter -cultural analysis between France and the United States, 100
conducted a research to identify the cultural barriers between education and behavior towards 101
environment, tak ing into consideration the influence of national tradition and culture on people’s 102

behavior . A significant interaction between countries and attitudes, indicate that American 103
participants’ environmental attitudes predicted their environmental behavior, whi le this pattern was 104
not observed among the French participants. Another significant difference between the French and 105
the Americans ’ environmental behaviors was that the French have a high level of ecological 106
behavior, as compared to the Americans, but the y have a higher attitude towards the environment 107
and its norms. 108
Milfont and Duckitt (2006), Milfont and Gouveia (2006) measure also environmental 109
attitude across cultural bridge between New Zealand and Brazil and establish a model for 110
environmental attitud e. Results showed no significant interactions between variables like gender 111
and behavior or between gender and attitudes in either country. 112
From the diversity of environmental education Ramsey et al. (1996) and Chan (1996) in 113
their research understood tha t environmental education aims at developing responsible 114
environmental behavior of students towards the environment. They have specified that knowing the 115
factors which influence environmental behavior it is possible to identify methods and ways of 116
modeling responsible environmental behavior. Chan (1996) applied a survey regarding the 117
environmental protection attitude and behavior of students from several Hong Kong universities 118
concerning various pro -environmental behaviors they engage in both at school and at home. Also, 119
the author states that it is necessary to know and understand how to encourage environmental 120
behavior , as well as understand the factors which influence pro -environmental behavior. Studies 121
have shown that the attitude towards the environment actually influenc es people's behavior towards 122
the environment. It is the aim of this paper too, to carry out the comparative study between students 123
from Turkey and Romania in what concerns their environment attitude and behavior. 124
The purpose of this study is to examine and determine the effective factors on environmental 125
behaviors of university students via statistical techniques and compare the results of Turkish and 126
Romanian students' behavior s towards the environment. Because environmental education can be 127
considered to not have caught enough attention, the research in the present paper is trying to 128
develop a new vision upon environment behavior through education. 129
The study wants to establish which the differences are and common elements o f students’ 130
environmental behavior , as well as how environmental attitude can be acquired from family, society 131
and universities and how it can influence the student’s environmental behavior. 132
Until now , scientific literature show s that Environmental behavior can be inf luenced by 133
environmental attitude. That i s the reason why the study proposes to identify the cross -cultural 134
common elements and differences between Turkey and Romania. 135
136
137

1.1. A comprehensive map of fac tors that can influence the Environmental education 138
139
A map designed by the authors , which takes into consideration the environmental factors 140
already identified in the literature by different researchers and established new factors like 141
protection, stimulation and care for the environment , as well as their impact upon environmental 142
education may be analyzed in Fig.1. The variables and elements with gray backgrowned in Fig.1 are 143
the ones that were taken into consideration in the present study. 144
145
146
Fig.1. A Map of factors that can influence Education for Pro -Environme ntal Behavior 147
Source: By authors 148

ENVIRONMENT
FACTORS VALUES
ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTITUDE
(EA)
ENVIRONMENTAL
BEHAVIOR
(EB)
STIMULATION (S) PROTECTION (P)
CARE (C) Believe Individual
System
Family
Culture
KNOWLEDG E Peers
Neighbors
Social
System Media
NGO’s
Volunteers
Macro
System
ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION
(EE)
EDUCATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL B EHAVIOR
RE-ORIENTATION RE-LEARNING RE-VISION RE-DESIGN

2. Case studies 149
Attitudes cannot be measured directly so Krosnick et al. (2005), Milfont and Duckitt (2010) 150
suggest one of the following techniques of attitude measurement: direct self -reporting methods and 151
implicit measur ement techniques. Literature studies measuring environmental attitude and behavior 152
have generally used direct self -reporting methods like interviews and questionnaires. In our case we 153
applied a questionnaire . To assess the environmental behavior of studen ts, we used a questionnaire 154
which was structured in two parts: environmental attitude, environmental behavior and 155
environmental education. The questionnaire was structured in two parts with 24 questions. The first 156
part has seven questions related to demog raphic characteristics: gender, mother ’s level of education, 157
father ’s level of education, place of life, social provenience (rural or urban area) and country of 158
origin . The question for country was included taking in to considerati on that cultur al perceptio n may 159
be different from country to country and can be a factor of influence . The second part of the 160
questionnaire is made up of 17 questions related to students ’ environmental behaviors, 161
environmental education, environmental care and knowledge about envir onment protection (see 162
Table 1). This part of the questionnaire was a Likert type scale, ranging from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ 163
to 5 ‘strongly agree’ and prepared by considering the studies of Miller (2011), Yilmaz et al. (2009), 164
Ari and Yilmaz (2017) and Sara çli et al. (2014). 165
166
167
2.1. Sample and Measurement tool 168
169
The participants of this study are 2038 students attending the Afyon Kocatepe University, 170
Turkey (n=1680) and the Technical University of Cluj Napoca, Romania (n= 358), to whom the 171
questionnaire was ano nymously applied. To be sure that the results will present the real situation 172
from universities the questionna ires were applied during the same period . 173
Because in our study we are focused especially on po ssible di fferences between the 174
students ’ environmen tal behavior in the two countries with different cultures and specific traditions, 175
we selected the question considered to be able to give a cross -cultural profile of students and their 176
environmental behavior. Considering all this information and the factor s from Fig. 1, we cho se for 177
environmental attitude only the mother ’s education level of these students as an important factor in 178
the students ’ attitude towards environmental behavior , while the second significant factor was 179
considered culture because each country has different traditions, perception s and typology in 180
environment culture and education concepts. Finally, the Environment Education factor analyses 181
are applied over 17 questions, structured into factors , name ly: environmental attitude , and new 182

factors considered by authors significant for the students’ environmental behavior, protection , 183
stimulation and environment c are. The factors are adapted taking into consideration the new 184
orientation of the young generation and how they are involved in envir onment education and for 185
environment education ; we include d here the new recycling activities, volunteering, and responsible 186
participation in protection activities. The study was focused on students’ environmental behavior 187
and how their involvement in prot ection, care and stimulation attitude toward environment 188
influenced environmental education culture (Fig.2). 189
190
191
Fig.2. Research model . Source: By authors 192
193
Four factors which influence E nvironmental Education (EE) were taken in to consideration: 194
 EB- Enviro nmental Behavior (EB 1, EB2, EB3, EB4, EB5 and EB6 ); 195
 S- Stimulation to involve students’ in different activities regarding the environment (S1, S2, S3 196
and S4 ); 197
 P-Protection of environment (P1, P2, P3 and P4) ; 198
 C- Care (C 1, C2, C3 and C4 ). 199
Using an independe nt samples t test the hypothesis was tested : 200
H0a: There is no difference between the means of Turkish and Romanian students' Environmental 201
Behavior dimension. 202
H0b: There is no difference between the means of Turkish and Romanian students' Protection 203
dimen sion. 204
H0c: There is no difference between the means of Turkish and Romanian students' Stimulation 205
dimension . 206
H0d: There is no difference between the means of Turkish and Romanian students' Care dimension . 207
208

Environmental
Education (EE) Environmental
Behavior (EB) Stimulation
(S) Protection
(P) Care
(C)

Culture

3. Results 209
210
3.1. Environmental Education Scale 211
212
The total Cronbach’s Alpha value of the scale which consists of 17 questions is calculated as 213
0.809 which is statistically one of the indicators that the reliability of the scale is high enough and 214
the results can be taken in to consideration for the target gro up of 2038 students. To determine the 215
dimension of the environmental attitude and behavior scale, an Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) 216
was applied. These factors explain 51.703% of the total variance and the factor loadings, E igen 217
values and Cronbach’s Alp ha values of each factor are given in Table 1. 218
219
Table 1. Results of Explanatory Factor Analysis for Environmental Behavior 220
221
Factors Loadings Eigen
values % of
Variance α
EB Environmental Behavior
4.591 15.166 0.706 EB1 I will work on a voluntary basis for
nature and human beings .719
EB2 I will turn it off/fix it, when I see a
dripping tap .652
EB3 I act sensitively towards the
environment in order to leave a
cleaner world to newer generations. .649
EB4 I will use products produced from
non-renewable resources like
underground oil, coal, natural gas and
mines in an economical manner
because we will be unable to replace
them with new resources .612
EB5 I will be an actively involved member
of nature and environment
organizations .547
EB6 I will check and switch off
unnecessarily used lights .432

P Protection
1.171 12.333 0.668 P1 I will use the back of papers when I
am studying .786
P2 I will take part in environmental
cleaning campaigns .664
P3 I will take part in tree -planting
activities .623
P4 I will make non necessary
consumption to make sure pollution is
eliminated at its source .415
S Stimulat ion
2.025 13.235 0.683 S1 I will warn those in my immediate
vicinity to refrain from any
unnecessary consumption .754
S2 I will warn those harming trees and
flowers in parks and gardens .747
S3 I will take action about nature
polluters with the local authorities .653
S4 I will fight those endangering nature .511
C Care
1.003 10.969 0.507 C1 I will show no violence and aggression
towards the environment I live in and
what is inside it .701
C2 I will not directly or indirectly harm
my environment with economic
concerns in my business and private
life .694
C3 I will do my best to make the
environment I live in more livable .532
222
In Table 2 we present the differences between countries and the relevant scores for the 223
factors Environmental Behavior (EB), Stimulation (S), Protection (P) and Care (C). 224
For Turkish students the greatest value of 4.299 was obtain ed for C followed by EB. The value 225
for environmental behavior for Turkish students of 4.140 is greater than that for Romanian students, 226

for whom it is of 3.804. This may be due to the fact that Turkish students are educated to appreciate 227
the importance of environment in their early childhood. The lowest value was obtained for 228
protection (3.406) which may be due to a lack of information for Turkish students. Romanian 229
students are more protective (P=4.074) than Turkish students, which may be a result reflecting the 230
involvement of Romanian students in protection activities and participation in nature conservation. 231
Also for stimulation, the value of 4.097 for Romanian students is greater than that for Turkish 232
students which is 3.719. Romanian stu dents are attracted with the help of mass -media to take care 233
of the environment through volunteering and cleaning activities. 234
235
Table 2. Environmental education factors related with each country 236
237
Country Statistics EB S P C
TURKEY
(n=1680) Mean 4.140 3.719 3.406 4.299
S. Dev. 0.680 0.914 0.846 0.822
ROMANIA
(n=358) Mean 3.804 4.097 4.074 4.345
S. Dev. 0.564 0.603 0.568 0.539
238
For the factor C, the value of 4.345 for Romanian students is greater than that for Turkish 239
students because of the aggressive promotion towards a consumer society. As conclusion we can 240
observe that the results show that univers ities have an important impact o n environmental education 241
and they have an important rol e which is reflected in student s’ environmental behavior , and they are 242
modeling the attitude of the new citizen with regard to the environment. The results of independent 243
samples t tests results related with these hypotheses are given in Table 3. 244
245
Table 3. Independent samples t test results of the dimensions for both c ountries 246
247
Variable t value Degrees of Freedom p
EB 8.716 2036 0.000
S -7.478 2036 0.000
P -14.260 2036 0.000
C -1.013 2036 0.311
248

The values indicate that while there is a statistically significant difference between the mean s of 249
environmental behavior , stimulation and protecti on, there is no significant difference between the 250
mean s of factor care . From Table 3 we may see that the most significant difference between Turkish 251
and Romanian students occurs for the protection factor, related with the t statistic. 252
253
3.2. Environmental Attitude and influences on Environmental Behavior 254
255
For Environmental Attitude we take in to consideration the influence of the mother ’s education 256
and country as cultural factors of influence (Fig.3) . We considered that the mother ’s education level 257
is an important cultural factor since it can influence the student s’ environmental attitude and their 258
future behavior. 259
260
Fig. 3. Research model . Source: By authors 261
262
To test whether the above factors influence the dimensions of university students’ 263
environmental behavior and if they differ according to their mothers' education levels, the authors 264
test the hypothesis: 265
266
H0a: There is no difference among the students' Environm ental Behavior means in terms of their 267
mother ’s educatio n levels. 268
269
H0b: There is no difference among the students' Protection means in terms of their mother ’s 270
education levels. 271
272

Environmental
Education
Environmental
Behavior Stimulation
S Protection
P Care
C Environmental
Attitude
Education
Level Culture

H0c: There is no difference among the students' Stimulate means in terms of their mother ’s 273
education levels. 274
275
H0d: There is no differe nce among the students' Care means in terms of their mother ’s education 276
levels. 277
278
The results of the ANOVA are given in Table 4 . 279
280
Table 4. ANOVA Results for mother education levels 281
282
Variable Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
EB Between Groups 17.099 3 5.700
12.759 0.000 Within Groups 908.601 2034 0.447
Total 925.700 2037
S Between Groups 12.599 3 4,20
5.459 0.001 Within Groups 1564 .795 2034 0.769
Total 1577 .394 2037
P Between Groups 45.332 3 15.111
21.856
0.000
Within Groups 1406 .264 2034 0.691
Total 1451 .596 2037
C Between Groups 5.426 3 1.809
2.978
0.030
Within Groups 1235 .213 2034 0.607
Total 1240 .639 2037
283
Table 4 . indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the means of 284
Envir onmental Behavior, Simulation , Protection and Care dimensions of Turkish and Romanian 285
students according to their mothers' education levels . Related with ANOVA results, to determine at 286
which levels of mothers' educations do these dimensions differ, Least S ignificant Test (LSD) test is 287
applied and the results are given in Table 5. 288
Table 5 indicate that while there is no significant difference between the Environmental 289
Behavior (EB) means of Turkish and Romanian students whose mother's education levels are No 290

Education and University (p=0.145>0.05) , there are significant differences among all other mother 291
education levels for EB means ( p<0.05) 292
293
Table 5. LSD test results for ANOVA 294
295
Variable Mother Educ.
Turkey Mother Educ.
Romania p

EB
No Education Primary School
High School
University 0.021
0.045
0.183
Prima ry School High School
University 0.000
0.000
High School University 0.722
S
No Education Primary School
High School
University 0.234
0.053
0.000
Primary School High School
University 0.238
0.001
High School University 0.015
P
No Education Primary School
High School
University 0.904
0.000
0.000
Primary School High School
University 0.000
0.000
High School University 0.003
C No Education Primary School
High School
University 0.054
0.009
0.797
Primary School High School
University 0.242
0.149
High School University 0.035
296
297
In terms of the Stimulation (S) factor , while there is no significant differences between the 298
students, whose mother education levels are No Education and Prima ry, No education and High and 299
Primary School and High school, there is a statistical differences between other mother education 300
levels of the students. In terms of the Protection (P) factor there are statistically significant 301
differences between all the ed ucation levels of the students (all p values are lower than 0.05) ex cept 302
those whose mother education levels are No education and Primary School ( p=0.904>0.05) 303
In terms of the Care (C) factor there is a significant difference between the Turkish and the 304
Romanian students means according to mother education levels of No education and High School 305
(p=0.009<0.05) and High School and University (p=0.035<0.05). 306

In conclusion , it seems for Turkey we obtain similar conclusions to those of Turkish 307
researchers Yilma z et al. (2009), Ari and Yilmaz (2017) , Saraçli et al. (2014) . We can admit that 308
the mother ’s education is an important value which can influence the attitude and behavior of 309
students, and that as such culture can be taken in to consideration. 310
311
3.3. Environ mental E ducation factors . Correlation between countries dimensions 312
313
The correlations between the dimensions are given in Table 6. All of correlation coefficients 314
are found statistically significant at 95% confidence level. The values indicate that the high est 315
correlation is between stimulation for environmental behavior and p rotection of environment with 316
the coefficients of 0.536, and the lowest correlation is between protection of environment and care 317
with the coefficients of 0.233. As it can be seen from the table, all correlations are positive. 318
319
Table 6. Correlations between dimensions 320
321
EB S P C
EB 1 0.383 0.288 0.397
S 1 0.536 0.314
P 1 0.233
C 1
322
Results of the Regression analysis for both countries is given Table 7 . 323
324
Table 7. Results of t he Regression Analysis 325
326
Country Source Sum of Square df Mean Square F p
Turkey Regression 210.002 3 70.001 206.378 .000
Residual 568.476 1676 0.2339
Total 788.478 1679
Romania Regression 51.841 3 17,280 98.534 .000
Residual 62.083 354 0.175
Total 113.924 357
327
The results highlight the specific problem of the young generation : even though the students 328
have knowledge about the environmental problems, they get information from the media and they 329

are aware of the importance of environment al issues, they do not like to be involved in care actions, 330
protection and preservation of the environment because they consider that there are specialized 331
people who know better what to do. 332
Table 8 shows that the effect of care for Romanian students is no t statistically significant. In 333
comparison , Turkish students are more careful about the environment behavior and they take 334
attitude in environment protection , and they are stimulated in different actions regarding the 335
conservation and environment al protect ion. 336
337
Table 8. Regression Coefficients of the model 338
339
Country Statistics Constant S P C
TURKEY 1.979 0.149 0.131 0.270
t value 22.354 7.972 6.694 14.828
p value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
ROMANIA 0.915 0.204 0.539 -0.033
t value 4.409 4.546 10.834 -0.706
p value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.481
340
The regression models for Turkey ( Eq.1) and Romania ( Eq.2) are as given below, taking in to 341
consideration the factors Stimulation (S), Protection (P) and Care (C): 342
343
Turkey = 1,979 + 0.1495 S + 0.131 P + 0.270C (1) 344
Romania = 0.915 + 0.204 S + 0,539 P – 0.033 C (2) 345
346
For Romanian students , the environment Protection (P) factor has a greater coefficient in 347
comparison with Turkey because they are mor e interested in obtaining information and universities 348
involve them more in different actions and volunteer ing activities , and students also offer their help 349
to different social or NGO organizations. Romanian students witnessed dramatic episodes, true 350
ecological ly catastrophic ones (The Danube Delta, water pollution, industrial waste discharges), the 351
floods in recent years, the intensification of the desertification phenomenon in the south of the 352
country, tornadoes, long periods of drought, and have begun t o become aware of the consequences 353
of some attitudes towards nature , as well as of the disappearance of many species of plants and 354
animals due to human actions . 355
To see the interactions between variables and give supplementary information , the results of t he 356
Classification and Regression Tree (CRT) analysis are given in Fig.4, for the Environmental 357

Behaviors (EB) of Rom anian students in a more visible way. In conclusion, environmental 358
education shapes students ’ behavior and their attitude, in helping to est ablish and develop 359
responsible citizens. 360
361
Fig.4. Classification and Regression Tree results for Romanian students 362
363
The Technical University of Cluj Napoca is trying to harmonize and develop new fields and 364
specialization like Env ironmental Protection or R ecycling of materials and identify future jobs 365
which are not yet developed on the market, to educate and prepare the future specialists and 366
promoters of environmental education. 367
To see the effective dimensions on the Environmental Behaviors (EB) of univer sity students in 368
a more visibly way, the results of the Classification and Regression Tree (CRT) analysis for Turkish 369
stude nts is given in Fig.5 . For the Environmental Behavior (EB) of Turkish students, the most 370
effective dime nsion is care attitudes for 64 .2 % (n=1079). The S timulation (S) and protection 371
attitudes (P) of Turkish students also have significant effect for the sub branches of the regression 372
tree given in Fig.5, taking in to consideration the improvement. 373
Fig.5 , also indicates that according to the mean scores, the students whose Care (C) score s are 374
greater than 4.167, whose Stimulation (S) scores are greater than 3.625 , and Protection (P) scores 375
are lower than 4.345 , as well as students whose ‘Care ’ scores are greater than 4.833 have the 376
highes t Environmental Behavior scores (EB=4.459). 377
On the other hand , the students whose ‘Care ’ score are lower or equal to 4.167 and the 378
Stimulation (S) scores are lower or equal to 3.625 , as well as students whose ‘Care ’ scores are 379
greater than 3.167 have the lowest Environmental Behavior scores (EB=3.707). 380

381
Fig. 5. CRT results for Turkish students 382
383
In conclusion, for Turkish students, universities can encourage and orient students in specific 384
activities and special programs including girls as future mothers who can influence the 385
environmental behavior through their increased environmental knowledge, leading to better 386
practice. Teenagers are an important public for environmental education because they are 387
tomorrow’s managers and consumers of resources. 388
389
4. Discus sions 390
391
The road map for implementing the UNESCO (2017) education for s ustainable development 392
states once again those universities are important stakeholders , and they play a vital role in m aking 393
professionals in the area aware of pro -environmental behavior and sustainability issues. Universities 394
also incorporate a new pro -environmental behavior into campus es by sustaining learning about 395

environments, eco schools, and green campuses and reduc ing the institutions ’ ecological footprint. 396
Agenda 21 (1992) mentio ns the importance of universities in orienting and promoting sustainable 397
developmen t as a source of human resource development. In this study, via some multivariate 398
statistical techniques, environmental attitudes, environmental behavior and effective attit udes of 399
university students on pro -environmental behavior are examined. In relation with the cultural, 400
educational, and environmental factors, some differences between the students in Romania and 401
Turkey were found . The r esults of the study in dicate that wh ile the environmental b ehavior of 402
Turkish students are better than the Romanian students ’, environmental protection , stimulation and 403
care attitudes of Romanian students are better than Turkish students ’. The results of the regression 404
analysis al so indica te that environmental care attitudes of Romanian students have no significant 405
effect on their environmental behavior. If we analyze the results, we can identify the needs of 406
environmental education in both countries regard ing the environmental b ehavior and how 407
environmental attitude can influence the student s’ behavior. From all four factors , it is for the care 408
factor that both co untries obtain the greatest score and there is no difference between the two 409
countries . That may because of the young generation is informed about the danger of global 410
warming, the pollution of the earth, the sea, and the w aste of resourc es and may it be the indictor of 411
that the young generation looking to protect and take care of the environment for a green life style 412
and green pro ducts. 413
In conclusion, in our case , the authors propose some possible actions towards improving the 414
care factor: 415
a) Adapting attitudes and behavior to the environment. Universities can involve students 416
in nature -related activities and increase knowledge , as well as broaden their scientific horizon . 417
Professors play a decisive role in organizing activities, either touri sm itineraries or local ly, and they 418
must constantly express their concern about the formation of habits regarding the preserv ation and 419
protect ion of the quality of the environment, by planting trees, cleaning water s, reusing and 420
collecti ng recyclable materials, us ing bicycles instead of driving cars etc . Universities need to 421
educate tomorrow's adults in the sense of preserving the natural enviro nment in which they live to 422
give them the opportunity to personally contribute to the planting and care for trees, green areas, 423
flowers, and the place where they live through practical plant protection actions constituting the 424
main regenerati on factor of t he atmosphere. 425
b) Promoting responsible behavior through eco -education. The green aspect is relevant in 426
environmental education ; it is a means of encouraging attitudes and responsible behaviors towards 427
the environment. The new wave of environmental inform ation and rapid communication has 428
demonstrated the need for a transformative ecological education adapted to the new society of the 429
21st Century. The unexpected challenges we face , such as pollution, natural disasters, industrial gas 430

emissions, road conges tions , require involvement and ecological action based on action by all of us . 431
Therefore we believe that both schools and universities should have an environmental mission 432
towards the environment. Ecological education in today's society must be designed an d developed 433
as human rights education, especially regarding the right to a clean, undisturbed and well -preserved 434
environment, health, life and peace, and building a green society. In this context, environmental 435
education could become even more effective as it will be connected with the wide sphere of moral 436
and aesthetic education – without losing its identity. 437
c) Assessing and improving the relationship between environmental concerns and 438
recycling behavior using intercultural data. Improving environmental concerns through the 439
development of the 3R cycle has led to the harmonization with international standards and the 440
adoption of measures to protect and preserve the environment. Implementing the same rules and 441
recycling measures through their international character has allowed the dissemination of good 442
practice and information needed to prevent and conserve common and cross -border areas. 443
d) Controlling and mode ling the results such as social participation . As we know , citizens 444
in several developed European countries have highly developed attitudes towards the environment, 445
but the inclination to act and to solve environmental problems, to be active in environmental 446
organizations, is very low. The rift between the rich ecological awareness of many citizens an d the 447
lack of involvement in practical environmental protection activities can be overcome by changing 448
the ratio of the share of knowledge to that of e nvironmental activities in favo r of the latter, and by 449
prioritizing the specific methods of moral and civ ic education through the personal example of 450
educators, eco ethic debate, case analysis, moral conversation, exercise, teamwork, positive or 451
negative moral sanction, etc. 452
e) Individual environmental behavior and concern. Some human actions can start from 453
each individual work place, continuing with living habitat and the activities around communities 454
such as: deforestation, destruction of vegetation, turning tourist trails, stopping in huge garbage 455
cans, parking cars in green areas, infecting water by washi ng cars with detergents, leading to 456
environmental degradation, which directly affect man and his health. 457
5. Conclusions 458
Universities represent the place where students learn about environmental phenomena and 459
problems , about the consequences of environmental actions. At the same time the university should 460
be the privilege d place where students would learn how to get involved in preventing environmental 461
problems and creating solutions. The role of universities as educators is to prepare and encourage 462
students w ith skills that they need to efficiently manage the resources of the earth and to take 463
responsibility for maintaining the quality of the environment . 464

The results reflect that environmental education needs a new re -orientation, a new type of re – 465
learning, a new learning path and education al changes towards a pro -environmental behavior. 466
1. Re-orientation for sustainable education , taking in to consideration the environmental 467
degradation and insecurity . The new needs are to think differently, to learn how to thin k 468
systematically and a change of educational culture. Because the dynamic evolution of 469
environmental factors are in a continuing movement and change, a new vision was necessary to 470
close the quality cycle for a sustainable development of environmental educa tion and also a 471
sustainable education for the environment. Environment protection takes into consideration the 472
new factors 4R’s (reuse, recycle, replace, and reduce) which need a new perspective. 473
2. Re-learning and change management become the biggest chal lenge for sustainable 474
environment education and priorities in education. 475
3. Re-visioning for sustainable education. There are different levels of engagement for re – 476
visioning education environment: 477
 Education about sustainability , harmonize d with the new educ ation system teaching about 478
change, learning by doing; 479
 Education for sustainability taking in to consideration environmental values, skills, 480
develop ing the greening of institutions (universities, schools, cities); 481
 Sustain Education change in a cross -cultur al manner between institutions, communities, 482
sharing good practice examples and teaching change. 483
4. Re-design education learning. Interdisciplinary research and education centers in universities 484
should promote cooperative research and information, sharing and dissemination. Also 485
universities should enrich pre-service curricula f or environment studies, develop topics like 486
environ mental management training and education for sustainable development and devel op 487
new capacities in the field of environment and develo pment. Re -design ing education became a 488
need for changing the role of education in the way of thinking and its contribution to a new 489
vision of sustainable global development for a transformational education. 490
491
References 492
Agenda 21 , (1992), Rio Declaration o n Environment and Development, On line at: 493
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm 494
Agovino M. , Garofalo A., Mariani A., (2016), Effects of environmental regulation on separate 495
waste collection dynamics: empirical evidence f rom Italy, Journal of Cleaner Production , 124, 496
30-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.082. 497

Ari E., Yilmaz V., (2017), Effects of environmental illiteracy and environmental awareness among 498
middle school students on environment behavior, Environment, Developm ent and 499
Sustainability , 19(5) , 1779 -1793. DOI: 10.1007/s10668 -016-9826 -3. 500
Barr S., (2007), Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A U.K. Case study of 501
household waste management, Environment and Behavior , 39, 435 -473. 502
Bogner F. X., (2002), The influence of a residential outdoor education program to pupils 503
environment perception, Journal of Psychology of Education , 17, 19-24. 504
Bruce J., Cincera J., (2015), Examining the Relationship between Environmental Attitudes and 505
Behaviour in Educati on Programmes , On line at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 506
288485809_Examining_the_Relationship_between_Environmental_Attitudes_and_Behaviour_ 507
in_Education_Programmes 508
Buttefield P.G,(1965), Educational attitudes and learning orientations of rural adults in selec ted 509
cultural settings, Diss.Abs, 25(11 ), 63-64. 510
Cecere G., Mancinelli S., Mazzanti M., (2014), Waste prevention and social preferences: the role 511
of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, Ecological Economics , 107, 163 -176. 512
Chan K., (1996), Environmental attitudes and behavior of secondary school students in Hong Kong. 513
Environmentalist, 16(4) , 297 -306. 514
Chu P. Y., Chiu J. F., (2013), Factors influencing household waste recycling behavior: test of an 515
integrated model, Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 33, 604 -628. 516
Cincera J., (2019), Pro-environmental behavior in environmental education program , On line at: 517
https://www.rwlnetwork.org/media/67161/proenvironmental_behavior_models.pdf 518
Crociata A., Agovino M. , Sacco P.L., (2014), Recycling waste : does culture matter?, Journal of 519
Behavioral and Experimental Economics , 55, 40-47. 520
Ebreo A., Vining J., (2000), Motives as predictors of the public’s attitudes towards solid waste 521
issues, Environmental Management , 25, 153-168. 522
EPA (2019), What is environ mental education?, On line at: https://www.epa.gov/education/what – 523
environmental -education, 524
Fiorillo D., Senatore L., (2016), Self Image and Environmental Attitude and Behavior, CELPE, 525
Centro di Economia del Lavoro e di Politica Economica, Università deg li Studi di Salerno, 526
ISSN 1970 -4259, On line at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309858849_Self_ 527
Image_and_Environmental_Attitude_and_Behavior . 528
Giddens A., (2012), Modernity and Self Identity, Chapter 5, On line at: https://biblio.csusm.edu/ 529
sites/default/files/reserves/giddens_modernity_and_self -identity_ocr.pdf 530

Gomez J. , (2015), Methodological and Curricular Restructuring of Environmental Education: Main 531
Course of Action (Reestructuración Metodológica y Curricular de la Educación Ambiental: 532
Principales Líneas de Actuación) . 533
Heimlich J. E., Ardoin N. M., (2008), Understanding behavior to understand beha vior change: a 534
literature review, Environmental Education Research , 14(3) , 215-237. 535
Hines J. M., Hungerford H. R., Tomera A. N. , (1987), Analysi s and Synthesis of Research on 536
Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta -Analysis. Journal of Environmental Educat ion, 537
18, 1-8. 538
Hungerford H. R., Volk T. L. , (1990), Changing Learner B ehavior through Environmental 539
Education , The Journal of Environmental Ed ucation, 21(3), 8-21. 540
Kashdan A . G., (2013), Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: A Cross -Cultural Analysis in 541
France and the United States, Undergraduate Honors Theses . On line at: 542
http://publish.wm.edu/honorstheses/646 . 543
Koslowsky M., Kluger A. N., Yinon Y ., (1988), Predicting behavior: Combining intention with 544
investment, Journal of Applied Psychology , 73(1) 102-106. 545
Krosnick J. A., Judd C. M., Wittenbrink B. (2005), The measurement of attitudes . In Albarracı´n D., 546
Johnson B. T. , Zanna M. P. , (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 21 -76). Mahwah, NJ: 547
Lawrence Erlbaum. 548
Liu S., Guo L., (2018), Based on Environmental Education to Study the Correlation between 549
Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Value , Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science 550
and Technology Education, 14(7) , 3311 -3319. 551
Milfont T. L., Duckitt J., (2006), Preservation and Utilization: Understanding the Structure of 552
Environmental Attitudes, Medio Ambiente y Comportamien to Humano 7(1), 29-50. 553
Milfont T. L., Duckitt J., (2010), The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable 554
measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes , Journal of Environmental 555
Psychology , 30, 80-94, DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09. 001. 556
Milfont T. L., Gouveia V. V., (2006), Time perspective and values: an exploratory study of their 557
relations to environmental attitudes , Journal of Environmental Psychology , 26, 72-82. 558
Miller K. , (2011), Student Attitude and Action Regarding the Single -use Plastic Shopping Bag on 559
the University of Alabama Campus. Graduate School of the University of Alabama , 560
Tuscaloosa: Alabama. 561
Ramsey J. M, Hungenford H. R., Volk T. L, (1996), A Science Technology Society Case Study 562
Municipal Solid Waste , Champaign IL, Stipes Publishing Company . 563

Ramsey J. M., Hungerford H. R.,Volk T. A ., (1989), Technique for Analyzing Environmental 564
Issues, The Journal of Environmental Education, Volume 21, Issue 1, On line at: 565
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1989.9941923 . 566
Saraçli S., Yılmaz V., Arslan T., (2014), The effects of mothers’ educational levels on university 567
students’ environmental protection commitments and environmental behaviors, Eurasian 568
Journal of Educational Research , 55, 177-200. 569
Sidique S. F., Lupi F., Joshi S. V., (2010), The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop -off 570
recycling activities, Resources Conservation and Recy cling, 54, 242-249. 571
Simpson P.R., (1994), The effects of an extended case study on citizenship behavior and associated 572
variables in fi fth and sixth grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois 573
University at Carbondale, IL 574
Sivek D., (1986), Environmental education curricular materials: Do they reflect the contemporary 575
rhetoric? In : Perkins J. (Eds.), International Aspects of U NESCO Needs and Priorities in 576
Environmental Education an International Survey Paris France U NESCO/ UNEP. 577
Stern P. C., (2000), Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavio r, Journal of 578
Social Issues , 56(3) 407-424. 579
UNESCO (199 0), Worl d declaration education for all, On line at; 580
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000127583 581
UNESCO (2017), Education for Sustainable development, On line at: http://unesdoc. 582
unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf 583
Yılmaz V., Çelik H. E., Yağı zer C., (2009), Investigating The Effects Of Environme ntal Sensitivity 584
And Environmental Behavior On Ecolog ical Product Buying Behavior Through Structural 585
Equation Modeling, Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences , 9(2), 1-14. 586
Yucel E. O., Ozkan, M., (2016), Determining the perceptions of pre -service science teachers 587
regarding environmental problems through word association. International Journal of Learning 588
and Teaching , 8(3), 164-173. 589