The Journal of Environmental Education

ISSN: 0095-8964 (Print) 1940-1892 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjee20

The Effects of Local Learning on Environmental

Awareness in Children: An Empirical Investigation

Lianne Fisman

To cite this article: Lianne Fisman (2005) The Effects of Local Learning on Environmental
Awareness in Children: An Empirical Investigation, The Journal of Environmental Education, 36:3,
39-50, DOI: 10.3200/JOEE.36.3.39-50

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.36.3.39-50

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1308

View related articles

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjee20
 REPORTS & RESEARCH

The Effects of Local Learning

on Environmental Awareness in
Children: An Empirical Investigation
Lianne Fisman

ABSTRACT: In this article, the author examines the effects of an urban environmental education pro-
gram on children’s awareness of their local biophysical environment. She examined changes in envi-
ronmental awareness among 3rd- and 5th-grade participants in the Open Spaces as Learning Places
program in New Haven, Connecticut. Results showed a significant positive effect of the program on
students’ awareness of the local environment and on their knowledge of environmental concepts.
Improvements in environmental knowledge were uncorrelated with the children’s socioeconomic sta-
tus, whereas improvements in local environmental awareness appeared only among students living in
high socioeconomic neighborhoods.

KEY WORDS: children, environmental awareness, environmental education, urban

T he goal of environmental education (EE) is to produce citizens who are knowledgeable

about the biophysical environment and its problems, aware of strategies that can be used to
deal with those problems, and actively engaged in working toward their solution (Stapp et
al., 1969). Traditionally, EE has focused on teaching children about “pristine” environments or
“wilderness.” For urban and suburban children, this often means classroom learning from books and
wall charts or long bus rides to nature centers and preserves. Given that the literature indicates that
sustained contact with a given place best cultivates children’s environmental knowledge and concern
(Hart, 1997; Sobel, 1996; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001), current EE practices may not be the most effec-
tive pedagogical approach to creating genuine environmental concern. In a recent study, Haluza-
Delay (2001) found that EE built around wilderness experiences might actually diminish environ-
mentally responsible behaviors among suburban participants because these programs tend to rein-
force the separation of pristine nature and the students’ home environments. This finding implies
that teaching children about the positive aspects of their local environment would build their sense
of caring and connection to the place where they live.

Lianne Fisman is a PhD candidate in the Department of Urban Planning at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

SPRING 2005, VOL. 36, NO. 3 39

 The importance of building environmental awareness has been emphasized in the literature on
environmental stewardship. This began with the Tbilisi Declaration of 1977, which described aware-
ness of the local environment as a necessary precursor to environmental stewardship (Global
Development Research Declaration, 2002). More recently, researchers (see, for example, Hungerford
& Volk, 1990, and Sobel, 1996) have moved beyond the general categories of the Tbilisi Declaration
by providing a framework for understanding how ecological education translates into actions.
Given these claims about the efficacy of locally based EE programs and the further assertion that
awareness is a necessary antecedent to action, there is surprisingly little empirical work on this topic,
particularly in the urban context. Furthermore, there has been little work on how responsiveness to
these programs may differ across socioeconomic status (SES) or other student characteristics. This
article takes a step toward filling these gaps by presenting research that looks at the effects of an urban
EE program on children’s awareness of their local biophysical environment. In particular, I examine
the responsiveness of third- and fifth-grade students to the Open Spaces as Learning Places program
administered in the New Haven, Connecticut, public school system. I also examine whether these
effects differ according to the characteristics of the students’ neighborhoods, in particular their SES.

Open Spaces as Learning Places

Awareness is a relevant variable to consider when assessing the impact of a place-based environ-
mental education program on elementary school students. Awareness, however, is extremely broad.
For example, it may be interpreted to mean awareness of issues or, alternatively, awareness of ameni-
ties. In this study, I focused on children’s ecological knowledge and their awareness of the form and
features of their local environment. This emphasis is aligned with Sobel’s (1996) research, which sug-
gests that elementary school students are not developmentally prepared to deal meaningfully with
major environmental issues. Given that the urban ecosystem comprises both built and natural forms,
awareness in this study includes both that of “nature” (flora, fauna, soil, water resources, rocks, etc.)
as well as awareness of the built environment (playground equipment, buildings, etc.).
The Open Spaces as Learning Places program is a neighborhood-based EE program, offered to
third- and fifth-grade students in the New Haven public schools through the Urban Resources
Initiative at Yale University. Its goal is to have participants gain awareness of the ecological patterns
and processes within their neighborhoods and an understanding that they are an important part of
that ecosystem, starting with a focus close to school and expanding to the watershed scale. Ultimately,
the program aims to foster a sense of stewardship by allowing the children to wonder and discover
through exploration of the urban environment’s natural and social history.
The program is divided into six 1 1/2-week units (for a total of 9 weeks). The following is a break-
down of the units and central concepts in the program: (a) schoolyard—exploration and observation;
(b) vacant lot—plant and animal adaptations; (c) park—communities and ecosystems; (d) ceme-
tery—ecology and cultural history; (e) pond—water quality and aquatic ecosystems; and (f) river—
interconnectedness of ecological processes.
I gathered data for this study in the fall of 2002. At that time, the Open Spaces as Learning Places
program was running in four classrooms: two third-grade classes from West Elementary School and
two fifth-grade classes from East School. (The principals requested that the schools’ real names not
be used.) Both of the schools are located in the East Rock neighborhood in New Haven. Despite
their geographic proximity (the schools are approximately a half mile apart), the socioeconomic and
racial characteristics of the schools are very different (Table 1). East School students are predomi-
nantly Black and Latino and come from lower income families, whereas West School’s population is
a fairly even mix of Black, White, and Asian American students from higher income families.

40 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

 TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics of Third- and Fifth-Grade Students in Two
New Haven Schools

Characteristic East School West School

Race/ethnicity (%)
Asian American 3.8 24.9
Black 57.1 31.3
Hispanic 24.9 8.9
White 14.3 34.9
Eligible for free or reduced-price meals (%) 73.3 30.2

Source: National Center for Educational Statistics (2000).

Note. Socioeconomic status was based on eligibility for free or reduced-price meals.

Method

This study uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. I used three different forms of
data from students before and after participation in the program: knowledge questionnaires, maps
produced by students in “cognitive mapping” (drawing) exercises, and semi-structured interviews. I
also used an analysis of student journals, classroom observation, and informal interviews with teach-
ers. The study represents a form of “action research” in that I was the facilitator of the Open Spaces
as Learning Places program as well as the primary researcher and data analyst.1

Questionnaire
A short (10-item) questionnaire measured the students’ levels of environmental knowledge the
week before and the week after they participated in the program (Appendix). The questionnaire was
administered orally and did not require written responses. I selected this method to deal with the sub-
stantial variation in reading and writing skills within classes. The questions were designed to assess
whether or not students gained knowledge related to the main themes of the program, such as plant
and animal adaptations, community and ecosystem functioning, water quality and the health of
aquatic ecosystems, and the interconnectedness of ecosystems.

Mapping
Kevin Lynch’s (1960) seminal work The Image of the City popularized cognitive mapping as a
research tool to assess people’s relationship to place (Kitchin, 1997). This method has been employed
in a range of disciplines, including planning, education, geography, and psychology (Blaut, 1999;
Kitchin; Tversky et al., 1999). Cognitive maps are used to assess how individuals acquire, store, recall,
and decode spatial and environmental information (Downs & Stea, 1973), as well as to gain infor-
mation about people’s attitudes toward different places (Kitchin).
The mapping portion required children to draw their neighborhoods in as much detail as possi-
ble. The instructions given to the children were a variation of those outlined by David Sobel (1998)
in his book Map Making With Children, as follows: “I would like you to draw a map of your neigh-
borhood. By neighborhood, I mean the area around your house where you play. Your map should
include all the places that you are allowed to go by yourself or with your friends. The only thing that

SPRING 2005, VOL. 36, NO. 3 41

 you have to include on your map is your own home. Other than that, I want you to draw all of the
special things and places that are in your neighborhood.”
This exercise occurred pre- and postprogram, immediately following the administration of the
questionnaire. These maps provide insights into changes in the children’s awareness of the forms and
features in their neighborhoods that occurred as a result of participation in the Open Spaces as
Learning Places program. The mapping exercise occurred in the classroom, while I moved around
the room asking the children questions about their drawings. When the children completed their
maps, I asked them to describe the image to me.2 I analyzed four variables on each map: (a) the scope
(boundaries), (b) natural features, (c) built features, and (d) “street furniture,” which refers to street
signs, lampposts, benches, fences, and playground equipment. The number of natural features, built
features, and street furniture were counted and recorded. The scope was more difficult to code
because of variations in the way that the students represented space (e.g., some of the students’ draw-
ings did not include streets or had “floating” features). To manage these differences, I developed an
ordinal code (0–3) to capture whether the students’ maps focused on their house only (coded 0),
immediate neighbors (coded 1), area beyond the immediate neighbors up to one block (coded 2), or
beyond their street (coded 3). The students included their addresses on their maps; I used this infor-
mation during the analysis to estimate the SES of their neighborhoods.
An unexpected observation prompted the addition of a separate “special tree” category. Having the
students select and write about a special tree in their nature journal was the first of six assignments.
Many of the students, unprompted by the researcher, labeled their special trees on their postprogram
maps or verbally noted them. I coded the postprogram maps for the presence or absence of the stu-
dent’s special tree.

Interviews
I used interviews to assess changes in students’ environmental awareness. Ten students (five from
each school) were interviewed pre- and postprogram. The interviews consisted of the following open-
ended questions: “Tell me what you like the best about your neighborhood,” and “Tell me what you
don’t like about your neighborhood.”
The interviews were conducted one-on-one outside of the classroom (in the cafeteria area or at a
table outside of the classroom). The students’ responses were audiotaped, transcribed, and then
coded. The codes were then grouped into the following seven general themes: (a) activity, (b)
nature/landscape, (c) negative physical/built, (d) positive physical/built, (e) positive social, (f) nega-
tive social, and (g) services.3

Results

The data used for the analysis were drawn from 49 students who completed both the pre- and post-
program mapping exercise. Eighty-two children completed the pre- and postprogram knowledge
tests, but, to be consistent, only tests of students who completed pre- and postprogram mapping are
included in the analysis. Forty-seven of 49 students who completed the mapping also completed
both knowledge tests. I performed a series of paired t tests to assess whether the students’ maps and
test scores had changed significantly (Table 2). The results suggest that there were significant changes
on the students’ maps for four of the five variables (scope, natural features, tree, and built features)
as well as a total change variable that is the sum of these five characteristics. It is quite striking that
the students’ special trees appeared on 69% of the maps. Knowledge test scores also increased signif-
icantly after the program. Unfortunately, there was no control group in the study, so I was unable to

42 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

 TABLE 2. Effect of Open Spaces as Learning Places Program on Mapping
Awareness and Environmental Knowledge

Variable Before After Change p

Map awareness (n = 49)

Scope 1.27 1.45 0.18 < .01
Nature 1.63 3.24 1.61 < .01
Built 3.04 3.80 0.76 < .01
Furniture 0.51 0.76 0.24 .15
Tree 0.08 0.69 0.61 < .01
Total 6.53 9.94 3.41 < .01
Knowledge test (n = 47) 6.38 6.89 0.51 .08

Note. Scope = geographic area that the student's map covers (coded 0–3). Nature = number of natural features on
student's maps, including trees, grass, flowers, and bushes. Built = number of built features on student's maps,
including houses, apartment buildings, sidewalks, and streets. Furniture = number of features classified as “street
furniture” on students' maps, defined as: street signs, lampposts, benches, fences, and playground equipment. Tree
= students selected a special tree during the program that they wrote about in their journals and refers to the pres-
ence of the special tree on postprogram maps.

compare how these variables would be affected by the simple passage of time or by taking a test the
second time. Nonetheless, the observed changes are striking and future work will allow for such a
control.

SES
To examine the relationship between the SES of a child’s neighborhood and the development of
environmental awareness, I used the mean household income by census tract (U.S. Census, 2000) as
a proxy measure of each neighborhood’s SES.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between census tract income and map change and suggests a strong
positive relationship: Map changes occurred only in students living in high SES neighborhoods.
Table 3 contains regression results that examine the statistical relationship between SES and map
change, which indicate a strong positive relationship. Maps from children residing in the highest and
lowest income neighborhoods illustrate this difference (Figures 2 and 3).
Table 3 also includes additional controls to rule out obvious alternative explanations. In particu-
lar, the overall quality of the school environment (teacher reinforcement of concepts, positive learn-
ing environment, etc.) may be a contributing factor. This explanation was rejected because of the lack
of effect of child’s school (East School vs. West School) on map change. Another possible source of
differences in the map–change variable is the distance that students live from their school, because
living farther from the school means that the children are also likely to live farther from the open
spaces that were visited during the program. However, the coefficient on distance from the school
was not a significant predictor of map–change. Perhaps surprisingly, unlike children’s environmental
awareness, the changes in their knowledge scores were not correlated with the mean income of their
neighborhoods. These results suggest that “classroom” knowledge is being transferred and assimilat-
ed by the students but that the meaningful application of this knowledge to their home environment
is mediated by neighborhood characteristics.
The analysis of the interview data brings to light some plausible hypotheses that may explain the

SPRING 2005, VOL. 36, NO. 3 43

 12

10

8
Change in Map Score

0
10 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11 11.2
−2

−4

−6
log (Income)

FIGURE 1. Relationship between income and map change.

TABLE 3. Regression Results for Change in Map and Knowledge Test Scores, by
Income, Distance from School, and School

Change in map (n = 49) Change in knowledge (n = 47)

Income, distance, Income, distance,
Income only and school Income only and school
Variable β SE β SE β SE β SE

log(Income) 10.857** 1.854 9.363** 3.039 0.657 1.098 –0.512 1.686

log(Distance) –0.048 0.764 –0.874* 0.423
School 1.114 1.516 –0.111 0.854
R2 .42 .43 .01 .10

* p = .05. ** p = .01.

mechanism behind the observed relationship. Of the 10 children interviewed for this study, 5 resided
in census tracts where the mean annual household income was between $34,258 and $37,506 (U.S.
Census, 2000). The other 5 students resided in census tracts with mean annual household incomes
between $49,000 and $49,074 (U.S. Census). The interview responses from these two groups were
markedly different, particularly their responses to the question, “What don’t you like about your
neighborhood?” For example, in response to this question, the students from the lower income
cohort all focused on negative social aspects of their neighborhoods—violence was a prominent
theme for all 5 students in both interviews. In contrast, only 1 out of the 5 students who resided in
the higher income neighborhoods noted a negative social characteristic (noise). The rest of the stu-
dents from this group focused on negative physical aspects of the neighborhood (bumpy roads, dead
grass, damaged trees, and lack of parking). The difference in responses implies that the lack of change

44 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

 Preprogram Map Postprogram Map

FIGURE 2. A pair of maps drawn by a student who resides in a high-income census

tract. Note that in the postprogram map, the student includes some of the spaces
visited during the program, including a restored vacant lot (bottom) and the park
(middle, left). She also includes the high school track (top right) and her “special
tree.”

Preprogram Map Postprogram Map

FIGURE 3. A pair of maps drawn by a student who resides in a low-income census

tract. Note that there is little change between the pre- and postprogram map. The
second map includes the student’s special tree (on the right side of the house) and
the playground disappears.

SPRING 2005, VOL. 36, NO. 3 45

 in the maps from lower income students may be due to the fact that their neighborhood image is
dominated by the challenges that they face in their social realm. Looking more closely at two cases
provides further insight into this phenomenon.

Case 1
The first example is a student who the classroom teacher noted was highly motivated and inter-
ested in the program. Her maps and interviews, however, indicated that the program did not affect
her environmental awareness. The following are excerpts from her pre- and postprogram interviews:

Preprogram interview:
Q. What do you like best about your neighborhood?
A. The store and the park.
Q. Is that all?
A. Yes.
Q. What don’t you like about your neighborhood?
A. What I don’t like about my neighborhood is because around the corner people is always getting
shot.

Postprogram interview:
Q. Tell me what you like best about living in your neighborhood.
A. The thing that I like best about my neighborhood is the park and the stores.
Q. Is there anything else that you like?
A. No.
Q. Is there anything that you don’t like about your neighborhood?
A. That around the corner from where I live people they do drugs and they kill a lot of people and
they use guns.
Q. Is that still happening now?
A. Yes.

These pre- and postprogram interviews are strikingly similar. The lack of change suggests that the
student’s awareness of the physical form (built or natural environment) within her own neighbor-
hood had not changed as a result of participation in the program. Later in the interview, this student
noted that she was not allowed to walk around on her own and that when she did go to the park, it
was with her older siblings. Her pre- and postprogram maps were also strikingly similar, indicating
little gain in awareness of the biophysical environment.
This finding is particularly surprising, as this student stood out as being very engaged in the pro-
gram. Because of her intense interest, the teacher appointed her to look after the aquarium, which
comprised various critters caught by the class at the pond. Her test score indicated that she was
acquiring “formal knowledge,” increasing from 50% to 80%.

Case 2
The second example is a student who lived in one of the poorest census tracts in the city. She was
unable to identify any positive aspects of her neighborhood in either interview. The things that she
disliked about her neighborhood in the first interview included both social (noise) and physical (“it’s
dirty and trashy”) aspects. In the second interview, she spoke only about negative social phenomena
(noise and “people getting killed and people shooting at each other”). Later in this interview, she

46 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

 Preprogram Map Postprogram Map

FIGURE 4. Pre- and postprogram maps drawn by an East Rock student who resides
in a low-income neighborhood.

revealed that less than a month earlier a family member had been shot and killed in her home. The
student noted, “That’s why I don’t like going outside.”
This student’s pre- and postprogram maps reflected the fear and anxiety that were generated by
this event. Not only was the scope of her second map much smaller, her garden (which was clearly
visible in her first map) was now behind a fence (Figure 4). Although her knowledge test and class-
room behaviors suggested she was engaged in the program, the challenges that she faced in the social
realm shaped her mental image of her place.
In both of the cases, the students noted that their freedom to roam the neighborhood was
restricted—the first by her parents and the second by her own fear. This may provide at least a par-
tial explanation for the limited change in awareness among children from neighborhoods with
lower SES. That is, there is a lack of opportunity to apply and reinforce what they are learning to
the “real world.”

Discussion

The relationship between the SES of the participants’ neighborhoods and their environmental
awareness is quite striking. The results do not, however, provide a meaningful explanation for why
this relationship exists. It is plausible that the average income of the census tract is correlated with
other variables, such as rates of violent crime,4 that would help to clarify this relationship. Another
possibility is that the observed relationship is caused by lack of opportunities for children growing
up in lower income neighborhoods to explore because of parental and personal fears about safety. An
alternative hypothesis that is supported by the qualitative data is that children growing up in neigh-
borhoods where they do not feel safe or secure may have more difficulty applying ecological knowl-
edge to their home environments. Their social realm dominates the “image” of their place. Further
research is needed to truly understand the underlying mechanism.
One strategy that educators may use to promote the meaningful application of “school” knowl-
edge to the students’ home environment can be gleaned from the students’ response to the “special
tree” exercise. Through this exercise, children applied the knowledge and observational skills that
they were learning in the program to a space near their home. The trees consistently appeared on the

SPRING 2005, VOL. 36, NO. 3 47

 Preprogram Map Postprogram Map

FIGURE 5. This student’s preprogram map focuses on his apartment building,

whereas his “special tree” dominates his postprogram map.

children’s second maps (regardless of SES; Table 2). Figure 5 shows an extreme case in which a child’s
special tree dominates his postprogram map. The following is a short excerpt from his first journal
entry (8 weeks prior to drawing the postprogram map) about the tree: “I have a tree in the back of
my house. And it’s taller than my house. Its barks are falling off. 20% yellow leaves and 5% red leaves.
And one long branch look like an arm holding a sword.” Intense and targeted observation caused the
tree to become a part of this child’s cognitive map of his neighborhood. This suggests that making a
conscious effort to have students apply knowledge to their home environment may be an effective
strategy for building local environmental awareness.
The results of this study can be interpreted in light of an ecological model of childhood. That is,
that the best way to understand children is to see them as individual organisms that are functioning
in a complex ecosystem. Their overall “fitness” is a product of the stability of their community (their
parents, teachers, siblings, peers, and neighbors) and their physical environment (access to stimulat-
ing and comfortable spaces). Thus, children who live in neighborhoods where they lack a sense of
security are much less likely to readily apply environmental knowledge and awareness to their neigh-
borhood. It seems that a lack of safety can be a barrier to children’s ability to bond with a place.
Because of fears for personal well-being, students residing in low-income neighborhoods may have
restricted access to their neighborhoods. This means that their opportunities to apply the knowledge
gained from school-based EE programs are fewer than their higher income peers. If children do not
feel secure enough to build an awareness and sensitivity to the world around them, how can they be
expected to feel ownership over that place and a desire to improve it? This is not to suggest that it is
impossible for children who reside in low-income, socially stressed neighborhoods to develop an
awareness and connection to their place (and ultimately be invested in its welfare). Rather, the results
indicate that those interested in building low-income children’s connection to their environment
need to think about the role of the neighborhood in mediating this process.
It may be appropriate to build programs that link safety and security and ecological restoration.
For example, connecting children with people who have experience “taking back their neighbor-

48 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

hoods” through the restoration of vacant lots or abandoned, derelict housing may be a more effec-
tive educational approach.
This research resulted in a number of interesting findings that deserve further research. Some of the
questions that are highlighted by this work include: Would an action/service learning component
increase elementary students’ environmental awareness within their own neighborhood? Is action-
oriented learning more effective in reaching children living in economically depressed neighborhoods
than simply giving them the opportunity to experience nature? Do the neighborhood characteristics
that seem to impede the development of awareness mediate other types of learning? Answering these
questions will provide valuable guidance on the design of more effective curricular materials and will
ultimately allow educators, planners, and policy makers to offer programs that will lay the foundation
for the development of a generation of knowledgeable, engaged, compassionate community stewards.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks William Burch, Stephen Kellert, Raymond Fisman, Frank Levy, Gary Orfield, Colleen Murphy-
Dunning, Martin Rein, J. Mark Shuster, Anne Whiston Spirn, Emily Sprowls, and Todd Zickler for many helpful com-
ments on earlier versions of this article. She is also grateful to the children, teachers, and administrators involved in this
study for their time, energy, and inspiration.

NOTES
1
While recognizing that this structure may introduce a bias to the postprogram data (by that point the children are much
more comfortable with the facilitator/researcher than before the data-collection exercises), it also provided invaluable
insights to the interpretation of the data, which would not have been available with a more “detached” research design.
2
In retrospect, it would have been more effective to do the mapping exercise in smaller groups, as some of the children
failed to hand in their maps or did not have time to describe them. This greatly reduced the sample size, as maps from
these individuals were not included in the analysis.
3
Several other methods were used to triangulate the data, including an analysis of the student’s “nature journals,” obser-
vations made in the field, informal conversations with the classroom teachers, and letters that were written by the students
after completing the program.
4
According to the New Haven Police Department, crime rates by neighborhood are not available for New Haven. This
is unfortunate, as it would have been interesting to look at whether these varied with the mean income.

REFERENCES
Blaut, J. M. (1999). Maps and spaces. Professional Geographer, 51(4), 510–515.
Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1973). Cognitive maps and spatial behavior. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and
environment (pp. 8–26). Chicago: Aldine.
The Global Development Research Declaration. (2002). Tbilisi Declaration. Retrieved May 13, 2005, from http://
www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html
Haluza-Delay, R. (2001). Nothing here to care about: Participant constructions of nature following a 12-day wilderness
program. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 43–48.
Hart, R. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and
environmental care. London: Earthscan.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, R. L. (1990.) Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.
Kitchin, R. M. (1997). Exploring spatial thought. Environment and Behavior, 29(1), 123–140.
Lynch, Kevin. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Retrieved May 13, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/globallocator/
index.asp?search=1&State=CT&city=new+haven&zipcode=&miles=&itemname=&School=1
Sobel, D. (1996). Ecophobia. Great Barrington, MA: The Orian Society.
Sobel, D. (1998). Map making with children. Sense of place education for the elementary years. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Stapp, W. B., Bennet, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., Nowak, P., et al. (1969). The concept of environmental
education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1), 30–31.
Tversky, B., Baurer-Morrison, J., Franklin, N., & Bryant, D. J. (1999). Three spaces of spatial cognition. Professional
Geographer, 51(4), 516–524.
U.S. Census. (2000). Census 2000 summary file 3 (SF 3)—Sample Data. Retrieved May 13, 2005, from http://factfinder.
census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&_program=DEC&_lang=en
Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Envi-
ronmental Education, 32(4), 16–21.

SPRING 2005, VOL. 36, NO. 3 49

 APPENDIX
Sample Questionnaire
Read each sentence carefully and circle the answer that you think is correct.
What used to be on the New Haven Green?
A cemetery A jail A bowling alley
What is a squirrel?
An omnivore A carnivore A herbivore
How are acorns (the seeds of oak trees) dispersed?
The wind carries them They float in water Animals bury them
Which of the following can make their OWN energy from water, sunlight, and oxygen?
Grass Owl Stone
What do trees use to get water from the soil?
Roots Bark Branches
What kind of water is in the oceans?
Fresh water Salt water Tap water
What do we call water that is falling from the sky?
Precipitation Evaporation Run-off
What do fish breathe?
Water Oxygen Carbon dioxide
What are rocks made out of?
One mineral More than one type of mineral Gas
What is the center of the earth called?
The crust The mantle The core

50 THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION