View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Understanding Residents' Environmental Knowledge in a Metropolitan City of Hong Kong, China

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Understanding Residents' Environmental Knowledge in a Metropolitan City of Hong Kong, China
Language: English
Authors: Cheung, Lewis T. O., Fok, Lincoln, Tsang, Eric P. K., Fang, Wei, Tsang, H. Y.
Source: Environmental Education Research. 2015 21(4):507-524.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Environment, Knowledge Level, Surveys, Access to Information, Age Differences, Adolescents, Young Adults, Students, Older Adults, Unemployment, Employment Level, Correlation, Mass Media Effects, Web Sites, Social Networks, Public Opinion, Questionnaires, Misconceptions, Statistical Analysis, Social Problems, Multiple Choice Tests, Pollution, Recycling, Conservation (Environment), Sanitation, Hazardous Materials, Educational Attainment, Gender Differences, Salaries, Income
Geographic Terms: Hong Kong
DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2014.898247
ISSN: 1350-4622
Abstract: This study aimed to understand the environmental knowledge (EK) of the residents of Hong Kong. A territory-wide survey was administered to investigate the subjective and objective EK of the respondents as well as their means of receiving information about the environment. The results indicated that Hong Kong's residents have a comparatively low level of EK, with a mean environmental knowledge score of 3.35 out of 8. The youngster (15-24?years old), students, and employed individuals reported more extensive EK than the older and unemployed respondents, thus suggesting that the younger generation and employed individuals have increased opportunities to receive EK through various channels. A weak positive correlation was identified between subjective and objective EK, thus implying that the residents of Hong Kong could not accurately evaluate their own level of EK. The results indicate that traditional media plays a significant role in disseminating EK. Digital media, such as websites and digital social networks, were also determined to be influencing factors in disseminating environmental messages to the younger generation.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 53
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1057685
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHWn5VVM2JyXcYz5BYBVINnAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPFoUAmzy1ENN-faiAIBEICBm8ldR9Y0R-R0RSQQZC_vcNwHHH1DiFtHd2gjuaxdgoSRBjmxdRdYAeDZUWMK7yEuqNmoDz85_jAnP-ZbEHsr_X6MgDsrod9PfY9JcoR9cqFahyxk5YU8SZ0FF4w-6_Tw3-xV4trqcWfIbYj1uJMfcu7lIMvNcINZ3mUY5h8QHHiEnvM7jvccG-VhuMBkT01dyECW0CRgmMJJVVlL
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0102014318;eed01may.15;2019Feb20.14:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0102014318-1">Understanding residents’ environmental knowledge in a metropolitan city of Hong Kong, China. </title> <p>This study aimed to understand the environmental knowledge (EK) of the residents of Hong Kong. A territory-wide survey was administered to investigate the subjective and objective EK of the respondents as well as their means of receiving information about the environment. The results indicated that Hong Kong's residents have a comparatively low level of EK, with a mean environmental knowledge score of 3.35 out of 8. The youngster (15–24 years old), students, and employed individuals reported more extensive EK than the older and unemployed respondents, thus suggesting that the younger generation and employed individuals have increased opportunities to receive EK through various channels. A weak positive correlation was identified between subjective and objective EK, thus implying that the residents of Hong Kong could not accurately evaluate their own level of EK. The results indicate that traditional media plays a significant role in disseminating EK. Digital media, such as websites and digital social networks, were also determined to be influencing factors in disseminating environmental messages to the younger generation.</p> <p>Keywords: environmental knowledge; environmental information; environmental education; promotion channel; Hong Kong</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-2">Introduction</hd> <p>While there has been increasing concern about the environment in recent decades, environmental issues have become pervasive in our daily lives. Boman and Mattsson ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]) noted that it is vital to take public perceptions regarding environmental problems into consideration when engaging in policy decision-making. A number of environmental issues, including conflicts between urban development and conservation, air pollution, and solid waste problems, have led to overwhelming discussions among Hong Kong's residents and policy-makers. Protesters have frequently demonstrated against further development, appealing to both the government and the developers. The worsening of Hong Kong's air quality has also caused multinational companies to abandon their plans to establish their regional headquarters in Hong Kong. In response, a series of environmental campaigns and the implementation of environmental education in schools have increased opportunities for local residents to explore and enhance their knowledge of the environment.</p> <p>Studies about residents' environmental knowledge (EK) have been conducted in many countries and regions throughout the world (National Environmental Education Foundation [NEEF] [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref2">33</reflink>]; Kaplowitz and Levine [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref3">19</reflink>]; McCright [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref4">31</reflink>]), and these studies have played an important role in evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation of environmental education, while also providing vital data to inform environmental education policies.</p> <p>Knowledge is distilled form of information to which a process has been applied, which may eventually become a skill (Liebowitz [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref5">30</reflink>]). Knowledge is generally referred to as being know-how, having information with judgement or the capacity for effective action. Following these definitions of knowledge, EK may be defined as the familiarity, awareness, and understanding of the biophysical environment and the related environmental issues, along with the methods to achieve a better environment. Kollmuss and Agyeman ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]) suggest that EK is the source from which environmental attitudes are cultivated. Meerah, Halim, and Nadeson ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref7">32</reflink>]) identify EK as the recognition of issues related to the environment combined with a basic understanding of approaches for achieving a sustainable environment. With the increasing public awareness of environmental protection, more studies have been conducted to investigate EK (NEEF [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref8">33</reflink>]; Jensen [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]; Laroche et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref10">25</reflink>]; Frick, Kaiser, and Wilson [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]; Barber, Taylor, and Strick [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]; Kentucky Environmental Education Council [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref13">22</reflink>]; Meerah, Halim, and Nadeson [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref14">32</reflink>]; Abdullah, Halim, and Shahali [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>]; Robelia and Murphy [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref16">44</reflink>]; Tayci and Uysal [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref17">49</reflink>]; Zsóka et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref18">52</reflink>]). Frick, Kaiser, and Wilson ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>]) suggest that people with a high level of EK would be expected to know what should be done to resolve environmental problems and understand the benefits of responsible behaviour as it relates to the environment. In another study, Diamantopoulos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref20">12</reflink>]) indicate that men have a higher level of EK than women. However, Tayci and Uysal ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref21">49</reflink>]) report that while elementary school students in Turkey demonstrate lower levels of EK than adults because of insufficient educational programmes, girls tend to be more knowledgeable about the environment than boys. Zsóka et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref22">52</reflink>]), who conducted a case study of high school and university students in Hungary, suggest that the level of EK is strongly interrelated with the intensity of environmental education. However, except for a study conducted by Chan ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]) that indicates secondary school students have general knowledge about local environmental issues and that the public media plays an essential role in enhancing students' knowledge of the environment, there have been few recent studies conducted in Hong Kong. As most of the surveys were conducted a few decades ago, they may not reflect the current situation as it relates to the residents' knowledge of the environment.</p> <p>Apart from the level of EK, channel for receiving environmental information was a common research area recently. Previous studies suggested that traditional public media, such as television, radio, and newspapers, were the most popular channels to disseminate environmental information (Ostman and Parker [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref24">38</reflink>]; Brothers, Fortner, and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]). These media channels have been regarded as the most effective way to educate the public about the environment (Sampei and Aoyagi-Usui [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref26">46</reflink>]). Others such as Robelia, Greenhow, and Burton ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref27">43</reflink>]) believe that digital media play an essential role in environmental education particularly for younger generations who are more easily reached by this channel than their older counterparts (Ruchter, Klar, and Geiger [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref28">45</reflink>]). It is noteworthy to investigate the preferred means of access environmental information among residents with different demographic profiles.</p> <p>The historical and multicultural backgrounds make Hong Kong a unique and interesting place for this study. Conventional Chinese cultural background, westernised lifestyles, and the commercial nature of Hong Kong play an influential role in cultivating the EK of the residents of Hong Kong. The current empirical territory-wide study investigates the EK of the Hong Kong residents and thus contributes to filling the knowledge gap in the local context, as such information has been missing for the past 15–20 years. Therefore, this study serves several objectives:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) to assess the level of EK of the Hong Kong residents by adopting the framework proposed by the NEEF;</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) to compare residents' subjective recognition of EK with their environmental knowledge scores (EK scores);</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>) to investigate the association between residents' EK and demographic variables; and</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>) to identify the common channel for the dissemination of environmental information and investigate which channels are favourable for local residents.</item> </ulist> <p>The findings of this study are essential for understanding the current EK level of the residents and for assessing the effectiveness of environmental education in Hong Kong, as it has been introduced since the 1990s (Lee [[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref33">26</reflink>]]; Tang [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref34">48</reflink>]). The findings can help relevant government organisations to fine-tune their strategies regarding environmental education. In addition, this study is the first territory-wide study on understanding the EK level of the Hong Kong residents. This acts as an important baseline study on resident's EK which serves as a basis for future comparison and at the same time, fills the existing knowledge gaps on EK study in Hong Kong.</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-3">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0102014318-4">Questionnaire design</hd> <p>The questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part consisted of 10 questions designed to evaluate respondents' EK. The design of the first part of the questionnaire was adapted from the NEEF framework that formulates knowledge questions to examine the prevalence of myths among the US public (Robelia and Murphy [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref35">44</reflink>]). NEEF conducted surveys of EK, attitudes, and behaviours annually from 1997 to 2002, in which a set of EK questions in the form of environmental report card were used to measure the environmental literacy of US citizens. This approach has been widely adopted by many previous studies to investigate citizen's EK all over the United States (NEEF [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref36">33</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref37">34</reflink>]; National Environmental Education Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref38">36</reflink>]; Nebraska Alliance for Conservation & Environmental Education [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref39">37</reflink>]; Kaplowitz and Levine [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref40">19</reflink>]; Kentucky Environmental Education Council [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]; Kentucky Environmental Education Council [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref42">22</reflink>]; Robelia and Murphy [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref43">44</reflink>]). By adopting the NEEF approach in our study, we could make a valid comparison between the EK level of Hong Kong residents and US citizens by applying the same yardstick. The knowledge questions suggested by the NEEF generally covered major environmental issues and problems that fit the local context.</p> <p>The first two questions (K1, K2) adopted a self-reported approach using a four-point scale, in which 4 represents 'a lot' and 1 represents 'practically nothing'. These self-reported questions investigate the respondents' subjective EK. The additional eight knowledge questions (K3–K10) used a knowledge-based approach with multiple answers to test respondents' objective EK, and the option 'don't know' was included. The list of knowledge questions was adapted from Kaplowitz and Levine ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref44">19</reflink>]) study, with adjustments to suit the local context. Kaplowitz and Levine ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref45">19</reflink>]) suggested that using a set of questions has become a generally accepted measure of level of EK in the United States. The design used to assess the subjective and objective EK of the respondents has also been adopted by previous studies (Cole, Gaeth, and Singh [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]; Feick, Park, and Mothersbaugh [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref47">14</reflink>]; Raju, Lonial, and Mangold [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref48">41</reflink>]; Barber, Taylor, and Strick [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref49">4</reflink>]). Questions regarding the means by which the respondents receive environmental information were included in the second part of the questionnaire, while the demographic information of the respondents was collected in the third part, which is used to investigate the association between EK and the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents.</p> <p>A pilot survey was conducted in one of the sampling sites, and the comments from the respondents were considered in the revision of the questionnaire to enhance clarity and avoid ambiguity.</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-5">Sampling method and data analysis</hd> <p>A face-to-face street questionnaire was administered from early December 2012 to the end of January 2013 and targeted local residents older than 15 years of age. To enhance the representativeness of the survey data, a proportional stratified sampling approach was adopted based on four age groups in proportion to the age distribution recorded in the 2011 government census (Census & Statistics Department [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref50">7</reflink>]). The survey was administered in different regions of the territory, and 30 sample sites were selected in the five geographical constituencies of the legislative council election of 2012 (Figure 1) (Electoral Affair Commission [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref51">13</reflink>]). In each sampling region, public and private housing estates and two shopping malls were identified to reach respondents of different socio-economic backgrounds, a factor of great importance to the representativeness of the survey. Five undergraduate students were trained as student helpers to conduct the face-to-face surveys. A systematic approach was adopted by the interviewers whereby they selected one out of every 10 persons passing by the designated sampling sites, all of which had relatively high pedestrian flow. It took between 5 and 10 min to complete the questionnaire by the respondents. The student helpers would offer assistance to them if necessary. All respondents who completed the questionnaire were given a supermarket coupon as a token of appreciation.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Sampling sites of the questionnaire surveys in the five geographical constituencies of the legislative council election of 2012.Source: Electoral Affair Commission ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref52">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>The survey data were analysed using SPSS 19 (IBM [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref53">17</reflink>]), and the non-parametric correlation test was adopted to explore the association between self-reported EK, EK scores, and respondents' socio-economic variables. EK scores were indicated by the total number of correct responses. Each correct response yielded one mark, and no mark was awarded for wrong answers or for 'don't know' responses.</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-6">Results and discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0102014318-7">Response rate and respondents' socio-economic profiles</hd> <p>A total of 1028 completed questionnaires were collected through face-to-face interviews, for a response rate of approximately 18%. Although the response rate was comparatively low, previous studies suggested that survey with lower response rates could still yield accurate measurements (Visser et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref54">50</reflink>]; Keeter et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>The respondents' socio-economic characteristics are summarised in Table 1. The characteristics resembled those collected by the government census (Census & Statistics Department [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>]). The number of female respondents was slightly higher than the number of male respondents. The greatest percentage of respondents, 36.3% (<reflink idref="bib373" id="ref57">373</reflink>), were 25–44 years of age, and the second largest group, with 33.8% (<reflink idref="bib347" id="ref58">347</reflink>), were 45–64 years of age. The results of Chi-square test indicated that the distribution of age group of our sample showed no difference from the 2011 census data at the 0.05 significance level.</p> <p>Table 1. Respondents' demographic characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td> </td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>%</td><td /><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Gender</italic></td><td /><td /><td><italic>Occupation</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Male</td><td char=".">477</td><td char=".">46.4</td><td>Agriculture, forestry, and fishery </td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">0.3</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td char=".">551</td><td char=".">53.6</td><td>Manufacturing </td><td char=".">39</td><td char=".">3.8</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /><td>Electricity, gas, and water </td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">0.8</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Age</italic></td><td /><td /><td>Construction</td><td char=".">45</td><td char=".">4.4</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>15–24</td><td char=".">153</td><td char=".">14.9</td><td>Wholesale, retail, and import/export trades </td><td char=".">45</td><td char=".">4.4</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>25–44</td><td char=".">373</td><td char=".">36.3</td><td>Logistics: transport, storage</td><td char=".">27</td><td char=".">2.6</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>45–64</td><td char=".">347</td><td char=".">33.8</td><td>Restaurants and hotels (accommodation and food service activities) </td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">3.1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>65+</td><td char=".">155</td><td char=".">15.1</td><td>Communications and information</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">2.3</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /><td>Financing, insurance, real estate, and business services</td><td char=".">114</td><td char=".">11.1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Education background</italic></td><td /><td /><td>Education/teaching</td><td char=".">65</td><td char=".">6.3</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Primary school </td><td char=".">161</td><td char=".">15.7</td><td>Community, social, and personal services</td><td char=".">60</td><td char=".">5.8</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Secondary school</td><td char=".">486</td><td char=".">47.3</td><td>Retired</td><td char=".">205</td><td char=".">19.9</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Post-secondary education </td><td char=".">153</td><td char=".">14.9</td><td>Student</td><td char=".">120</td><td char=".">11.7</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Undergraduate </td><td char=".">175</td><td char=".">17</td><td>Housewife</td><td char=".">164</td><td char=".">16</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Postgraduate or above </td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">3.1</td><td>Other</td><td char=".">77</td><td char=".">7.5</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>N/A </td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">2</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Monthly salary</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Under $9000 </td><td char=".">157</td><td char=".">15.3</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>$9001–12,800</td><td char=".">122</td><td char=".">11.9</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>$12,801–20,000</td><td char=".">125</td><td char=".">12.2</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>$20,001–40,000</td><td char=".">110</td><td char=".">10.7</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Over $40,001 </td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">3.1</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>No Income</td><td char=".">482</td><td char=".">46.9</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td> </td><td char="."> </td><td char="."> </td><td>Total </td><td char=".">1028</td><td char=".">100</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Over 47% of the respondents had a secondary education, which was the largest category in terms of educational level, while 14.9 and 17% had post-secondary education and undergraduate education, respectively. Less than 18% had a primary education or below. In addition, 157 respondents (15.3%) reported that they had an income less than HK$9000, while approximately half of the respondents (46.9%) reported they had no income. In terms of occupation, 19.9% were retired, and 16% were housewives. Additionally, 11.1% were engaged in financial and business industries, and over 12% were teachers or worked in community, social, or personal services. Although the percentage of the no earned income group (retired and unemployed) of our study (46.9%) was slightly higher than the 2011 governmental census data (40.3%), the overall distribution of our sample displayed similarity with the census data (Census & Statistics Department [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref59">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-8">Self-reported environmental knowledge</hd> <p>Two questions were listed in the questionnaire to assess the respondents' self-reported environmental knowledge (SREK). Respondents were asked to indicate how much they knew about environmental issues and to assess how much their understanding of environmental issues has improved compared to 10 years ago in Questions 1 (K1) and 2 (K2), respectively (Table 2). Of the respondents, 75% claimed that they know 'a fair amount' about environmental issues, while 13.4% and 10.1% indicated that they know 'only a little' and 'a lot', respectively, about environmental issues. Only a very small percentage (1.5%) of the respondents claimed that they know 'practically nothing' about environmental issues. The mean SREK was 2.06 on a four-point scale, thus suggesting that respondents believed that their level of EK was slightly better than 'only a little'. The survey results appear to suggest that the residents were fairly realistic about their level of EK.</p> <p>Table 2. Respondents' SREK.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td /><td>A lot</td><td>A fair amount</td><td>Only a little</td><td>Practically nothing</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>%</td><td>%</td><td>%</td><td>%</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>K1. In general, how much do you think you know about environment issues and problems?</td><td char=".">10.1</td><td char=".">75</td><td char=".">13.4</td><td char=".">1.5</td><td char=".">2.06</td><td char=".">0.539</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>K2. Compared to 10 years ago, how much do you think you know about environment issues and problems?</td><td char=".">33.4</td><td char=".">37</td><td char=".">26.1</td><td char=".">3.6</td><td char=".">2.00</td><td char=".">0.86</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Over half of the respondents (70.4%) indicated that they know 'a lot more' (33.4%) or 'a fair amount' (37.0%) about environmental issues compared with 10 years ago. Approximately, one-fourth (26.1%) of the respondents claimed that they know 'a little more', and 3.6% indicated that they know 'practically nothing'. Generally, respondents believe that they are more knowledgeable about environmental issues than they were 10 years ago. The increasing conflict between development and environmental conservation in recent years could be one of the factors contributing to the increase in people's concerns about that environment. Extensive media coverage on these environmental problems increases people's opportunities to receive information on environmental issues. Therefore, the respondents may believe that they have acquired sufficient EK, a belief that affects their self-evaluation of their knowledge level. Spearman correlation tests have been performed to investigate the association between SREK (K1) and socio-economic variables. However, no significant correlations were observed except with respect to educational background, where a very weak positive correlation (<emph>τ </emph>= 0.11, <emph>p </emph>< 0.01) with SREK (K1) was noted. This suggests that the respondents in Hong Kong believe that they possess a certain level of EK and that belief is prevalent across various socio-economic subgroups.</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-9">Respondents' environmental knowledge score</hd> <p>Eight knowledge-based multiple-choice questions (Table 3) were included in the questionnaire to assess the EK of the respondents. These questions were divided into various aspects of environmental issues, namely waste management (K4, K6, K7, and K9), air pollution (K8), energy consumption (K5), global environmental issues (K10), and local environmental issues (K3). The name of the primary governmental agency whose job it is to protect the environment in Hong Kong (K3) was the question that received the greatest number of correct responses, as over 72% of the respondents responded correctly to this question, indicating that the public recognises the governmental organisation that is responsible for environmental protection. In general, the respondents were more knowledgeable about global issues (K10) with 46.1% responding correctly, followed by energy consumption (K5) (38.4%), and waste management (K4, K6, K7, and K9) (36%). However, the respondents demonstrated a relative lack of knowledge regarding air pollution (K8) as less than 23% responded correctly. Many promotional campaigns organised by green NGOs in recent years play a vital role in promoting global environmental issues. A high frequency of environmental-related programmes on television and other means of promotions in public transportation venues enhanced residents' knowledge of the global environmental issues (Radio Television Hong Kong [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]). The respondents' knowledge about air pollution was limited, indicating that the majority of people may not deeply understand some of the more severe environmental problems because they have only minimal knowledge about a common environmental issue (air pollution) in Hong Kong.</p> <p>Table 3. Respondents' responses on questions of environmental issues.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Questions</td><td>Correct (%)</td><td>Incorrect (%)</td><td>Don't know (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>K3. What is the name of the primary governmental agency that works to protect the environment in Hong Kong?</td><td char=".">72.8</td><td char=".">21.7</td><td char=".">5.5</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>K4. Which of the following items cannot be recycled?</td><td char=".">30.5</td><td char=".">61.3</td><td char=".">8.2</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>K5. Which of the following sectors is the largest electricity consumer in Hong Kong?</td><td char=".">38.4</td><td char=".">59</td><td char=".">2.6</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>K6. The landfills in Hong Kong are swiftly saturating. Which of the following is the most significant municipal solid waste? </td><td char=".">40.7</td><td char=".">53.3</td><td char=".">6.1</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>K7. Which of the following household wastes are considered a hazardous waste?</td><td char=".">37.5</td><td char=".">57.7</td><td char=".">4.8</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>K8. Which of the following is the main source of air pollution in Hong Kong?</td><td char=".">22.7</td><td char=".">63.9</td><td char=".">13.4</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>K9. Which of the following is not a waste reduction programme implemented by the Hong Kong government?</td><td char=".">35.2</td><td char=".">50.1</td><td char=".">14.7</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>K10. Ozone forms a protective layer in the Earth's upper atmosphere. What does ozone protect us from?</td><td char=".">46.1</td><td char=".">35.3</td><td char=".">18.6</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Notes: The results are based on all responses (<emph>n </emph>= 1028).</p> <p>2 All eight questions passed the chi-squared goodness-of-fit test with equal expected frequencies (25% for each choice). This illustrates that the frequency of responses of these multiple-choice questions did not arise by chance.</p> <p>The EK score was defined as the number of correct responses to the eight knowledge-based questions. EK score was used to represent the respondents' real knowledge about the environment (Table 4). Regarding to the level of EK of the Hong Kong residents, we adopted the grading scale utilised by National Environmental Education Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>]) with slight modifications. The respondents' EK level were categorised into five grades. The score of greater than 85% (seven or more questions answered correctly), 70% (six questions answered correctly), and 55% (five questions answered correctly) were categorised into grades A, B, and C, respectively, and as passing scores. For the scores below 54% (four questions answered correctly) and 40% (three or fewer questions answered correctly) were categorised into grades D and F as inadequate levels of EK (Table 4). The EK score was used to access the level of EK of the local residents according the grading scale stated above.</p> <p>Table 4. Respondents' correct responses to questions of environmental issues (K3–K10).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>No. of correct answer</td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>%</td><td>Grade</td><td>Pass/fail</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>0</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">3.1</td><td>F</td><td>Fail</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>1</td><td char=".">103</td><td char=".">10</td><td>F</td><td>Fail</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>2</td><td char=".">207</td><td char=".">20.1</td><td>F</td><td>Fail</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>3</td><td char=".">274</td><td char=".">26.7</td><td>F</td><td>Fail</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>4</td><td char=".">192</td><td char=".">18.7</td><td>D</td><td>Fail</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>5</td><td char=".">128</td><td char=".">12.5</td><td>C</td><td>Pass</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>6</td><td char=".">57</td><td char=".">5.5</td><td>B</td><td>Pass</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>7</td><td char=".">29</td><td char=".">2.8</td><td>A</td><td>Pass</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>8</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">0.6</td><td>A</td><td>Pass</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Mean</td><td>3.25</td><td /><td>Fail</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Std. deviation</td><td>1.61</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Most respondents (78.6%) scored 4 or below (out of 8), suggesting that their level of EK was inadequate, while only 35 (3.4%) and 57 (5.5%) scored 7 or above and 6, respectively (Table 4). The overall mean of the EK score was 3.25, which fell into the category of 'F', thus indicating respondents' level of EK was inadequate and far from the passing score. The passing rate of the Hong Kong residents was only 21.4% which was a lot lower than the US citizens (32%) (National Environmental Education Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref62">36</reflink>]). This finding reflected that Hong Kong residents' EK is less competitive than other people in the developed countries despite the fact that Hong Kong has implemented environmental education since the 1990s and actively promote environmental education through different governmental and non-governmental organisation in the past 30 years. However, we could not conclude that the previous effort on promoting environmental education was not successful as no previous studies have ever been carried out to obtain baseline data for comparison.</p> <p>Spearman correlation test was employed to test the association between the SREK and the EK score (Table 5). A very weak correlation (<emph>r </emph>= 0.066, <emph>p </emph>< 0.05) was reported, indicating that SREK and EK score were not related. Among different socio-economic subgroups, a very weak positive correlation between SREK and EK score was only observed for male respondents (<emph>τ </emph>= 0.168, <emph>p </emph>< 0.01) and respondents between 15 and 24 years of age (<emph>r = </emph>0.196, <emph>p </emph>< 0.05). This finding was generally supported by previous studies that found positive correlations between subjective and objective knowledge (Cole, Gaeth, and Singh [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref63">11</reflink>]; Feick, Park, and Mothersbaugh [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref64">14</reflink>]; Raju, Lonial, and Mangold [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref65">41</reflink>]). However, the negligible correlation between subjective and objective knowledge reported in our study implies that the respondents' SREK score does not truly reflect their level of EK.</p> <p>Table 5. Correlation between SREK and EK Score.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td> </td><td>Self-assessed knowledge levels in relation to environmental issues and problems (K1)</td><td>Self-assessed knowledge levels in relation to environmental issues and problems compared to 10 years ago (K2)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>Environmental knowledge score (EK score)</td><td char=".">0.066<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0001">*</xref></td><td char=".">0.066<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="TFN0001">*</xref></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Statistically significant at the 0.05 level.</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-10">Association between EK scores and respondents' socio-economic characteristics</hd> <p>The association between EK scores and the respondents' socio-economic variables has been explored. The test results report that EK scores are significantly correlated with respondents' socio-economic variables (Table 6). EK scores indicate significant differences within age groups, among educational levels, sex, occupations, and monthly salaries. A significant negative correlation was noted between EK scores and age, suggesting that EK scores decrease with increasing age. The mean EK score of the respondents aged 15–24 was 3.98, which was significantly higher than those aged 65 and above, whose mean score was 2.59. Of the respondents who scored 0 points, 8.4% are 65 years of age or older, while a significant number of respondents in the age group of 25–44 scored 7 points (4.3%). Younger respondents, those between 15 and 24, performed better on question K3 and K10 with 70% responding correctly. In contrast, only 25.8% of the respondents aged 65 or above correctly answered these questions. The younger respondents (aged 15–24) performed the worst on K7 with only 26.1% responding correctly despite the fact that the government and NGOs have been advocating better waste management in Hong Kong, and a number of initiatives have been carried out to mitigate the problem in recent years. However, approximately 43.1% of the younger respondents correctly identified the non-recyclable items (K4), which was proportionally higher than other age groups.</p> <p>Table 6. Association between respondents' EK score and socio-economic variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Socio-economic variables</td><td>Environmental knowledge score</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Gender H</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">**</xref><italic>, τ = –</italic>0.089<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">**</xref></td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Male</td><td char=".">477</td><td char=".">3.41</td><td char=".">1.65</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Female</td><td char=".">551</td><td char=".">3.11</td><td char=".">1.57</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Age H</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0006">***</xref><italic>, τ = −</italic>0.23<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">**</xref></td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>15–24</td><td char=".">153</td><td char=".">3.98</td><td char=".">1.62</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>25–44 </td><td char=".">373</td><td char=".">3.39</td><td char=".">1.66</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>45–64 </td><td char=".">347</td><td char=".">3.07</td><td char=".">1.51</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>65+</td><td char=".">155</td><td char=".">2.59</td><td char=".">1.38</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Education background H</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0006">***</xref><italic>, τ =</italic> 0.327<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">**</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>None</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">1.86</td><td char=".">1.42</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Primary school</td><td char=".">161</td><td char=".">2.47</td><td char=".">1.34</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Secondary school</td><td char=".">486</td><td char=".">3.11</td><td char=".">1.49</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Post-secondary education</td><td char=".">153</td><td char=".">3.62</td><td char=".">1.55</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Undergraduate</td><td char=".">175</td><td char=".">4.04</td><td char=".">1.73</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Postgraduate or above</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">4.09</td><td char=".">1.61</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Occupation H</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0006">***</xref><italic>, τ = –</italic>0.067<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">**</xref></td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Employed</td><td char=".">539</td><td char=".">3.38</td><td char=".">1.66</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Retired</td><td char=".">205</td><td char=".">2.79</td><td char=".">1.45</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Students</td><td char=".">120</td><td char=".">4.07</td><td char=".">1.62</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Housewives</td><td char=".">164</td><td char=".">2.81</td><td char=".">1.31</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Monthly salary H</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0006">***</xref><italic>, τ =</italic> 0.123<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">**</xref></td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>N/A</td><td char=".">482</td><td char=".">3.07</td><td char=".">1.53</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Below $9000</td><td char=".">157</td><td char=".">3.23</td><td char=".">1.74</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>$9001–12,800</td><td char=".">122</td><td char=".">3.12</td><td char=".">1.54</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>$12,801–20,000</td><td char=".">125</td><td char=".">3.66</td><td char=".">1.72</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>$20,001–40,000</td><td char=".">110</td><td char=".">3.64</td><td char=".">1.58</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Above $40,001</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">3.5</td><td char=".">1.7</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 Notes: The results are based on all responses (<emph>n</emph> = 1028). H, Kruskal–Wallis test statistic; τ, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.</item> <item>4 Statistically significant at the 0.05 level.</item> <item>5 Statistically significant at the 0.01 level.</item> <item>6 Statistically significant at the 0.001 level.</item> </ulist> <p>The discrepancy in the knowledge levels between younger and older respondents may be because younger respondents have more access to environmental information through school and mass media (Brothers, Fortner, and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>]; Lee [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref67">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref68">27</reflink>]; Tang [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref69">48</reflink>]; Cheung [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref70">9</reflink>]). Furthermore, younger people have generally had more opportunities to receive environmental-related information through informal and formal education in schools (Cheung [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref71">9</reflink>]; Cheung and Fok [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref72">10</reflink>]). In addition, many environmental campaigns and programmes have recently been implemented and promoted by NGOs through digital media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Weibo, all of which have heavily been used as channels to promote environmental issues. Such promotional approaches may have significantly enhanced the awareness and EK of the younger generations in particular. The popular forms of digital media have been effective in disseminating environmental information to youth and hopefully serve to increase their knowledge on environmental issues.</p> <p>The mean EK scores were found to be very similar between sex. However, the subgroups were significantly different according to the Kruskal–Wallis test (<emph>p </emph>< 0.01). Male respondents scored higher than female respondents, thus implying the males are more knowledgeable than the females with respect to EK (Chan [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref73">8</reflink>]). Many previous studies confirmed this result indicating that men are more environmentally knowledgeable than women (Arcury, Scollay, and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>]; Hayes [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref75">16</reflink>]; McCright [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref76">31</reflink>]). However, McCright ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref77">31</reflink>]) reported that women underestimate their knowledge of climate change more so than men do.</p> <p>Both education background (<emph>r </emph>= 0.33, <emph>p </emph>< 0.01) and monthly salary (<emph>r </emph>= 0.12, <emph>p </emph>< 0.01) of the respondents demonstrated significant positive correlations with EK scores. The mean EK score of respondents with a postgraduate education or above was 4.09 (grade D), which was significantly higher than those without formal education (mean = 1.86). The majority of the respondents (82%) who scored 3 or below had received education only up to primary school, and 63.8% of those respondents had only a secondary level of education. Of the respondents who scored 8 points, 50% had received undergraduate education. However, the mean EK score of all undergraduate respondents was a mere 4.04 (grade D), which is significantly lower than their counterparts in the US (Kaplowitz and Levine [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref78">19</reflink>]). In general, those respondents with a higher level of education tended to obtain higher scores. The positive correlation between knowledge and educational level is to be expected, as people with better educational backgrounds generally have more opportunities to obtain environmental information, and they also have a better capacity to absorb EK (Sangpikul and Batra [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref79">47</reflink>]; Cheung [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref80">9</reflink>]). This is supported by a study conducted in selected East Asian countries (Kim and Kim [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref81">23</reflink>]) that reported a significant difference in environmental concern among respondents with different educational backgrounds. The study by Zsóka et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref82">52</reflink>]) similarly suggested that university students possess a significantly higher level of EK than do high school students. This finding is also indicative of the importance of education in relation to enhancing the EK of Hong Kong's residents.</p> <p>With respect to occupation, the majority of the respondents who scored 3 or above were from four occupation categories. Among students, 80.8% had scores of 3 or more with the highest mean EK score of 4.07 (grade D). The other occupation groups having such scores were the employed (69.4%), housewives (59.6%), and retired people (57.1%). The mean and median EK scores for students were found to be significantly higher than those of the other occupation groups. The results were supported by the Kruskal–Wallis test (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), indicating they were very knowledgeable on general and local environmental issues (Chan [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>]). Formal and informal education in schools can play an important role in the EK score of students (Cheung and Fok [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref84">10</reflink>]). On the contrary, as the unemployed respondents generally had fewer opportunities to receive such information, they had lower EK scores.</p> <p>Respondents in the higher income group (above HK$12,801) had higher mean EK scores than those in the lower income group (below HK$12,800). Respondents without earned income had the lowest mean EK score (3.07), and those with monthly salaries between HK$12,801 to 20,000, HK$20,001 to 40,000, and above HK$40,000 had mean EK scores of 3.66, 3.64, and 3.50, respectively. Although monthly salary suggests a significant positive correlation with EK scores, the relation is weak compared with educational background. The lower middle income group (HK$12,801 to 20,000) scored the highest, and the scores slightly decreased with increases in income, thus implying that monthly income exerted a relatively weak influence on EK scores.</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-11">Channels for assessing environmental information</hd> <p>The majority of the respondents claimed that they obtained environmental information from television (75.9%) and newspapers (72.8%) (Figure 1). These results are supported by previous studies (Ostman and Parker [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref85">38</reflink>]; Brothers, Fortner, and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref86">6</reflink>]). The studies of Ostman and Parker ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref87">38</reflink>]) and Brothers, Fortner, and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref88">6</reflink>]), conducted over 20 years ago, reported the same result that television and newspapers were the most popular and effective ways to inform the public about the environment (Sampei and Aoyagi-Usui [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref89">46</reflink>]). Approximately, half of the respondents claimed that they obtained environmental information from school (formal education) (44.6%), while radio (57.1%), books (42.7%), social networks such as Facebook (45.1%), and family or friends (54.9%) are also popular sources of environmental information. The less used channels for obtaining information include activities organised by schools (learning experiences outside the classroom) (34.6%), outside-school training courses (11.1%), public/private sector programmes (23.4%), government programmes (24.0%), and conservation groups (33.9%).</p> <p>The results indicate that the top five popular channels most often used by respondents to access environmental information were television (75.9%), newspapers/magazines (72.8%), radio (57.1%), family and friends (54.9%), and Internet webpage/forum/Facebook (45.1%). The results also indicate the importance of the media as a common way for Hong Kong residents to access information about environmental issues. As public media such as television, newspapers, and magazines have always been the most popular sources of environmental information, these channels are the most effective way to disseminate environmental information and to eventually enhance residents' knowledge of environmental issues.</p> <p>Demographic characteristics indicated differences in the preferred means to access environmental information (Figures 2 and 3). For example, a significantly larger proportion of female respondents accessed information through schools (formal and outside-classroom activities) and from family and friends compared to their male counterparts. In terms of age groups, younger respondents obtained environmental information from school, television, newspapers, and Internet sites such as Facebook (Figure 3), while the 25–44 age group preferred television, newspapers, and family or friends as their primary sources of environmental information. Similarly, older respondents (45 and above) indicated a preference for newspapers, television, family, and friends but also included radio as major source of information. Less than 32 and 6% of the respondents aged 45–54 and over 65 received environmental information through the Internet, respectively, compared with more than 67% of the younger generation aged 15–24. In contrast, over 60% of the older respondents (aged 45 and above) obtained environmental information by way of radio, thus indicating a significant difference between the two age groups as less than 40% of the 15–24 age group received environmental information from radio (Ruchter, Klar, and Geiger [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref90">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Channels for assessing environmental information.Note: The results are based on all responses (n = 1028).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Channels for assessing environmental information by different age groups.Notes: Chi-square test: df = 5, Statistically significant at the 0.05 level (*); 0.01 level (**) and 0.001 level (***).</p> <p>The above results suggest that traditional public media plays an important role in the dissemination of environmental information and that television, newspapers, and magazines are the most popular means for promoting environmental messages (Ostman and Parker [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref91">38</reflink>]; Brothers, Fortner, and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref92">6</reflink>]; Lee [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref93">28</reflink>]). However, digital media have been found to be important in information dissemination in particular for younger people (Westerman, Spence, and Van Der Heide [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref94">51</reflink>]) and Petrovic et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref95">39</reflink>]) reported that significant improvement of students' environmental awareness was noted by using Facebook as a teaching tool for environmental education. Moreover, Robelia, Greenhow, and Burton ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref96">43</reflink>]) demonstrate that digital media play an essential role in disseminating messages to younger generations and may possibly play an influencing role in the future of environmental education as most of the digital media are free of charge and comparatively effective in reaching their target audiences (Ruchter, Klar, and Geiger [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref97">45</reflink>]; Zyadin et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref98">53</reflink>]). Lee ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref99">28</reflink>]) suggests that television could also be an effective media channel for reaching Hong Kong adolescents and for promoting environmental behaviours. However, to date, these channels have been largely underused in the delivery of environmental-related messages (Lee [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref100">28</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-12">Conclusion</hd> <p>The EK of the general public is an important research area as the findings are useful for evaluating the effectiveness of environmental education in Hong Kong and for improving environmental education strategies to enhance EK and to nourish positive environmental attitudes among the Hong Kong residents. This study, which is based on a territory-wide survey, found that the level of EK of the typical Hong Kong residents was inadequate as the mean EK score was 3.35 out of 8. In general, younger residents demonstrated a higher level of EK than their older counterparts, particularly those students who had the highest EK scores, thus suggesting that they may receive or explore issues related to the environment through their formal and informal school education. Students and employed residents demonstrated more EK than unemployed residents (unemployed and housewives), and traditional media, such as television and newspapers, were identified as the popular channels for receiving environmental information. In addition, digital media played an essential role in promoting environmental information to the younger generations. The current study highlighted the EK level among different groups of Hong Kong's residents, thereby providing important baseline information for the government to evaluate the effectiveness of environmental education programmes as previous studies have clearly indicated the significant relationship between environmental-related education and EK (Leeming et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref101">29</reflink>]; Rickinson [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref102">42</reflink>]; Ballantyne, Packer, and Everett [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref103">3</reflink>]; Cheung and Fok [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref104">10</reflink>]). These findings also identified the effective channels for the dissemination of environmental information as references for relevant organisations. Based on the results of this study, green NGOs and the government could identify a cost-effective means to disseminate environmental messages to their target audiences. For example, the use of Internet media should be considered as a means to reach the younger generation.</p> <p>Several limitations may need to be addressed in future studies. First, the survey sampling method could be further optimised to enhance the validity of the results. For example, as the street survey was conducted during the daytime and usually during working hours, people who worked in offices were more likely to be excluded. Therefore, as the surveys may not have reached a considerable number of working individuals, this may affect the validity of the results. Other approaches of questionnaire survey (such as door-to-door survey or by mail) could be considered in future to eliminate the biased sample and yield a more representative sample. Second, the provision of an economic incentive for those who completed the street surveys may have increased the number of respondents who were members of the retired or unemployed categories, as these people may have been more motivated by such incentives. In term of questionnaire design, some questions in relation to climate change and relevant local issues could be included to investigate the EK of the local residents.</p> <p>This territory-wide study of public EK in Hong Kong is essential to fill the extensive knowledge gap as the survey provides vital baseline information for future comparisons. Further longitudinal studies should be conducted regularly to investigate the tendencies and the growth of the Hong Kong residents with respect to their EK. Understanding these tendencies will provide crucial insight from which relevant organisations can assess the effectiveness of their environmental education campaigns. The insights these organisations gain may allow them to make appropriate adjustments to their strategies regarding environmental education in Hong Kong. Further research on the effectiveness of digital media on children's EK and attitudes is also worthwhile as is additional research to identify a cost-effective channel for environmental education. Most importantly, however, is the need for further research to determine the role of digital media in promoting environmental education among the younger generation.</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-13">Notes on contributors</hd> <p>Lewis T.O. Cheung is a lecturer in the Geography Department of the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include ecotourism, environmental education, motivations, and environmental attitude of nature-based tourists.</p> <p>Lincoln Fok is a lecturer in the Department of Science and Environmental Studies in the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Trained as a hydrologist, he is interested in environmental studies and in recent years, his research focus has diversified into environmental education.</p> <p>Eric P.K. Tsang is an environmental scientist by training, specialising in feasibility studies and environmental impact assessment studies. He is also an active environmentalist in Hong Kong serving multiple roles including the chairman of Green Power (HK) and associate director of the UNESCO UNEVOC HK.</p> <p>Wei Fang is a research assistant in the Department of Geography of the University of Hong Kong. She has involved in several research projects in relation to sustainable tourism, environmental education, and tourist perception.</p> <p>H.Y. Tsang is a pre-service teacher who is now working in the Hong Kong Institute of Education as research assistant.</p> <hd id="AN0102014318-14">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This study was funded by the Environmental Campaign Committee of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). The authors would like to thank the three anonymous referees for their fruitful comments on previous version of the paper.</p> <ref id="AN0102014318-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref15" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abdullah, S. I. S. S., L. Halim, and E. H. M. Shahali. 2011. "Integration of Environmental Knowledge Across Biology, Physics and Chemistry Subject at Secondary School Level in Malaysia." Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 15: 1024–1028.10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref30" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arcury, T. A., S. Scollay, and T. P. Johnson. 1987. "Sex Differences in Environmental Concern and Knowledge: The Case of Acid Rain." Sex Roles 16 (9–10): 463–472.10.1007/BF00292481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref31" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ballantyne, R., J. Packer, and M. Everett. 2005. "Measuring Environmental Education Program Impacts and Learning in the Field: Using an Action Research Cycle to Develop a Tool for Use with Young Students." Australian Journal of Environmental Education 21: 23–37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barber, N., D. C. Taylor, and S. Strick. 2009. "Wine Consumers' Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes: Influence on Willingness to Purchase." International Journal of Wine Research 1: 59–72.10.2147/IJWR</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boman, M., and L. Mattsson. 2008. "A Note on Attitudes and Knowledge Concerning Environmental Issues in Sweden." Journal of Environmental Management 30 (3): 17–21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brothers, C. C., R. W. Fortner, and V. J. Mayer. 1991. "The Impact of Television News on Public Environmental Knowledge." The Journal of Environmental Education 22 (4): 22–29.10.1080/00958964.1991.9943058</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref50" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Census & Statistics Department. 2012. 2011 Population Census. Hong Kong: HKSAR Government.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref23" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chan, K. W. 1998. "Mass Media and Environmental Knowledge of Secondary School Students in Hong Kong." The Environmentalist 19 (2): 85–97.10.1023/A:1006636832732</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref70" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cheung, T. O. 2010. "Understanding Ecotourist Perception of Ecotourism Services and Development in Hong Kong." PhD Thesis, University of Hong Kong.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, L. T. O., and L. Fok. 2013. "Assessing the Role of Ecotourism Training in Changing Participants' pro-environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours." Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. doi:10.1080/10941665.2013.797003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cole, C. A., G. Gaeth, and S. N. Singh. 1986. "Measuring Prior Knowledge." Advances in Consumer Research 13 (1): 64–66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamantopoulos, A., B. B. Schlegelmilch, R. R. Sinkovics, and G. M. Bohlen. 2003. "Can Socio-Demographics Still Play a Role in Profiling Green Consumers? A Review of the Evidence and an Empirical Investigation." Journal of Business Research 56 (2): 465–480.10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Electoral Affair Commission. 2012. Report on the Recommended Delineation of Geographical Constituencies for the 2012 Legislative Council Election. <ulink href="http://www.eac.gov.hk/en/legco/2012lc%5fboundaries%5frp2.htm">http://www.eac.gov.hk/en/legco/2012lc%5fboundaries%5frp2.htm</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feick, L., C. W. Park, and D. L. Mothersbaugh. 1992. "Knowledge and Knowledge of Knowledge: What We Know, What We Think We Know, and Why the Difference Makes a Difference." Advances in Consumer Research 19 (1): 190–192.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frick, J., F. G. Kaiser, and M. Wilson. 2004. "Environmental Knowledge and Conservation Behavior: Exploring Prevalence and Structure in a Representative Sample." Personality and Individual Differences 37: 1597–1613.10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, B. C. 2001. "Gender, Scientific Knowledge, and Attitudes toward the Environment: A Cross National Analysis." Political Research Quarterly 54 (3): 657–671.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IBM. 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen, B. B. 2002. "Knowledge, Action and Pro-environmental Behaviour." Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 325–334.10.1080/13504620220145474</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplowitz, M. D., and R. Levine. 2005. "How Environmental Knowledge Measures up at a Big Ten University." Environmental Education Research 11 (2): 143–160.10.1080/1350462042000338324</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keeter, S., C. Kennedy, M. Dimock, J. Best, and P. Craighill. 2006. "Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey." Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (4): 413–428.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kentucky Environmental Education Council. 2005. The 2004 Survey of Kentuckians' Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors. Frankfort, KY: University of Kentucky Survey Research Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kentucky Environmental Education Council. 2009. The 2009 Survey of Kentuckians' Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behvaiors. Frankfort, KY: University of Kentucky Survey Research Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S. K., and S. W. Kim. 2010. "Comparative Studies of Environmental Attitude and Its Determinants in Three East Asia Countries: Korea, Japan, and China." International Review of Public Administration 15 (1): 17–33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. "Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What are the Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior?" Environmental Education Research 8 (3): 239–260.10.1080/13504620220145401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laroche, M., J. Bergeron, M. Tomiuk, and G. Barbaro-Forleo. 2002. "Cultural Differences in Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviours of Canadian Consumers." Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 19 (3): 267–283.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J. C. K. 1997. "Environmental Education in Schools in Hong Kong." Environmental Education Research 3 (3): 359–371.10.1080/1350462970030308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J. C. K. 2000. "Teacher Receptivity to Curriculum Change in the Implementation Stage: The Case of Environmental Education in Hong Kong." Journal of Curriculum Studies 32 (1): 95–115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, K. 2011. "Understanding Hong Kong adolescents' Environmental Intention: The Roles of Media Exposure, Subjective Norm, and Perceived Behavioral Control." Applied Environmental Education & Communication 10 (2): 116–125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leeming, F. C., W. O. Dwyer, B. E. Porter, and M. K. Cobern. 1993. "Outcome Research in Environmental Education: A Critical Review." Journal of Environmental Education 24 (4): 239–255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liebowitz, J. 1999. Building Organizational Intelligence: A Knowledge Management Primer, Vol. 1. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mccright, A. M. 2010. "The Effects of Gender on Climate Change Knowledge and Concern in the American Public." Population and Environment 32 (1): 66–87.10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meerah, T. S. M., L. Halim, and T. Nadeson. 2010. "Environmental Citizenship: What Level of Knowledge, Attitude, Skill and Participation the Students Own?" Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 2: 5715–5719.10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.933</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NEEF (National Environmental Education Foundation) 1998. The National Report Card on Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors. Washington, DC: NEEF and Roper Starch Worldwide.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> (NEEF) National Environmental Education Foundation 2005. Environmental Literacy in America: What Ten Years of NEEF/Roper Research Studies Say about Environmental Literacy in the US. Washington, DC: NEEF and Roper ASW.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Environmental Education Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide. 2001a. Lessons from the Environment: Why 95% of Adult Americans Endorse Environmental Education. Washington, DC: National Environmental Education Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Environmental Education Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide. 2001b. Lessons from the Environment: Why 95% of Adult Americans Endorse Environmental Education. Washington, DC: National Environmental Education Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nebraska Alliance for Conservation & Environmental Education. 2003. Nebraska Conservation and Environmental Literacy and Awareness Survey. Lincoln, NE: Bureau of Sociological Research, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ostman, R. E., and J. L. Parker. 1987. "A Public's Environmental Information Sources and Evaluations of Mass Media." The Journal of Environmental Education 18 (2): 9–17.10.1080/00958964.1987.9943483</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petrovic, N., V. Jeremic, D. Petrovic, and M. Cirovic. 2014. "Modeling the Use of Facebook in Environmental Higher Education." In The Social Classroom: Integrating Social Network Use in Education, 100–119. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radio Television Hong Kong. 2012. Environmental Report 2012. Hong Kong: Radio Television Hong Kong.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raju, P. S., S. C. Lonial, and G. W. Mangold. 1995. "Differential Effects of Subjective Knowledge, Objective Knowledge, and Usage Experience on Decision Making: An Exploratory Investigation." Journal of Consumer Psychology 4 (2): 153–180.10.1207/s15327663jcp0402_04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rickinson, M. 2001. "Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: A Critical Review of the Evidence." Environmental Education Research 7 (3): 207–320.10.1080/13504620120065230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robelia, B. A., C. Greenhow, and L. Burton. 2011. "Environmental Learning in Online Social Networks: Adopting Environmentally Responsible Behaviors." Environmental Education Research 17 (4): 553–575.10.1080/13504622.2011.565118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robelia, B. A., and T. Murphy. 2012. "What Do People Know about Key Environmental Issues? A Review of Environmental Knowledge Surveys." Environmental Education Research 18 (3): 299–321.10.1080/13504622.2011.618288</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruchter, M., B. Klar, and W. Geiger. 2010. "Comparing the Effects of Mobile Computers and Traditional Approaches in Environmental Education." Computers and Education 54 (4): 1054–1067.10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sampei, Y., and M. Aoyagi-Usui. 2009. "Mass-Media Coverage, Its Influence on Public Awareness of Climate-Change Issues, and Implications for Japan's National Campaign to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Global Environmental Change 19 (2): 203–212.10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sangpikul, A., and A. Batra. 2007. "Ecotourism: A Perspective from Thai Youths." Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 6 (1): 81–85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, Y. K. A. 2004. "Development of Environmental Citizenship in Students in Hong Kong." PhD Thesis, The University of Hong Kong.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tayci, F., and F. Uysal. 2012. "A Study for Determining the Elementary School Students' Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Attitude Level." Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 46: 5718–5722.10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Visser, P. S., J. A. Krosnick, J. Marquette, and M. Curtin. 1996. "Mail Surveys for Election Forecasting? An Evaluation of the Colombia Dispatch Poll." Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (5): 759–779.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westerman, D., P. R. Spence, and B. Van Der Heide. 2014. "Social Media as Information Source: Recency of Updates and Credibility of Information." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2): 171–183.10.1111/jcc4.2014.19.issue-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zsóka, A, Z. M. Szerényi, A. Széchy, and T. Kocsis. 2013. "Greening due to Environmental Education? Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, Consumer Behavior and Everyday Pro-Environmental Activities of Hungarian High School and University Students." Journal of Cleaner Production 48: 126–138.10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zyadin, A., A. Puhakka, P. Halder, P. Ahponen, and P. Pelkonen. 2014. "The Relative Importance of Home, School, and Traditional Mass Media Sources in Elevating Youth Energy Awareness." Applied Energy 114: 409–416.10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.09.072</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lewis T.O. Cheung; Lincoln Fok; Eric P.K. Tsang; Wei Fang and H.Y. Tsang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib373" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib347" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref102"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1057685
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Understanding Residents' Environmental Knowledge in a Metropolitan City of Hong Kong, China
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cheung%2C+Lewis+T%2E+O%2E%22">Cheung, Lewis T. O.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fok%2C+Lincoln%22">Fok, Lincoln</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tsang%2C+Eric+P%2E+K%2E%22">Tsang, Eric P. K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fang%2C+Wei%22">Fang, Wei</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tsang%2C+H%2E+Y%2E%22">Tsang, H. Y.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Environmental+Education+Research%22"><i>Environmental Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2015 21(4):507-524.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environment%22">Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Surveys%22">Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Information%22">Access to Information</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Adults%22">Young Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students%22">Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Older+Adults%22">Older Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Unemployment%22">Unemployment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employment+Level%22">Employment Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mass+Media+Effects%22">Mass Media Effects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Web+Sites%22">Web Sites</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Networks%22">Social Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Opinion%22">Public Opinion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Misconceptions%22">Misconceptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Problems%22">Social Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multiple+Choice+Tests%22">Multiple Choice Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pollution%22">Pollution</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recycling%22">Recycling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conservation+%28Environment%29%22">Conservation (Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sanitation%22">Sanitation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hazardous+Materials%22">Hazardous Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Attainment%22">Educational Attainment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Salaries%22">Salaries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Income%22">Income</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hong+Kong%22">Hong Kong</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13504622.2014.898247
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1350-4622
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study aimed to understand the environmental knowledge (EK) of the residents of Hong Kong. A territory-wide survey was administered to investigate the subjective and objective EK of the respondents as well as their means of receiving information about the environment. The results indicated that Hong Kong's residents have a comparatively low level of EK, with a mean environmental knowledge score of 3.35 out of 8. The youngster (15-24?years old), students, and employed individuals reported more extensive EK than the older and unemployed respondents, thus suggesting that the younger generation and employed individuals have increased opportunities to receive EK through various channels. A weak positive correlation was identified between subjective and objective EK, thus implying that the residents of Hong Kong could not accurately evaluate their own level of EK. The results indicate that traditional media plays a significant role in disseminating EK. Digital media, such as websites and digital social networks, were also determined to be influencing factors in disseminating environmental messages to the younger generation.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 53
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1057685
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1057685
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13504622.2014.898247
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 507
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Information
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Older Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Unemployment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employment Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mass Media Effects
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Web Sites
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Opinion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Misconceptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multiple Choice Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pollution
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recycling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conservation (Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sanitation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hazardous Materials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Attainment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Salaries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Income
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hong Kong
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Understanding Residents' Environmental Knowledge in a Metropolitan City of Hong Kong, China
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cheung, Lewis T. O.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fok, Lincoln
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tsang, Eric P. K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fang, Wei
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tsang, H. Y.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1350-4622
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Environmental Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1