EAP 5 ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Name: Trần Kim Ngân I.D. WSU21000228

Class: EAP5-0222WSU-02
Assignment: (please circle) Res. Report Lit. Review Res. Essay

Assignment Question: (write out in full)

Critically evaluate the roles of governments, organizations, and individuals in dealing with

environmental issues and determine which is the most effective. Refer to specific examples in your

answer?

YouTube/ Google Drive link:

Due date: 12/04/2022. Date submitted: 12/04/2022

x I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged.

x I certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any
other student’s work or from any other source except where due
acknowledgement is made in the assignment.
x I affirm that no part of this assignment/product has been written/produced for
me by any other person except where collaboration has been authorised by the
teacher concerned.
x I am aware that this work may be reproduced and submitted to plagiarism
detection software programs for the purpose of detecting possible plagiarism
(which may retain a copy on its database for future plagiarism checking).

Note: An examiner or teacher has the right to NOT mark this assignment if
the above declaration has not been signed.

Student’s Signature: NGAN Date: 12/04/2022

EXTENSION – To be approved BEFORE original submission date

Supporting evidence sighted: Yes / No Extension approved / Extension not approved

If approved, new submission date ____/____/_____ Teacher’s Signature :___________________

 Environment

Tran Kim Ngan – WSU21000228

EAP5-0222WSB-2

11/04/2022

Ms. Thy Nguyen & Mr.Enzo Smith

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eom, K, Papadakis, V, Sherman, D. K & Kim, H. S 2019. ‘The Psychology of Proenvironmental
Support: In Search of Global Solutions for a Global Problem ’, Current Directions in Psychological
Science, vol.28, no.5, pp.490-495.
 

Voget-Kleschin, L, Baatz, C & Garcia-Portela, L 2019, ‘Introduction to the Special Issue on

Individual Environmental Responsibility’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,

vol.32, no.4, pp. 493–504.

There is little doubt that environmental problems will be one of humanity’s major concerns in the

twenty-first century, and it is becoming clear that human irresponsibility is one of the factors

contributing to these problems such as pollution and destruction. 

Two papers with very different points of view on the subject have a lot in common. Kimin Eom, an

Assistant Professor of Psychology at Singapore Management University, collaborated with

Papadakis et al., who lectures in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the

University of California, Santa Barbara, to write the article ‘The Psychology of Proenvironmental

Support: In Search of Global Solutions for a Global Problem’, to investigate substantial differences

in major pro-environmental support factors. This also shows that in sociocultural environments that

stress personal reasons over social motives, personal environmental attitudes lead to pro-

environmental support more directly. Meanwhile, Voget-Kleschin et al. focus more deeply on how

to respond to these concerns of Individual Environmental Responsibility at the national and

international levels in their essay ‘Introduction to the Special Issue on Individual Environmental

Responsibility ’. In my perspective, both articles provide useful information to help readers have a

better grasp of global environmental challenges.

 
The study given by Eom et al. (2019) aims to demonstrate that numerous sociocultural

characteristics, such as national culture (individualism-collectivism), socioeconomic level, and

religion, are important influencing factors on personal pro-environmental decisions. To begin, they

demonstrate that individualistic and collectivist cultures place a strong emphasis on expressing

one's unique views, attitudes, and feelings through actions, while also encouraging individuals in

collectivist societies to be excellent group members who contribute to communal goals, and the

findings imply that pro-environmental decision-making is more influenced by environmental beliefs

in individualistic societies. Second, they suggest that the relative relevance of personal vs societal

incentives such as support for pro-environmental legislation and donation to an environmental

organization is shaped by the differing levels of resources accessible to high- and low-SES persons.

Finally, they discover that religiosity influences how strongly environmental ideas are held.

Religion can make social reasons more important in selecting positive conduct. In brief, these many

types of culture, despite their vast differences in features, have a comparable impact on how people

prioritize selfish vs societal objectives.

Unlike the aforementioned article, the paper by Voget-Kleschin et al ( 2019 ) named Introduction to

the Special Issue on Individual Environmental Responsibility mentions individual responsibility for

global environmental problems, of which climate change is a paradigm case. The article is divided

into three primary themes by the writers, concerning the link between people and theories or

viewpoints about ethical issues as well as the link between ambient circumstances and

demandingness towards individual responsibility.

Both writings were effective in conveying the importance of the link between environmental issues

and personal responsibility. Eom et al. provide a clear, concise, and easy-to-read abstract that
enables readers to realize what will happen. The most evident weakness is the use of complex

phrases and graphics that would be difficult for the average reader to comprehend. To guarantee

that readers can understand the piece, it should include a brief explanation or remark about the issue

utilizing expert terminology, sophisticated phrases, or statutes. Overall, this article not only

concisely summarizes the major issues but also gives useful references.

The general audience may find Voget‐Kleschin 's article more relevant and valuable to their life

than the first article. They write in an easy-to-understand style that makes it easier for readers to

comprehend their views. As a result, the post would have been more persuasive and easy to follow

if the author had streamlined the content and divided it into discrete headings. Furthermore, the

author did not include a graph or table, making it difficult to visualize the results. Despite these

restrictions, the information offered in the article is reliable, as indicated by the author's use of a

range of other researchers' sources.

To summarize, the purpose of both articles is to highlight environmental and human-related

concerns, and all of the authors have succeeded in doing so. Because it is presented in a

 scientific framework, the first publication by Eom et al. is appropriate for persons who are

interested in many elements of the psychology of pro-environmental support. Readers who care

about the environment might find VogetKleschin's piece more fascinating for an insight

 into individual responsibility. While this paper contains advice for individuals, the writers utilize

technical terms that are difficult to comprehend.