View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effective Environmental Education for Sustainable Development beyond the Plastic Age in South Korea

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effective Environmental Education for Sustainable Development beyond the Plastic Age in South Korea
Language: English
Authors: Lee, Minha (ORCID 0000-0001-8991-7189), Yang, Jae-E (ORCID 0000-0001-8641-6442), Kim, Heejung (ORCID 0000-0003-2652-3160), Moon, Jinah (ORCID 0000-0002-1684-4254), Ryu, Han-Sun (ORCID 0000-0002-5705-2982), Lee, Jin-Yong (ORCID 0000-0002-5996-7801)
Source: Environmental Education Research. 2023 29(9):1328-1345.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Instructional Effectiveness, Environmental Education, Sustainability, Foreign Countries, Elementary School Students, Sustainable Development
Geographic Terms: South Korea
DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2023.2190530
ISSN: 1350-4622
1469-5871
Abstract: The skyrocketing single-plastic demand during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic proved the limitation of top-down environmental policies in accomplishing sustainable consumption and waste management. Nevertheless, 'smart consumers' can make smart choices for sustainable development. However, a review of the South Korean environmental education curriculum reveals that the current structure heavily leans towards the elementary level and does not enlighten the public on 'what' and 'how' to live sustainably. This study uses a quick survey to suggest that the effectiveness of environmental education may be enhanced if: (1) guidance on how to live with the natural environment in harmony for collective cooperation towards resilient and sustainable community building is incorporated with a clear purpose, (2) environment-friendly culture-building activities are enforced to institutionalise a new paradigm of sustainability to replace today's consumerism, and (3) contents are updated regularly to include Earth and environmental science knowledge in the state of art.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1400918
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF3vWfFoWuyzsP61XUxutsrAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGFtL8EqliTTojKycQIBEICBm3Qck2rpcDp_bViF-3dSqldyn5tAZXsm0mccC7DELEzlZgLRT03dE5sHR-MGmXm7lLc0qx9B97oNFSQ-OCVCcdBi2E2_zyS27sU0uLD1eCNNjvNqTjFB6opFRyYjzQVny4ur0Xj7eoPijCEPCDHaZhcGulh3HocWcr-P3JqNyOEX0IPzGu3CgKvpWNhtvU3qMi173PfEjU3MuV-m
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0173105406;eed01sep.23;2023Oct24.06:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0173105406-1">Effective environmental education for sustainable development beyond the Plastic Age in South Korea </title> <p>The skyrocketing single-plastic demand during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic proved the limitation of top-down environmental policies in accomplishing sustainable consumption and waste management. Nevertheless, 'smart consumers' can make smart choices for sustainable development. However, a review of the South Korean environmental education curriculum reveals that the current structure heavily leans towards the elementary level and does not enlighten the public on 'what' and 'how' to live sustainably. This study uses a quick survey to suggest that the effectiveness of environmental education may be enhanced if: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) guidance on how to live with the natural environment in harmony for collective cooperation towards resilient and sustainable community building is incorporated with a clear purpose, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) environment-friendly culture-building activities are enforced to institutionalise a new paradigm of sustainability to replace today's consumerism, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) contents are updated regularly to include Earth and environmental science knowledge in the state of art.</p> <p>Keywords: Environmental education; Plastic Age; sustainable development; paradigm shift; South Korea</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-2">1. Introduction</hd> <p>Education is an indispensable element of development at any stage: 'its importance is reflected in the growing recognition, since the early 1960s, that investing in both formal and informal education and training provides and enhances the skills, knowledge, attitudes, and motivation necessary for economic and social development' (Psacharopoulos and Woodhall [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref4">28</reflink>]). Children 'learned' necessary skills and knowledge to survive even during the prehistoric ages, which is evident once writing becomes available (Roos [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref5">30</reflink>]). The introduction of 'school' and 'tests' further strengthened the role of education to equip individuals with the skills required in a society (Idris et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]). In this regard, effective education can be summarised as a system that better prepares the new generation to solve real problems in the society for improved lives in the future.</p> <p>Subsequently, effective environmental education should empower children and adults alike to become active participants in tackling both local and global environmental challenges. In the preindustrial days, environmental education was more of a survival manual against environmental events, such as decerning edible plants from poisonous ones (Roos [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>]); calculating how much, when, and what animal to catch; knowing when and where to seed and harvest; noticing signs of typhoons, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and more. Even from the 18<sups>th</sups> to the early 20<sups>th</sups> century, when Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Louis Agassiz established the roots of today's environmental education, the program named 'nature study' was introduced to help students develop an appreciation of nature (Disinger [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]). Nature Study evolved into 'conservation education' during the Great Depression of 1920s-30s to understand and appreciate natural resources that fuelled economic development towards prosperity. A structured educational program targeting various age groups and populations and conservation education enlightened people on how natural resources and ecosystems affect each other and how resources can be used wisely (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref9">42</reflink>]). As anthropogenic contribution to ecology increased, the notion of environmental education further advanced to foster individuals who were aware and sensitive to the total environment and its allied problems, knowledgeable and motivated to help solve these problems, and skilful and willing to participate with a sense of responsibility towards viable solutions (Stapp [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this light, today's environmental education should prepare future generations to best address the various environmental challenges that the world faces today: climate change and greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, resource and waste management, air/water/soil/ocean pollution, and ecological preservation for biodiversity and sustainable development (UNEP [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref11">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref12">40</reflink>]; ODI [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref13">25</reflink>]). An item that encompasses all these challenges is polymer, the dominant manmade material with unlimited applications and uses ranging from personal care products to clothing, packaging, automotive, and construction (Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref14">20</reflink>]). The invention of plastics created a single-use culture, supported convenience-prioritising, fast-moving modern city lifestyle, and opened a new era of the Plastic Age (Geyer, Jambeck, and Law [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref15">9</reflink>]; Hamilton et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]). The unfortunate outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exacerbated plastic pollution worldwide (Kalina and Tilley [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]; Parashar and Hait [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]; Lee and Kim [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>]; Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]). It not only unleashed single-use plastic demands for sanitation and safety but also created a new demand source: personal protective equipment (PPE) and self-virus testing for household uses. The universal recommendation to use masks and hand sanitisers on an everyday basis to prevent the virus spread added another 69 billion units of plastic waste per month in 2020 (Kalina and Tilley [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref21">15</reflink>]). The lockdowns and other social distancing measures (such as quarantines) further shifted personal lifestyles and consumption patterns towards e-commerce and food delivery, which pushed plastic packaging product demand even higher than the anticipated growth (Parashar and Hait [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>The world needs the sanitation aspects of plastics in the prevention and spread of this pandemic; durability for food packaging and functional clothing; light weight for packaging, including water bottles; strength for construction and mobility; and low cost for economic productivity. However, the consequences of plastic use are the serious contamination of soil, water, groundwater, ocean, air, and food that are transmitted and transported (Moore and Phillips [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref23">24</reflink>]; Rillig [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref24">29</reflink>]; Ryu et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]; Kim and Lee [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>]; Lee and Kim [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref27">19</reflink>]). Numerous scientific studies have covered the impact of plastic pollution, both qualitatively and quantitatively, and analytical reports with several policy recommendations have centred around bans and other restrictive measures on plastic uses. Extensive research has also been conducted on the significance of education in cultivating culture, trends, and social norms. However, few investigations have attempted to link these two ends. This study specifically focuses on the role of education in enhancing, if not determining, the effectiveness of such environmental policies, especially when they directly go against human nature that seeks higher convenience. Considering the national characteristics when discussing socio-economic aspect like education, this study examined the current South Korean environmental education system as a case study to ascertain if it is well designed to equip future generations to resolve this dilemma on plastic. The study concludes with a brief overview of a quick survey to suggest policy implications and directions for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-3">2. Role of environmental education in the Plastic Age</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0173105406-4">2.1. From consumerism to sustainable living</hd> <p>One of the many lessons learned through past efforts towards sustainable development is that environmental challenges ranging from climate crises to biodiversity loss confront today's <emph>consumerism</emph>. The notion of 'consumer' became popular in the United States (US) in the 1920s, following the revolutionary mass production with conveyor belt assembly lines. President Herbert Hoover's 1929 Committee on Recent Economic Changes welcomed this new paradigm of industrialisation, affluent trendiness, and capitalised wealthism, described as 'an escalator to heaven; expansibility of human wants and desires on a grand scale (BBC NEWS [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>])'. Over the past few decades, globalised supply chains have boosted world productivity and media technology advancement, thus ascertaining trend adaptation and social comparison. An enormously productive market economy established consumption as 'the' way of life in which products are consumed, burnt, replaced, and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate. The paradigm further extended to turn a 'person' into a 'consumer' with unquenchable thirst for new, different, convenient, and wonderful products and experiences under the mirage of 'never-ending growth' in capitalist market economy.</p> <p>Among the many consequent anomalies, environmental concerns have gained public attention for their great impact on everyday lives in both the short and long terms. A new paradigm of <emph>sustainability</emph> has emerged that directly confronts the fundamental nature of consumerism. Sustainability, by definition, involves environmentally friendly lifestyles to preserve nature and manage liveable conditions on Earth. It is about reusing, sharing, recycling, bearing inconvenience, and using less resources. This paradigm shift is expected to be harder than the institutionalisation of consumerism because 'bearing inconvenience' and 'using less', the two core themes of sustainability, go against human impulse or nature that seek comfort, practical efficiency, affluence, and social-levelling. The paradigm shift to sustainability, in other words, involves a comprehensive reestablishment of social norms and culture, which requires sufficient evidence-based education and public campaigns that explain not only <emph>why</emph> but also <emph>what</emph> sustainable living is, and <emph>how</emph> it differs from the accustomed market economic value system, attitude, and habitual behaviour patterns.</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-5">2.2. Sustainable living with plastics</hd> <p>Today's consumerism and fast-moving urban lifestyles are possible because of plastics. Plastic packaging enable quick coffee breaks, on-the-go meals, e-commerce deliveries, and cheap general goods for easy purchase and disposal. However, one of the many consequences of this surging plastic use is excessive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Hopewell, Dvorak, and Kosior [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]). Although they are often treated as two separate issues if not competing for international attention, plastic pollution is fundamentally linked to climate change. Using pre-pandemic data, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimated that plastic industries worldwide would account for 20% of oil consumption by 2050 (UNEP [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref30">39</reflink>]). There are three major paths through which the plastic lifecycle affects climate change: 1) production and distribution, 2) waste decomposition and degradation, and 3) bio-based plastics (Ford et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>]). In combination, annual GHG emissions from plastic were estimated to range from 6 billion Mt of carbon-dioxide-equivalent (CO<subs>2</subs>e) by 2050, which is large enough to invalidate global efforts under the Paris Agreement (ODI 2020). This number is expected to further increase to 56 billion Mt of CO<subs>2</subs>e between 2015 and 2050, or approximately 12% of the remaining carbon budget (Hamilton et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]), following COVID-19.</p> <p>The other consequences observed are increasing concentrations of microplastics (MPs) and their damaging effects. Apart from direct ocean pollution through illegal dumping, there seem to be at least three more routes by which plastic pollution damages the natural ecosystem: 1) decomposition of larger plastic products from solid waste into microplastics, 2) sludge from wastewater treatment plants (primarily, microbeads from rinse-off products, including hand sanitisers and liquid soaps), and 3) plastics embedded in food waste (plastics absorbed into food chains and residuals from food packaging) (Boucher and Friot [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]). Approximately 1.2 ∼ 2.4 million tons of plastic waste are discharged into rivers and oceans worldwide annually owing to low recycling rates and improper waste management in the pre-pandemic period. Many misplaced facial masks and gloves contributed to rapid increase of such volume in 2020. The perturbing aspect of this uncontrolled discharge is that MPs release toxic substances with adverse effects on various organisms when consumed, whether by primary, secondary, or incidental ingestion (Wang, Zheng, and Li [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref34">43</reflink>]; Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Currently, there is no practical, scientific way to expunge GHGs or MPs from an ecosystem, in which an idealistic solution is to prevent their initial formation/release. Hence, there is a growing consensus to address plastic pollution through 'resource management' instead of conventional 'waste management'. In practice, it entails more of 'waste avoidance' targeting policies and regulations to control each step of the product lifecycle, as shown in the Zero Waste Hierarchy of Figure 1 (UNEP [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref36">39</reflink>]). As per the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the concept can be translated as a Circular Economy (EC [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref37">7</reflink>]; EC [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]). Despite the various names, the emphasis is on sustainable consumer behaviour. The effectiveness of plastic pollution-related policies and systems fundamentally depends on the individual choice of product (sustainable/smart consumption vs. convenient/economy-driven preferences), disposal method (dumping/waste/recycled), and overall lifestyle (sustainable living vs. energy-intensive living). This process involves a holistic paradigm shift from 'short lifecycle of production-consumption-disposal to use more' to 'long lifecycle of reuse/recycle/share to use less.'</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Zero waste hierarchy modified from global waste management outlook, UNEP ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Accordingly, the role of education and public campaigns in shaping general trends gains prominence. Many studies have confirmed strong correlations between education and public awareness (Stapp [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref40">34</reflink>]; Disinger [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]; Schleicher [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>]; Palmer [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref43">26</reflink>]), especially in terms of environmental sustainability, and between public acceptance and paradigm shifts (Hall [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>]). Accordingly, the variety of educational content and opportunities in the environment, climate change, and sustainability has increased significantly in recent years. However, the recycling rate is still low in most countries, single-use plastics are widely used, and over-packing is a common global practice. Why does environmental education fail to institutionalise the new paradigm of sustainability for the effective implementation of policies on plastics?</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-6">3. Case study: South Korea</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0173105406-7">3.1. Surging plastic use in pandemic</hd> <p>Rapid modernisation and economic development also triggered a convenient lifestyle in South Korea, with a single-use plastic consumption per capita of 44 kg in 2019, which is the 12<sups>th</sups> largest globally, with Singapore at the top at 76 kg (Statista [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref45">35</reflink>]). The South Korean Government has recently joined the global trend to enforce various restrictions to reduce plastic consumption. The ban on plastic bags that was previously implemented in large supermarkets (larger than 165 square meters) was extended to all bakeries and shopping malls this year and to all sectors by 2030. Single-use cups were banned from stores in August 2018, except for take-out orders. Single-use utensils provided freely with take-out and delivery foods have been banned since 2021, and plastic containers are to be replaced with paper or other environment-friendly materials by 2030. The current ban on the free provision of single-use personal care products in sauna and sports centres will be applicable to all leisure accommodations, including resorts and hotels, from 2024. In 2018, the South Korean Ministry of Environment announced these amendments to be enforced systematically to achieve the environmental policy goal of reducing disposable product consumption by more than 35% by 2022 and plastic waste by 50% by 2030, and increase the recycling ratio from 34% to 70% by 2030 (STEPI [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has hindered the effective implementation of these policies worldwide, including in South Korea (Lee and Kim [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref47">19</reflink>]). The food deliveries increased to 175% in 2020, and the in-store use of single-use utensils and cups was reintroduced in restaurants and cafes as a precautionary measure in South Korea. The volume of plastic waste collected per day reached 8.5 million metric tons in 2020, from 7.4 million metric tons in 2019 (Ministry of Environment 2022). Moreover, the extensive use of personal protective equipment (Figure 2) in South Korea resulted in 7,517 tons of medical waste in 2020, almost 30 times more than 257 tons recorded during the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Outbreak in 2015 (Ministry of Environment 2022). It is because highly populated and densely packed city lifestyles constituting many indoor activities have increased the risks of virus transmittance, and the South Korean government has recommended that the public wear masks both indoors and outdoors. The lockdowns and quarantine, in fact, increased plastic waste bag use as the government required quarantined households to wrap their waste first in 'orange medical waste bag' and again in 'green or white ordinary waste bags for hygiene reasons. With lockdowns and quarantines, it has become increasingly difficult for ordinary citizens to separate plastics for recycling purposes or medical waste for safer management, owing to the dominant residence style of communal apartments in South Korea. In addition, the pandemic prevented the in-person work environment and hampered international trade; subsequently, single-use plastic packaging waste surged.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Source: Ministry of Environment, 2022.</p> <p>Consequently, resource recycling centres are faced with an overwhelmingly increased volume of plastic waste, with fewer people to process and less places to sell. The Korea Maritime Institute reported that approximately 20% of the 1 million tons of trash found in the southeast shorelines of South Korea were plastics (equivalent to 13,000 dump trucks) in 2020 (Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref48">21</reflink>]). In contrast, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries collected 138,000 tons of marine debris in 2020 along the shorelines of the Yellow Sea, of which 83% was plastic. This figure was approximately 45% higher than that collected in 2018 (Ministry of Environment 2022). Accumulated plastic waste has invaded groundwater, thus threatening the last clean water resource (Kim and Lee [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]; Chia et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]; Ryu et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]). The surging plastic waste volume epitomises the ineffectiveness of top-down restrictive policies at the time of the crisis in South Korea.</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-8">3.2. Environmental education system</hd> <p>Natural history has always been one of the core education subjects in South Korea, where a vast volume of content has been addressed across classes on science, social studies, and technology since the 1950s (Ministry of Education [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>]). The Korean Ministry of Education incorporated environmental education into the national curriculum in 1981. The Environmental Education Promotion Act was enacted in 2008, as the third country in the world following the 1990 National Environmental Education Act of the US and the 2003 Act on Promotion of Environmental Conservation Activities through Environmental Education in Japan (Kim and Krasny [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref53">17</reflink>]). The legal definition of environmental education in South Korea as stipulated in this Act emphasises 'education that cultivate knowledge, attitudes, values, and more needed for preservation and improvement of the environment; capacity building to translate the knowledge into practice; fostering culture towards sustainable development of local communities and, thus, whole nation (Article 2)'. This overarching Act in the Central Government was fully enacted, with all 17 regional governments of South Korea enforcing ordinances for environmental education promotion. The practical implementation plans comprised regional environmental education centres for informal education (all ages), an advisory committee opened in each regional government to support both formal and informal local educational activities, and regular local environmental events for schools to attend as a group.</p> <p>The national curriculum serves as the basis for educational content at each level and for textbook writing in South Korea. As school teaching requires teaching materials and manpower, the subject was first implemented in teachers' colleges and other university levels, including graduate programs for integrative and cross-curricular themes. A formal introduction of 'environment' as a single independent subject in middle and high schools happened in 1992. Relatively new environmental issues such as climate change, resilience, sustainability, microplastics, and other related topics were also added to educational courses around the turn of the century in 2000 (Ministry of Education [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref54">22</reflink>]). Unfortunately, however, environmental education was implemented as an 'elective subject', rather than 'compulsory subject' such as Korean Language, Mathematics, English Language, and Science, for which 'right to choose' lies in school not on individual students in high school (Kim and Krasny [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>]). In a nutshell, if the school neglects environmental education at the course selection happening once a year, students enrolling in that high school because of housing proximity have no access to formal education opportunities. Hence, it is only at the elementary to middle school level that environmental education is practiced without neglection, as there is no 'compulsory' or 'elective' course for the elementary school curriculum.</p> <p>Worrisome statistics reveal that the selection rate has declined to around 10% since 2010, from 21% in the 2000s (Seo [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref56">33</reflink>]). It indicates that an average South Korean public school is likely to have a broad but shallow knowledge of climate change, energy security, renewable energy, sustainability, and resilience (Table 1). It is because environmental education builds up from conceptual introduction to more specified and in-depth discussion in alignment with intellectual capacity increase in hands with knowledge expansion. Hence, its contents in the middle school curriculum are not comprehensive or interdisciplinary (Seo [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref57">33</reflink>]). Furthermore, this early disconnection from formal and regular education courses limits the opportunity to stay updated on concurrent agendas such as climate change and energy-related issues after graduation from middle school. Other studies have also confirmed that many high school and university students were unaware of the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals, which occurred after they entered high school (UN World Youth Report, 2010; Yu and Jhun [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref58">44</reflink>]). Nevertheless, this unawareness is not simply due to time limitations but also because of the slow content update procedures of the national education system. For example, there is a limited mention of nuclear power plants in South Korean textbooks that reflect the heated discussion on whether to count nuclear energy as 'green sustainable energy' (Ministry of Education [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]). Overall, the range of environmental education is too broad and requires extensive related knowledge to be covered effectively in nine school years, elementary (six years), and middle (three years) schools: time usually runs out while teaching <emph>what</emph> climate change, energy security, resilience, resource security, pollution, sustainability, and other relevant terms and concepts are, and continues to <emph>why</emph> this world is confronted with exacerbating environmental challenges. Under these circumstances, the South Korean environmental education course omits the most important part of education required to fulfil the educational purpose or goal: <emph>how</emph> to restore the natural environment and live sustainably.</p> <p>Table 1. Environment education by topics in South Korean education system (2019).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Subject</td><td>Topics by subject</td></tr><tr><td>Combination</td><td>Ethics</td><td>Social studies</td><td>Science</td><td>Technology</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Climate change: cause and consequences</td><td>Elementary 1–6</td><td>Elementary 1–6</td><td>Elementary 1–6</td><td>Elementary 1–6</td><td>Elementary 1–6</td></tr><tr><td>Middle 1–3</td><td /><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td></tr><tr><td>International efforts to mitigate climate change</td><td>Elementary 1</td><td>Elementary 1</td><td>Elementary 1–6</td><td>Elementary 4–6</td><td>Elementary 4–6</td></tr><tr><td>Middle 1–3</td><td /><td>Middle 1–3</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>High 1–3</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Energy development history</td><td>Elementary 1Middle 1–3</td><td>Elementary 1</td><td>Elementary 4–6Middle 1–3</td><td>Elementary 4–6Middle 1–3</td><td>Elementary 4–6Middle 1–3</td></tr><tr><td>Energy security</td><td>Elementary 1</td><td>Elementary 1</td><td>Elementary 3–6</td><td>Elementary 3–6</td><td>Elementary 4–6</td></tr><tr><td>Middle 1–3</td><td /><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>Renewable energy</td><td>Elementary 1</td><td>Elementary 1</td><td>Elementary 3–6</td><td>Elementary 4–6</td><td>Elementary 4–6</td></tr><tr><td>Middle 1–3</td><td /><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td><td /></tr><tr><td>High 1–3</td><td /><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>Sustainability and earth science</td><td>Middle 1–3</td><td /><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td></tr><tr><td>High 1–3</td><td /><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>Resilient society and disasters</td><td>Middle 1–3</td><td /><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td></tr><tr><td>High 1–3</td><td /><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>Ecology and modern society</td><td>Middle 1–3</td><td /><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td><td>Middle 1–3</td></tr><tr><td>High 1–3</td><td /><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td><italic>High 1–</italic><italic>3 (Optional)</italic></td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Data Source: Ministry of Education ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref60">22</reflink>])</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-9">3.3. A quick survey on effectiveness of environmental education</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0173105406-10">3.3.1. Survey design</hd> <p>A quick online survey was conducted to obtain information on the end results of South Korean environmental education, implemented since 1981. It was an anonymous survey prepared using an internet platform (Survey Monkey) and was open from 27 October to 27 December 2021. The survey attracted 201 respondents from two major cities in South Korea (Seoul and Daejeon). The largest share (34%) came from respondents in their 30s, followed by those in their 40s (26%), and 50s (17%). The majority (73%) completed the university, and the highest participation came from medical doctors (33%), followed by housewives (25%), financial advisors and bankers (20%), and artists (15%). In terms of gender, more women (70%) participated than men. The high contribution of university graduates reflects the high educational enrolment rate in South Korea: more than 70% have completed university education since 2007 (Figure 3).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Trend of enrolment percentage at each educational level against total population of South Korea. Data Source: National Statistics (https://<ulink href="http://www.index.go.kr/">www.index.go.kr/</ulink>).</p> <p>The survey consisted of 25 questions from three sections [Appendix 1], excluding the first five questions on background (i.e. education level, profession, age, gender, and location). The first section listed nine questions on climate change education that respondents received throughout their education. In the second section, respondents' personal choices of various products and life patterns were sketched with ten questions. The remaining six questions tested the respondents' knowledge of climate change and plastic pollution. Depending on the structure of the question, the answering method adopted either a Likert-scale approach (never, rarely, sometimes, always) or simple yes/no choices. This survey was designed to assess how much general public are aware of environmental issues and practice environment-friendly choices today after 20 years since the first formal introduction of 'environment' as a single independent subject in South Korean public schools in 1992. Statistical analysis such as the correlation test was not performed because there was no comparable group (i.e. respondents without public education in the last 20 years) to verify causal relations in this survey.</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-11">3.3.2. Result discussion</hd> <p>The answers from the different groups (age, gender, professional field, and education level) were surprisingly similar. The survey results among different groups showed little difference for all questions except for one. Regardless of their current professional field or age, the largest group (36%) first encountered environmental education through informal events that they participated in as adults (Table 2). It shows the short history of global environmental education in the formal educational system. The only item that stood out was from the oldest age group (60–69). Most participants from this age group answered that their parents 'never' mentioned environmental sustainability, which again reflects that their childhood was before the emergence of such a notion (Table 3). While most respondents were aware of global environmental issues, including climate change, sea-level rise, plastic pollution, and consequent bans, the latest issue of microplastic pollution was the one with the lowest awareness (49%). The responses on sustainable lifestyle represented as uses of tumblers, refillable products, grocery bags, and public transport displayed a bell-type distribution among participants (Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2. Key survey results (answer share to total 201 participants in percentage).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Age group</td><td>Profession</td><td>Residence</td><td>Parental influence</td><td>First 'education'</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>30–39</td><td char=".">35%</td><td>Doctors</td><td char=".">33%</td><td>Seoul</td><td char=".">80%</td><td>Frequent</td><td char=".">39%</td><td>Adult informal</td><td char=".">36%</td></tr><tr><td>40–49</td><td char=".">26%</td><td>Housewife</td><td char=".">25%</td><td>Daejeon</td><td char=".">20%</td><td>Seldom</td><td char=".">28%</td><td>Formally in school</td><td char=".">30%</td></tr><tr><td>50–59</td><td char=".">17%</td><td>Business</td><td char=".">20%</td><td /><td /><td>Never</td><td char=".">19%</td><td>University</td><td char=".">18%</td></tr><tr><td>60–69</td><td char=".">11%</td><td>Art</td><td char=".">15%</td><td /><td /><td>Always</td><td char=".">14%</td><td>Kindergarten</td><td char=".">16%</td></tr><tr><td>20–29</td><td char=".">11%</td><td>Education</td><td char=".">7%</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Awareness Questions</td><td>Climate change</td><td>Sea-level rise</td><td>Microplastic pollution</td><td>Plastic pollution</td><td>Agree to plastic ban</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td char=".">92%</td><td char=".">77%</td><td char=".">51%</td><td char=".">78%</td><td char=".">72%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>No</td><td char=".">8%</td><td char=".">23%</td><td char=".">49%</td><td char=".">22%</td><td char=".">28%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Behaviour Questions</td><td>Tumbler</td><td>Refill products</td><td>Grocery bags</td><td>Environment-friendly products</td><td>Sustainable transport choice</td><td>Recycling by material</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Always</td><td char=".">23%</td><td char=".">10%</td><td char=".">26%</td><td char=".">7%</td><td char=".">6%</td><td char=".">30%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Often</td><td char=".">31%</td><td char=".">28%</td><td char=".">40%</td><td char=".">57%</td><td char=".">26%</td><td char=".">26%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td char=".">38%</td><td char=".">51%</td><td char=".">30%</td><td char=".">33%</td><td char=".">60%</td><td char=".">37%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td char=".">8%</td><td char=".">11%</td><td char=".">4%</td><td char=".">3%</td><td char=".">8%</td><td char=".">7%</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Key survey results from participants age over 60 (N = 22).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Education</td><td>Profession</td><td>First encounter on environmental issues</td><td>Education type</td><td>Climate change awareness</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Higher education</td><td char=".">8</td><td>Housewife</td><td char=".">12</td><td>Adult in society</td><td char=".">13</td><td>Informal</td><td char=".">18</td><td>Yes</td><td char=".">18</td></tr><tr><td>Graduate School</td><td char=".">13</td><td>Researcher</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Youth in university</td><td char=".">5</td><td>Formal</td><td char=".">2</td><td>No</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Other</td><td char=".">6</td><td>Other</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Both</td><td char=".">2</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0173105406-12">3.3.3. Implications for the future</hd> <p>These results suggest that a few important policy implications are worth future in-depth research and discussion. First, a high awareness of the general concepts and terminology of environmental education across a wide range of age (20–69) implies that both formal and informal education programs have been effective. In particular, the 22 participants aged over 60 demonstrated a similarly high awareness of various environmental issues as the younger generation. As these older generations had graduated from public schools before the institutionalisation of environmental education courses in South Korean schools in 1992, the majority answered their first encounter with environmental issues that occurred in adulthood (Table 3). Although the group size is too small to generalise the effects, informal educational programs (e.g. documentary films on environmental issues) have contributed towards the cultivation of an environment-friendly culture in South Korea.</p> <p>Second, the social campaign to 'start with small things' such as using tumblers and grocery bags has been successful but seems to have failed to instigate further action. The proportion of positive answers (always often) for tumbler and grocery bag use is much higher than those who invest their time and effort in choosing sustainable transport (e.g. walking, biking, and public transport) or refilling shampoo bottles. Perhaps it is time for public entities to come up with subsequent guidelines on 'how' to contribute towards sustainable living. Third, while the majority (64% on always-often) answered that they considered the 'environment-friendliness' of the product on purchase, everyone admitted that it is only when everything else is acceptable at the time of purchase, including accessibility, price, brand, convenience, and other personal preferences. Not many participants said that they used a drying hanger (not dryer) or set temperatures below 20 °C in winter or above 26 °C in summer to preserve the environment. This response may indicate that environmental education needs to incorporate more action-guiding content to shape personal behaviours that are more suitable for its current purpose, rather than being limited to knowledge and information sharing. Finally, a significant portion did not believe in environmental education and denied participating in relevant social movements including plastic bans. It is not a surprising finding, and accounts for the ban on single-use plastic movements observed worldwide to prevent the adoption of environmental measures to protect the local economy (Lee and Kim [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref61">19</reflink>]). In this light, environmental education may need to move beyond the current science field or basic moral study (within the virtue of 'saving resources and environment preservation') to real culture-building to drive a paradigm shift from today's consumerism and fast-moving urban style.</p> <p>In combination, this survey points to the lack of detailed instructions on 'what' and 'how' in the current environmental education system to translate knowledge into practice. Undeniably, a successful environment education is the one that satisfies the multifaceted needs of students and society: 1) fulfils knowledge thirst on environment and nature from a pure educational viewpoint, 2) enhances public awareness of environmental science to enlighten students on how the environment has changed over time and how the trend has shifted after human civilisation; and 3) guides students on how to live with the natural environment in harmony for collective cooperation towards resilient and sustainable community building (Palmer and Neal [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref62">26</reflink>]; The National Environmental Education Advisory Council [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref63">37</reflink>]; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref64">38</reflink>]). However, it illuminated the fact that current education has only succeeded in enhancing knowledge levels in the past and current environmental phenomena. It is because the educational content overly focuses on the first and second goals of environmental education without much consideration of the long-term proactive solution-seeking aspect included in the third goal. Brief and independent lessons on renewable energy and basic action guidelines such as saving energy and not littering in public places are insufficient to prepare students to appropriately address changing environmental challenges throughout their lives. On knowledge building, the contents are so broad that they mainly deal with global issues such as climate change, major natural disasters, and energy crises without much attention to more immediate regional or local challenges, including various types of pollution or resource depletion. This weak point has been elucidated over the COVID-19 pandemic, in which single-use plastic demand surged unchecked.</p> <p>In order to foster proactive individuals in combatting dynamically changing environmental issues throughout their lifetime, concrete knowledge should be shared in a comprehensive manner rather than broken (into unconnected pieces), too wide and distant (only major global issues), or too trivial and basic (elemental-level discussion). Education should illustrate what the natural environment used to be and how it has been altered throughout modernisation, urbanisation, and industrialisation to shed light on where environmental policies should be heading towards and how to get there. It is because sustainable and resilient community building is not something the top tier can design, plan, and provide in their circle for the public to use, participate, and follow. Every individual needs to be enlightened of their surrounding environment and the consequences of their daily choices for society to move towards human-environment coexistence in which the environment is acknowledged as a partner rather than a tool to be used for human well-being. Without this essential piece of information, the general public will continue to be neglected from critical policy decisions where interested parties dispute major projects such as dams, train networks, and electricity generator choices (i.e. nuclear vs. natural gas vs. coal). As an immediate example, the South Korean public needs to understand how the four major rivers of the ROK (Han, Keum, Youngsan, and Nakdong) used to be and how they were degraded during industrialisation and urbanisation to decide whether to demolish 16 weirs built over the Four Major River Project (2009–2011) or not (Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref65">20</reflink>]), and how air quality has been exacerbated since 2000 to verify the source of pollution and deduce solutions.</p> <p>A prerequisite for this educational reform is comprehensive scientific investigation and research in related fields. The content should cover different aspects of the multifaceted aspects of environmental impact and change. However, the research scope on plastic pollution at major national research institutes in South Korea is still limited to marine ecosystems despite the recent seven-fold increase in quantity from 2015 to 2019. The marine ecosystem is a good starting point for plastic pollution investigation, considering the high share of plastic waste in seawater and the accumulation of microplastics in seawater from rivers and city water systems. However, marine environment-focused studies still constitute 69% of total plastic pollution-related research conducted by national institutes (Figure 4), thus indicating a lack of diversity to cover multifaceted aspects of microplastic pollution. The low interest in soil and surface water to limit the research contribution rate to 12% and 19%, respectively may also be another sign of low understanding of the wide consequences of pollution. Without a thorough investigation of the current plastic pollution status of all waters, the short-term environmental goal, announced by the South Korean government at the 6<sups>th</sups> Ministerial Meeting on Science and Technology, to 'produce and accumulate information on microplastics' or the long-term plan to 'build scientific foundations in response to microplastics' are unlikely to be fulfilled (Government 24, 2019). The repercussions are an insufficient evidence-based education on plastic pollution and the inhibition of the effectiveness of plastic policies in South Korea through inadequate public support.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. Expansion trend in microplastic-related research topics in Republic of Korea (2010–2021) by research projects reported to national research funding programs.</p> <p>Furthermore, the environment education content should be updated regularly to incorporate the latest findings and changes in global efforts towards sustainable development. In this light, current South Korean plastic policy to 'educate and enhance public awareness to encourage participation in waste management' should be replaced by the circular economy.' The concept of the zero-waste hierarchy, which is essential to the circular economy, requires public participation because it is impossible for top-down policy measures to restrict all business-consumer plastic usage. For example, no government can completely ban the use of plastic packaging for deliveries or disposable personal products until newly invented materials replace plastics. Fundamentally, the plastic policy boils down to personal choice and individual behaviour patterns to adopt an environment-friendly plastic-free lifestyle instead of today's consumerism-driven convenient plastic use. In this regard, the scope of research on education and public promotion should be expanded to cover the entire lifecycle by adopting a new global paradigm of 'circular economy' and 'plastics for resource management' rather than limiting traditional waste management and recycling.</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-13">4. Conclusion</hd> <p>Human civilisation has learned that the natural elasticity of the Earth has passed the threshold, whether or not the contribution of anthropogenic activities was the determining factor. Unless any government or individual is seeking human extinction, arguing against the human contribution to current climate change is meaningless. The current COVID-19 pandemic has further proved that new sources of pollution can arise anywhere and anytime. No one, before 2019, had expected medical wastes (namely, PPE) will become one of the major sources of plastic pollution in 2022. Thus, it is time to cooperate towards sustainable and resilient community building in a comprehensive manner to survive and thrive.</p> <p>Problem solving begins by knowing 'what', 'why', and 'how' before and after, in which education has much to contribute. However, the review of South Korean environmental education content has been found to overly focus on the general conceptual knowledge transfer that public awareness of how natural surroundings had been before degradation over modernisation, urbanisation, and industrialisation is limited. The absence of this link to translate knowledge on Earth and environmental science to everyday practice has resulted in ever-increasing plastic production and consumption and exacerbating pollution. Thus, a critical prerequisite for sustainable development today is to reinforce environmental education to clearly state the purpose and goal of various environmentally friendly actions. Humans need a place to live in, food to eat, and things to do, for which the environment provided for ancestors, provides for us today, and will provide for future generations.</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-14">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This research was funded by the Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) through the Measurement and Risk Assessment Program for the Management of Microplastics Program; the Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE), grant number 2020003110010; and the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (grant numbers 2019R1I1A2A01057002 and 2019R1A61A03033167); and Korea Ministry of Environment as The SS (Surface Soil Conservation and Management) Projects; 2019002820004.</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-15">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-16">Appendix 1</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0173105406-17">Survey questionnaire on the effects of environmental awareness on personal choices</hd> <p>This study aimed to verify the effectiveness of environmental education in maturing environmentally friendly habitual behaviours of individuals. Please indicate the current status quo to questions on habitual behaviours, rather than what has been 'educated'.</p> <hd id="AN0173105406-18">Background information (optional)</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Age group: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>) 20-29 (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>) 30-39 (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>) 40-49 (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>) 50-59 (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref70">5</reflink>) 60-69 (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref71">6</reflink>) 70+</item> <p></p> <item> Gender: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>) Female (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>) Male</item> <p></p> <item> Education: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>) High School (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>) Higher education (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>) Graduate school</item> <p></p> <item> Profession/Major field</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>) Housewife (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>) Engineer (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>) Medical (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref80">4</reflink>) Education and Research (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref81">5</reflink>) Art and Media (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref82">6</reflink>) Finance (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref83">7</reflink>) Government (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref84">8</reflink>) Business (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref85">9</reflink>) Other: please specify ___________________</item> <p></p> <item> Residential City/State</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>) Seoul (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref87">2</reflink>) Virginia/Washington DC/Maryland (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref88">3</reflink>) London (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref89">4</reflink>) Tokyo (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref90">5</reflink>) Singapore (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref91">6</reflink>) Other: please specify ____________________</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0173105406-19">Education on environment</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td char=".">6. Did your parents emphasize the environmental aspects to you as a child? (1) Yes, strongly (2) Yes, moderately (3) Sometimes (4) Not really 7. When did you first "accept and recognize" the need to preserve environment? (1) Childhood at home (2) Childhood in school (3) Teenager in school (4) Youth in university (5) Adult in society (6) Never, climate change is part of nature</td><td>Parental influence</td></tr><tr><td char=".">8. Have you ever had formal (official) education on environmental disruptions/climate change? (1) Yes, please proceed to Q9 (2) No, please proceed to Q11 9. Was it a regular curriculum included in official education (check all that apply)? (1) Yes in Elementary school (2) Yes in Middle school (3) Yes in High school (4) Yes, in higher education (5) No, it was irregular educational event 10. How intensive was the class? (1) Single class under 3 hours (2) A lecture course under 15 hours a term (3) A lecture course under 45 hours a term (4) A course more than 45 hours (5) Other: please specify ________________</td><td>Education format</td></tr><tr><td char=".">11. Have you ever had formal (official) education on environmental disruptions/climate change? (1) Yes, please proceed to Q12 (2) No, please proceed to Q14 12. Was it a regular curriculum included in official education (check all that apply)? Yes in Elementary school (2) Yes in Middle school (3) Yes in High school (4) Yes, in higher education (5) No, it was irregular educational event 13. How intensive was the class? (1) Single class under 3 hours (2) A lecture course under 15 hours a term (3) A lecture course under 45 hours a term (4) A course more than 45 hours (5) Other: please specify ________________</td></tr><tr><td char=".">14. Have you ever been exposed to informal education on environmental disruptions/climate change including documentary films? (1) Yes, please proceed to Q15 (2) No, please proceed to Q18 15. How often are you exposed to such informal environmental education means (e.g. film, seminar, news, reports, campaigns) on average? (1) More than once a week (2) Once a month (3) Once in semester (4) Once a year 16. What was the reason for attending the educational course? (1) By chance without intention (2) Personal interest to learn more about environment (3) Mandatory learning at work or school 17. Did you find any of the education (both informal and formal) meaningful/helpful in "teaching you" more about the need to preserve environment? (1) Yes, it affected my daily behaviour (2) No, it did not affect my life (3) Yes to certain extent but worn out with time</td></tr><tr><td char=".">6. Did your parents emphasize the environmental aspects to you as a child? (1) Yes, strongly (2) Yes, moderately (3) Sometimes (4) Not really 7. When did you first "accept and recognize" the need to preserve environment? Childhood at home (2) Childhood in school (3) Teenager in school (4) Youth in university (5) Adult in society (6) Never, climate change is part of nature</td><td>Parental influence</td></tr><tr><td char=".">8. Have you ever had formal (official) education on environmental disruptions/climate change? Yes, please proceed to Q9 (2) No, please proceed to Q11 9. Was it a regular curriculum included in official education (check all that apply)? (1) Yes in Elementary school (2) Yes in Middle school (3) Yes in High school (4) Yes, in higher education (5) No, it was irregular educational event 10. How intensive was the class? Single class under 3 hours (2) A lecture course under 15 hours a term (3) A lecture course under 45 hours a term (4) A course more than 45 hours (5) Other: please specify ________________</td><td>Education format</td></tr><tr><td char=".">11. Have you ever had formal (official) education on environmental disruptions/climate change? (1) Yes, please proceed to Q12 (2) No, please proceed to Q14 12. Was it a regular curriculum included in official education (check all that apply)? (1) Yes in Elementary school (2) Yes in Middle school (3) Yes in High school (4) Yes, in higher education (5) No, it was irregular educational event 13. How intensive was the class? (1) Single class under 3 hours (2) A lecture course under 15 hours a term (3) A lecture course under 45 hours a term (4) A course more than 45 hours (5) Other: please specify ________________</td></tr><tr><td char=".">14. Have you ever been exposed to informal education on environmental disruptions/climate change including documentary films? (1) Yes, please proceed to Q15 (2) No, please proceed to Q18 15. How often are you exposed to such informal environmental education means (e.g. film, seminar, news, reports, campaigns) on average? (1) More than once a week (2) Once a month (3) Once in semester (4) Once a year 16. What was the reason for attending the educational course? (1) By chance without intention (2) Personal interest to learn more about environment (3) Mandatory learning at work or school 17. Did you find any of the education (both informal and formal) meaningful/helpful in "teaching you" more about the need to preserve environment? (1) Yes, it affected my daily behaviour (2) No, it did not affect my life (3) Yes to certain extent but worn out with time</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0173105406-20">Personal habitual behaviour</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td char=".">18. Do you use tumblers in daily life instead of disposable cups? (1) Yes (2) Sometimes (3) Only in my stationary position (e.g. home/office) (4) No 19. Do you use refillable products (e.g. shampoo, detergent)? (1) Yes (2) No (3) Sometimes 20. Do you use eco/reusable grocery bags to reduce plastic produce bags? (1) Yes (2) No (3) Sometimes (4) It is mandated (Governmental policy)</td><td>Daily habit towards environment-friendly products</td></tr><tr><td char=".">21. Does the environmental friendliness of a product affect your purchase decisions? (1) Absolutely, always (2) Moderately, always (3) Sometimes (4) Seldom (5) Never 22. Does energy efficiency of electric products affect your purchase decisions? (1) Absolutely, always (2) Moderately, always (3) Sometimes (4) Seldom (5) Never 23. Do you use second-hand market? (1) Always check second-hand market first (2) Depending on the good (3) Never</td></tr><tr><td char=".">24. Do you own a car? (1) Yes (2) No Is your car environment friendly (e.g. hybrid, electric vehicles)? If not, what fuel type do you use for your vehicle (Diesel/Regular/Unleaded)? Typically, how do you wash your car (self/machine)? 25. If you do not own a car at present or have a plan to change your car in the near future, do you plan to purchase environmentally friendly vehicles? (1) Yes (2) No 26. Do you intentionally choose a more environmentally friendly way of transport wherever possible (e.g. walking close distance, public transport, cycling or carpooling)? (1) Absolutely, always (2) Moderately, always (3) Sometimes (4) Seldom (5) Never</td><td>Sustainable transport choice</td></tr><tr><td char=".">27. What is a bin system in your house? (1) 1 for all (2) 2 (1-trash, 1-recycle) (3) 3 (1-trash, 2-recycle) (4) more than 4 28. What temperature do you set your heater in winter? _________ 29. What temperature do you set your air-conditioning in summer? _________ 30. Do you use cup or hand to gargle? (1) Cup (2) Hand 31. How do you dry your hair, laundry and dishes? (1) Dryer ________ (2) Air _________ Did you know that dyers produce more pollutants than air drying? Y/N</td><td>House management habit including recycling</td></tr><tr><td char=".">32. How much meat do you consume on average? (1) At least once as a main meal a day (2) At least once as a main meal a week (3) At least once as a main meal a month (4) More of plant-based meat than actual meat (5) Vegetarian 33. How do you rate your household in terms of environment sensitivity? (1) Highly sensitive in environmental issues (2) Moderately sensitive (3) Insensitive I teach my children about climate change (Y/N) I teach my children to buy less, use less and waste less for sustainable development (Y/N) I keep updated on environmental issues so I can correct my action accordingly (Y/N) 34. How many facial masks do you use per week? (1) One per week (2) 2-3 per week (3) 1 per day (4) Washable fabric (5) No use</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0173105406-21">Awareness on climate change and microplastics</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td char=".">35. Did you know that climate change is not limited to global warming but includes cold wave and heavy rains? (1) Yes (2) No 36. Did you know agricultural and diary industries are one of the main sources of pollution? Especially cattle are the largest agricultural source of greenhouse gas worldwide: each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane, which is shorter lived than carbon dioxide but 28 times more potent in global warming. (1) Yes (2) No 37. Did you know climate change increases health risks by enhancing bedding conditions for viruses (warmer and wetter)? (1) Yes (2) No</td><td>Climate change</td></tr><tr><td char=".">38. Did you know that coastal cities are affected by the rising sea levels: Indonesia is moving its capital city from Jakarta, one of the fastest-sinking cities in the world? (1) Yes (2) No</td><td>Sea-level rise</td></tr><tr><td char=".">39. Did you know that plastic/paper/Styrofoam need to be separated completely to be recycled properly (e.g. removing label film from plastic bottles)? (1) Yes (2) No 40. Did you know facial masks used daily over COVID-19 pandemics is made of microfibers, which is one of major sources of microplastic pollution? (1) Yes (2) No 41. Did you know the contribution of car tires to microplastic pollution increases exponentially with global warming as tires wear more on hot roads? (1) Yes (2) No 42. Did you know that plastic products including water bottles break down to microplastic and the rate increases with climate change as sunlight is one of the precursors? (1) Yes (2) No 43. Did you know microplastic has entered the food chain through birds feeding on aquatic insects that affects human dietary? (1) Yes (2) No 44. Did you know microplastic is harmful in the same manner as the fine dusts in air to human – respiratory illnesses caused by microplastics in air? (1) Yes (2) No</td><td>Microplastic pollution</td></tr><tr><td char=".">45. Did you know that there is practically no way to remove microplastic from environment once it is released? (1) Yes (2) No 46. If answered NO to any of the questions from Q31-39, do you think your future behaviour will change based on the new information? (1) Yes (2) No 47. How much do you agree with the following statement: The best waste policy is to reduce waste in the first place? (1) Strongly agree (2) Moderately agree (3) Neutral (4) Moderately disagree (5) Strongly disagree 48. If disagree with the above statement, what do you think is the best solution to current waste-induced pollutions? ___________________</td><td>Agreement to plastic ban</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Thank you very much for your attention and time.</p> <ref id="AN0173105406-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> BBC NEWS 2021. "History: How the World Embraced Consumerism". Accessed Feb 13, 2022. https://<ulink href="http://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210120-how-the-world-became-consumerist">www.bbc.com/future/article/20210120-how-the-world-became-consumerist</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Boucher, J., and D. Friot. 2017. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global Evaluation of Sources. Gland, Switzerland : International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (International Union for Conservation of Nature).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, Y., A. K. Awasthi, F. Wei, Q. Tan, and J. Li. 2021. " Single-Use Plastics: Production, Usage, Disposal, and Adverse Impacts." The Science of the Total Environment 752 : 141772. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141772.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref50" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Chia, R. W., J. Lee, H. Kim, and J. Jang. 2021. " Microplastic Pollution in Soil and Groundwater: A Review." Environmental Chemistry Letters 19 (6): 4211 – 4224. doi: 10.1007/s10311-021-01297-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Disinger, J. F. 1989. " Environmental Education: A Movement in Transition." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. May 44 (3): 188 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref38" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> EC 2019. "The European Green Deal. Eur. Com." Online Reporter. Accessed Jan 15, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en#documents.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref37" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> European Commission (EC). 2018. "A European Strategy for Plastics in Circular Economy. Eur. Com." Online Reporter. Accessed Jan 15, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/plastics-strategy-brochure.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref31" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Ford, H. V., N. H. Jones, A. J. Davies, B. J. Godley, J. R. Jambeck, I. E. Napper, C. C. Suckling, G. J. Williams, L. C. Woodall, and H. J. Koldewey. 2022. " The Fundamental Links between Climate Change and Marine Plastic Pollution." The Science of the Total Environment 806 (Pt 1): 150392. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150392.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref15" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Geyer, R., J. R. Jambeck, and K. L. Law. 2017. " Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made." Science Advances 3 (7): e1700782. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Government 24. "24 2019. Press Release by the Ministry of Science and ICT, the 6th Ministerial Meeting on Science and Technology". Accessed Dec 1, 2021. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.kr/">www.gov.kr/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, P. A. 1993. " Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain." Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275 – 296. doi: 10.2307/422246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton, L. A., S. Feit, C. Muffett, and M. Kelso. 2019. Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet. Washington, DC: Center of International Environmental Law.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopewell, J., R. Dvorak, and E. Kosior. 2009. " Plastics Recycling: Challenges and Opportunities." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 364 (1526): 2115 – 2126. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Idris, F., Z. Hassan, A. Ya'achob, S. K. Gill, and N. A. M. Awal. 2012. " The Role of Education in Shaping Youth's National Identity: UKM Teaching and Learning Congress 2011." Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences 59 : 443 – 450.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalina, M., and E. Tilley. 2020. " This is Our Next Problem': Cleaning up from the COVID-19 Response." Waste Management (New York, N.Y.) 108 : 202 – 205. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, B. C., and S. Lee. 2020. " Analysis of the Contents of Climate Change and Energy Education in the 2015 Revised Elementary School Textbooks." Journal of the Korean Society of Energy and Climate Change Education (in Korean) 10 (3): 181 – 196.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, C., and M. E. Krasny. 2018. " Environmental Education Policies in Korea: Institutionalization and Implementation of EE at National and Regional Levels." Journal of Environmental Education 31 (4): 377 – 390.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, H., and J. Lee. 2020. " Emerging Concerns about Microplastic Pollution on Groundwater in South Korea." Sustainability 12 (13): 5275. doi: 10.3390/su12135275.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, M., and H. Kim. 2022. " COVID-19 Pandemic and Microplastic Pollution." Nanomaterials 12 (5): 851. doi: 10.3390/nano12050851.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Minha, Heejung Kim, Jin-Yong Lee, Jae E. Yang, and Chungwan Lim. 2022. " A Shift towards Integrated and Adaptive Water Management in South Korea: Building Resilience against Climate Change." Water Resources Management 36 (5): 1611 – 1625. doi: 10.1007/s11269-022-03071-x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Y. J., S. B. Choi, S. M. Chung, and K. H. Yook. 2020. " A Study on Improving the Management System for River Waste Flowing into the Sea." Korea Maritime Institute. Basic Book Company Research 2020–2008. Busan, Korea : KMI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education 2022. Data. https://<ulink href="http://www.moe.go.kr/main.do?s=moe">www.moe.go.kr/main.do?s=moe</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of the Environment 2022. Data. <ulink href="http://stat.me.go.kr/nesis/index.jsp">http://stat.me.go.kr/nesis/index.jsp</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, C., and C. Phillips. 2011. " The Plastic Ocean: Scientists Know That There is a Colossal Amount of Plastic in the Oceans. But They Don't Know Where It All is, What It Looks like or What Damage It Does." Nature 536 : 263 – 265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ODI. Accessed Febr 2020. "Phasing Out Plastics" 7, 2022. https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/odi-et-cp-synthesis-report-sep20-proof02_final2.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palmer, J., and P. Neal. 1994. The Handbook of Environmental Education. London, UK and New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parashar, N., and S. Hait. 2021. " Plastics in the Time of COVID-19 Pandemic: Protector or Polluter? " The Science of the Total Environment 759 : 144274. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Psacharopoulos, G., and M. Woodhall. 1985. Education for Development: Analysis of Investment Choices. World Bank Publication. Washington DC : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rillig, M. C. 2012. " Microplastic in Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Soil? " Environmental Science & Technology 46 (12): 6453 – 6454. doi: 10.1021/es302011r.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roos, D. 2021. "How Early Humans Survived the Ice Age." Online Publication. Accessed Aug 5, 2022. https://<ulink href="http://www.history.com/news/ice-age-human-survival">www.history.com/news/ice-age-human-survival</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryu, H. S., J. Moon, H. Kim, and J. Lee. 2021. " Modeling and Parametric Simulation of Microplastic Transport in Groundwater Environments." Applied Sciences 11 (16): 7189. doi: 10.3390/app11167189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schleicher, K. 1989. " Beyond Environmental Education: The Need for Ecological Awareness." International Review of Education 35 (3): 257 – 281. doi: 10.1007/BF00598942.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seo, E. 2016. " The Operation of Environment Education Curriculum Focused on the Actual State of 'Environment' Subject Selection and the Ratio of EE-Major Teachers in Korean Secondary Schools." Korean Journal of Environmental Education 29 (3): 251 – 262. doi: 10.17965/kjee.2016.29.3.251'.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stapp, W. B. 1969. " The Concept of Environmental Education." Environmental Education 1 (1): 30 – 31. doi: 10.1080/00139254.1969.10801479.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Statista 2022. Data. https://<ulink href="http://www.statista.com/">www.statista.com/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> STEPI (Science and Technology Policy Institute). 2021. Comprehensive Management of Microplastics in Korea. Seoul, Korea : STEPI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The National Environmental Education Advisory Council 2005. Setting the Standard, Measuring Results, Celebrating Successes: A Report to Congress on the Status of Environmental Education in the United States. EPA Report Series. Accessed Mar 20, 2022. https://<ulink href="http://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reporttocongress2005%5f2.pdf,">www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reporttocongress2005%5f2.pdf,</ulink> EPA-240-R-05-001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2002. Connect Newsletter on Environmental Education: Possibilities and Constraints. Vol. 27. Accessed Mar 14, 2022. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146295, 1 – 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNEP 2015. "Global Waste Management Outlook". Accessed Jan 25, 2021. https://<ulink href="http://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-waste-management-outlook">www.unep.org/resources/report/global-waste-management-outlook</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNEP 2018. "Single-Use Plastics: A Road Map for Sustainability". Accessed Jan 17, 2021. https://<ulink href="http://www.unep.org/resources/report/single-use-plastics-roadmap-sustainability">www.unep.org/resources/report/single-use-plastics-roadmap-sustainability</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations (UN) World Youth Report 2010. Youth and Climate Change. Seoul, Korea : UNESCO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2022. https://<ulink href="http://www.fs.usda.gov/">www.fs.usda.gov/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, J. J., L. Zheng, and J. H. Li. 2018. " A Critical Review on the Sources and Instruments of Marine Microplastics and Prospects on the Relevant Management in China." Waste Management & Research : The Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA 36 (10): 898 – 911. doi: 10.1177/0734242X18793504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu, Y., and Y. Jhun. 2011. " Study on Climate Change Education in Elementary School – Focused on Science Textbooks under the 2007 Revised National Curriculum." Journal of the Korean Society of Energy and Climate Change Education (in Korean) 1 (2): 125 – 134.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Minha Lee; Jae-E Yang; Heejung Kim; Jinah Moon; Han-Sun Ryu and Jin-Yong Lee</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref64"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1400918
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effective Environmental Education for Sustainable Development beyond the Plastic Age in South Korea
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lee%2C+Minha%22">Lee, Minha</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8991-7189">0000-0001-8991-7189</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yang%2C+Jae-E%22">Yang, Jae-E</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8641-6442">0000-0001-8641-6442</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kim%2C+Heejung%22">Kim, Heejung</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2652-3160">0000-0003-2652-3160</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Moon%2C+Jinah%22">Moon, Jinah</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1684-4254">0000-0002-1684-4254</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ryu%2C+Han-Sun%22">Ryu, Han-Sun</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5705-2982">0000-0002-5705-2982</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lee%2C+Jin-Yong%22">Lee, Jin-Yong</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5996-7801">0000-0002-5996-7801</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Environmental+Education+Research%22"><i>Environmental Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2023 29(9):1328-1345.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; 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: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Education%22">Environmental Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sustainability%22">Sustainability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sustainable+Development%22">Sustainable Development</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22South+Korea%22">South Korea</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13504622.2023.2190530
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1350-4622<br />1469-5871
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The skyrocketing single-plastic demand during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic proved the limitation of top-down environmental policies in accomplishing sustainable consumption and waste management. Nevertheless, 'smart consumers' can make smart choices for sustainable development. However, a review of the South Korean environmental education curriculum reveals that the current structure heavily leans towards the elementary level and does not enlighten the public on 'what' and 'how' to live sustainably. This study uses a quick survey to suggest that the effectiveness of environmental education may be enhanced if: (1) guidance on how to live with the natural environment in harmony for collective cooperation towards resilient and sustainable community building is incorporated with a clear purpose, (2) environment-friendly culture-building activities are enforced to institutionalise a new paradigm of sustainability to replace today's consumerism, and (3) contents are updated regularly to include Earth and environmental science knowledge in the state of art.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1400918
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1400918
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13504622.2023.2190530
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 1328
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sustainability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sustainable Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: South Korea
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effective Environmental Education for Sustainable Development beyond the Plastic Age in South Korea
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lee, Minha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yang, Jae-E
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kim, Heejung
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Moon, Jinah
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ryu, Han-Sun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lee, Jin-Yong
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1350-4622
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-5871
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 29
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Environmental Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1