IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i7p1994-d219765.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Population Growth an Environmental Problem? Teachers’ Perceptions and Attitudes towards Including It in Their Teaching

Author

Listed:
  • Iris Alkaher

    (Faculty of Science, Kibbutzim College of Education Technology and the Arts, Tel Aviv 6250769, Israel
    Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel-Hai Academic College, Upper Galilee 1220800, Israel)

  • Nurit Carmi

    (Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel-Hai Academic College, Upper Galilee 1220800, Israel)

Abstract

Population growth (PG) is one of the drivers of the environmental crisis and underlies almost every environmental problem. Despite its causative role in environmental challenges, it has gained little attention from popular media, public and government agenda, or even from environmental organizations. There is a gap between the gravity of the problem and its relative absence from the public discourse that stems, inter alia, from the fact that the very discussion of the subject raises many sensitive, complex and ethical questions. The education system is a key player in filling this gap, and teachers have an opportunity to facilitate the discussion in this important issue. While educators mostly agree to include controversial environmental topics in school curricula, calls for addressing PG remain rare. This study explores teachers’ perspectives of PG as a problem and their attitudes towards including it in their teaching, focusing on environmental and non-environmental teachers. While perceiving PG as an environmental problem and supporting its inclusion in schools was significantly higher among the environmental-teachers, similar concerns were reported by all the teachers concerning engaging students in discourse around this controversial issue. This consensus indicates the limited impact of knowledgeability on teachers’ intentions to address PG in class. Teachers’ challenges reflect the dominant Israeli sociocultural norms, religious values and the national pronatalist ideologies. The findings demonstrate how the absence of PG from the public discourse and from school curricula influences teachers’ motivation to address it in class. This study highlights the necessity to encourage teachers to address PG in their teaching, even in this reality, by providing them with appropriate tools that will enable them to successfully engage students in this controversial issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Iris Alkaher & Nurit Carmi, 2019. "Is Population Growth an Environmental Problem? Teachers’ Perceptions and Attitudes towards Including It in Their Teaching," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1994-:d:219765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1994/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1994/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marian R. Chertow, 2000. "The IPAT Equation and Its Variants," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 4(4), pages 13-29, October.
    2. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    3. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & M. Granger Morgan & H. Keith Florig & Paul S. Fischbeck, 2004. "Ecological Risk Ranking: Development and Evaluation of a Method for Improving Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 363-378, April.
    4. Robert E. O'Connor & Richard J. Bard & Ann Fisher, 1999. "Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 461-471, June.
    5. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    6. Andrzej Kulczycki, 2013. "World Population Policies: Their Origin, Evolution, and Impact," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 67(2), pages 243-246, July.
    7. Paul R. Ehrlich & Anne H. Ehrlich, 2016. "Population, Resources, and the Faith-Based Economy: the Situation in 2016," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-9, August.
    8. Lawrence J Axelrod & Timothy Mcdaniels & Paul Slovic, 1999. "Perceptions of ecological risk from natural hazards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 31-53, January.
    9. Fernandes, Maria F. & Randall, Donna M., 1992. "The Nature of Social Desirability Response Effects in Ethics Research," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 183-205, April.
    10. Schneider, Uwe A. & Havlík, Petr & Schmid, Erwin & Valin, Hugo & Mosnier, Aline & Obersteiner, Michael & Böttcher, Hannes & Skalský, Rastislav & Balkovic, Juraj & Sauer, Timm & Fritz, Steffen, 2011. "Impacts of population growth, economic development, and technical change on global food production and consumption," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 204-215, February.
    11. Timothy McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 575-588, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nurit Carmi & Iris Alkaher, 2019. "Risk Literacy and Environmental Education: Does Exposure to Academic Environmental Education Make a Difference in How Students Perceive Ecological Risks and Evaluate Their Risk Severity?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Muhammad Nawaz & Muhammad Tariq Yousafzai & Tariq Shah & Chunlin Xin & Wisal Ahmad, 2021. "Sustainability of Recycling Waste Picker Sustainopreneurs for Prevention and Mitigation of Municipal Solid Waste in Swat," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Li, Yurog & Cong, Zhenglong & Xie, Yufan & Wang, Yan & Wang, Hongmei, 2022. "The relationship between green finance, economic factors, geopolitical risk and natural resources commodity prices: Evidence from five most natural resources holding countries," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Mercedes Varela-Losada & Pedro Vega-Marcote & María Lorenzo-Rial & Uxío Pérez-Rodríguez, 2021. "The Challenge of Global Environmental Change: Attitudinal Trends in Teachers-In-Training," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Emil Eidin & Yael Shwartz, 2023. "From Ideal to Practical—A Design of Teacher Professional Development on Socioscientific Issues," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-28, July.
    6. Noor Hamwy & Jennifer Bruder & Abdellatif Sellami & Michael H. Romanowski, 2023. "Challenges to Teachers Implementing Sustainable Development Goals Frameworks in Qatar," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-19, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nurit Carmi & Iris Alkaher, 2019. "Risk Literacy and Environmental Education: Does Exposure to Academic Environmental Education Make a Difference in How Students Perceive Ecological Risks and Evaluate Their Risk Severity?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    3. Carla Rodriguez-Sanchez & Francisco J. Sarabia-Sanchez, 2020. "Does Water Context Matter in Water Conservation Decision Behaviour?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    5. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    6. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    7. Myoungsoon You & Youngkee Ju, 2020. "The Outrage Effect of Personal Stake, Familiarity, Effects on Children, and Fairness on Climate Change Risk Perception Moderated by Political Orientation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-14, September.
    8. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    9. Shan Gao & Weimin Li & Shuang Ling & Xin Dou & Xiaozhou Liu, 2019. "An Empirical Study on the Influence Path of Environmental Risk Perception on Behavioral Responses In China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    11. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    12. Ruud Zaalberg & Cees Midden & Anneloes Meijnders & Teddy McCalley, 2009. "Prevention, Adaptation, and Threat Denial: Flooding Experiences in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1759-1778, December.
    13. Bonita L. McFarlane & David O. T. Witson, 2008. "Perceptions of Ecological Risk Associated with Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Infestations in Banff and Kootenay National Parks of Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 203-212, February.
    14. James K. Hammitt & Jonathan B. Wiener & Brendon Swedlow & Denise Kall & Zheng Zhou, 2005. "Precautionary Regulation in Europe and the United States: A Quantitative Comparison," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1215-1228, October.
    15. Petr, Michal & Boerboom, Luc & Ray, Duncan & van der Veen, Anne, 2014. "An uncertainty assessment framework for forest planning adaptation to climate change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Christine Otieno & Hans Spada & Alexander Renkl, 2013. "Effects of News Frames on Perceived Risk, Emotions, and Learning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    17. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    18. Matt Baucum & Richard S. John & William Burns & Kent E. Portney & Jeryl L. Mumpower, 2021. "Modeling affective and cognitive responses to soft-target terrorism over time," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 227-235, June.
    19. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    20. Ahmad Saleh Safi & William James Smith & Zhnongwei Liu, 2012. "Rural Nevada and Climate Change: Vulnerability, Beliefs, and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 1041-1059, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1994-:d:219765. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.