Abstract
Industries have found themselves under a microscope because consumers are basing more of their purchasing decisions on a company’s sustainability practices. The floral industry is perceived as being environmentally friendly by consumers. However, based on waste production, the life cycle of fresh merchandise, and the carbon footprint of flowers shipped across the world, this purchasing assumption is not entirely true. To align with consumer perceptions and become more sustainable, the industry must adapt to include more sustainable practices. New and experienced florists alike must determine how they can make slight changes in their businesses to become more environmentally savvy. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the introduction of more sustainable waste practices into a college floral design course influenced the students’ perceptions of environmental health. Two groups of students enrolled in the basic floral design course at Mississippi State University completed a survey about environmental health at the start and at the end of the semester. However, one group sorted their laboratory wastes into compostable material and landfill material. The results of this study indicated that students who separated their floral waste maintained the same level of environmental concern throughout the testing period, whereas the environmental health scores of those who did not separate their waste declined slightly. The results also indicated that the participants who did not separate their floral waste had lower mean scores at the beginning and at the end of the study. Finally, the results of this study indicated that students who separated floral waste were ranked as having high environmental concern compared to those who did not separate their floral waste in the laboratory.
Because more Generation Z students enter higher education, colleges and universities are rethinking how to educate this new generation (Seemiller and Grace 2016). Generation Z can be defined as people born between 1995 to 2012. This generation has also been referred to as the “internet” generation or iGen (Gabrielova and Buchko 2021). Because people of this generation have been exposed to the internet, smart phones, personal computers, and laptop computers since infancy, they are known to be very comfortable with technology and good at multitasking by using a variety of sophisticated technologies (Gabrielova and Buchko 2021; Hariadi et al. 2016).
The first Generation Z students began graduating from college in 2017. Research that investigated how Generation Z college students learn found that they were observers who prefer to view a video of someone completing a task rather than read instructions explaining how the task is completed before attempting the same task themselves (Seemiller and Grace 2016). Generation Z students are also intrapersonal learners who prefer to work on assignments independently at their own pace; however, they are willing to collaborate with peers when necessary (Isaacs et al. 2020; Seemiller and Grace 2016). Intrapersonal learning is unique to Generation Z, most likely because of the individual nature of technology and the internet (Seemiller and Grace 2016).
If college students lack environmental waste knowledge, then there could be harmful implications for their generation and future generations; therefore, environmental waste educators should actively seek out ways to relate to Generation Z (Seemiller and Grace 2016). Continual exposure to environmental concerns encourages people to integrate them into their daily behaviors (Ratnapradipa et al. 2011). During a study that investigated the commitment to adapt to a sustainable lifestyle, it was found that 90.6% of college students who participated acknowledged that there was an urgency to address environmental issues and that they intended to change their lifestyles to be more environmentally conscious (Dimitrova et al. 2021).
Environmental education provided by higher education institutions can play an important role in training and preparing the future generation about environmental health in an effort to develop a greener society (Boca and Saraçl 2019). One way that teaching institutions can increase students’ awareness of environmental issues is through curricula adaptation that includes practical environmental laboratory activities (Boca and Saraçl 2019). Environmental health involves the evaluation, control, or elimination of negative exposures to harmful impurities such as air pollution, contaminated water, lead, and mercury, as well as how exposures affect human health and well-being (Ratnapradipa et al. 2011).
A previous study that investigated the impact that an introductory environmental course had on students’ environmental awareness found that students who enrolled in the course reported greater pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors than students who were not enrolled, and it revealed a positive correlation between attitudes and behaviors at the end of the course (Schmidt 2007). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the introduction of more sustainable waste practices into a college floral design course influenced the students’ overall perception of environmental health.
Materials and methods
Sample population
Institutional Review Board exemption approval was obtained for this research (IRB Protocol 20-522; Feb 2021). The sample population comprised college students enrolled in the basic floral design course at Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA.
Experimental design
A pretest–posttest control group design was used for this study. A total of six laboratory sections of basic floral design are taught each semester at Mississippi State University. Each laboratory section has a maximum enrollment capacity of 21 students. Laboratory sections were evenly divided into three control groups and three experimental groups. Within the experiment laboratory sections, students separated compostable floral waste from other waste when completing weekly floral design projects. Students in the experimental laboratory sections were given demonstrations of waste separation during the first week of laboratory work. Students in the experimental laboratory sections were informed that the waste they were separating in laboratory would be used to make compost. Students in the experimental laboratory sections were not directly involved with making compost and separated their waste within the laboratory only. The exact same pretest and posttest were given to all students who chose to participate in this study within the control and experimental laboratory sections. No incentive was offered to students for choosing to complete the survey. During the pretest, students learned about the context of the study and informed consent through a recruitment form. The pretest was administered during the first week of laboratories, and the posttest was administered after 15 weeks of laboratory meetings. Surveys were collected by the researchers over five semesters.
Instrumentation
The survey instrument consisted of 18 questions within two different sections. The survey was a modification of another survey that was used to determine perceptions of environmental health (Wojtowicz 1995). For this study, the answer scale was changed from a 5-point scale to a 7-point scale to allow for more neutral responses. The answer scale was developed by a panel of four university professors with experience performing survey research. The first section included 13 7-point Likert-type (Likert 1932) questions pertaining to respondents’ perceptions toward environmental health. Answers included “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “disagree somewhat,” “neutral,” “agree somewhat,” “agree,” and “strongly agree.” Examples of questions included “My individual efforts within environmental protection each day can directly improve our environment,” “More and tougher laws should be passed to change individual behavior related to environmental protection,” and “Environmental problems are the result of the habits or behavior of everyone who lives in our society” (Wojtowicz 1995). Overall respondents scores could range from 13 to 91. Higher scores indicated more concern regarding environmental health and willingness to make changes to improve environmental health. Based on the responses, each participant received an overall environmental health score and was classified as having low, medium, or high concern toward environmental health. Scores were recoded to inversely equalize the five negatively worded statements. Individuals with ≤38 points were ranked as having “low concern.” Individuals with 39 to 64 points were ranked as having “medium concern.” Individuals with ≥65 points were ranked as having “high concern.” The cutoff values were determined based on similar studies (Etheredge and Waliczek 2020; McFarland et al. 2008).
The second section consisted of five demographic questions about the respondents’ age, education level, sex, and ethnicity that were based on a reliable instrument used during a previous similar study (Etheredge and Waliczek 2020).
Data analysis
Data from the survey were entered into IBM SPSS Statistics (version 28; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data were analyzed using t tests and descriptive and frequency statistics.
Results and discussion
Survey response
Over a 2.5-year period, a total of 318 participants completed the pretest and posttest survey (42.0% response rate; average of 53 student participants per semester). Of the total participation population, 146 students participated in the laboratory where no waste was separated, and 172 students participated in the waste separation laboratory. Overall, most participants were female (263; 84.1%), between the ages of 18 and 22 years (295; 94.4%), and Caucasian (244; 78.2%) (Table 1). These findings are consistent with the current demographic data collected by the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics, which found that owners of retail flowers shop were most commonly Caucasian (87.2%) and female (77.1%) (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2022).
Frequency statistics of demographics of students who did not separate waste and students who did separate waste.
Impact of floral design courses on college students’ perceptions of environmental health
We performed t tests to determine whether students’ responses to the pretest were significantly different than those to the posttest, and to determine which responses significantly changed (Table 2). Statistically significant differences were found for five questions when the responses to pretests and posttests of students who did not separate waste were compared. When asked whether their individual efforts regarding environmental protection each day can directly improve our environment, students who did not separate their waste had overall mean scores of 5.6733 on the pretest and 5.0208 on the posttest (P < 0.001) (Table 2). When asked if more and stricter laws should be passed to change individual behavior related to environmental protection, students who did not separate their waste had average scores of 5.3667 on the pretest and 5.0139 on the posttest (P = 0.019) (Table 2). When asked if they believed that there was a direct link between environmental hazards and their health, students who did not separate their waste had average scores of 6.0333 on the pretest and 5.6319 on the posttest (P = 0.002) (Table 2). When asked if their personal concern for the environment is necessary for improvements in the environment, students who did separate their waste had average scores of 6.0733 on the pretest and 5.5903 on the posttest (P <0.001) (Table 2). For all significant findings, the pretest scores had declined compared to those of the posttest.
Results of the t test and descriptive statistics indicating differences between pretest and posttest responses of students who did not sort their floral waste.
Descriptive tests found that the mean score for the overall concern toward environmental health was 64.09 (medium concern, 39–64). The findings indicated there was a significant difference in the pretest and posttest scores of the group who did not separate their floral waste (pretest mean score, 64.95; posttest mean score, 62.44) (P = 0.005) (Table 2).
Frequency tests found that during the pretest, 57.7% of students who did not separate their floral waste were ranked as having a high level of overall concern for environmental health; however, during the posttest, the number decreased to 42.4% (Table 3). Overall, the findings indicated that the perceptions of environmental health declined from start to finish among students who did not separate their waste. This could be attributed to the participants thinking about environmental health more at the beginning of study than they did at the end. The results may have indicated their true feelings toward environmental health on a given day. The decrease in environmental concern over the course of the semester was supported by past studies that found that the concepts of environmental sustainability must be continually addressed during the learning process, preferably in ways that allow active student participation in an experience to ensure long-term compliance with new concepts (Stewart 2010; Žalėnienė and Pereira 2021).
Frequency and descriptive statistics of pretest and posttest responses for the overall score of the environmental health concern of students who did not separate waste and students who did separate waste.
Impact of separating floral waste during a floral design course on college students’ perceptions of environmental health
We performed t tests to determine whether students’ responses during the pretest and posttest periods changed significantly among students who separated their floral waste. Because there were no significant differences in any of the questions on the pretest and posttest provided to the waste separation group, the students’ environmental health concerns remained constant throughout the study. These results support those of past studies that found that education involving environmental sustainability should include interactive learning settings that empower individuals to reflect on their own actions (Cebrián et al. 2020).
Descriptive statistics determined that the overall mean score for respondents was 64.09, indicating that most respondents had a medium level of concern for environmental health. A slight change was observed, but a statistically different decrease was not observed (pretest, 64.77; posttest, 64.09).
Frequency test results indicated that the pretest scores of students who did separate their floral waste were equally ranked as medium and high levels of overall concern toward environmental health (49.7%) (Table 3). The posttest results indicated that most students who did separate their waste had a medium level of overall concern toward environmental health (51.4%), followed by those with a high level of concern (48.0%) (Table 3).
Differences in college students’ perceptions of environmental health between test groups
Statistically significant differences were not observed when the pretest scores of students who did not separate waste and those of students who did separate waste were compared. Frequency tests found that the overall mean pretest scores of both groups were similar (Table 4).
Frequency and descriptive statistics of pretest responses for the overall score of environmental health concern of students who did not separate waste and students who did separate waste.
Statistically significant differences were found for five questions after comparing posttest scores of students who did not separate waste and those of students who did separate waste. When asked if their individual efforts regarding environmental protection each day can directly improve our environment, students who did not separate their waste had an average score of 5.02, and students who did separate their waste had an average score of 5.6114 (P <0.001) (Table 5). When asked if more and stricter laws should be passed to change individual behavior related to environmental protection, students who did not separate their waste had an average score of 5.0139, and those of students who did separate their waste had an average score of 5.3200 (P = 0.038) (Table 5). When asked if they believed that there was a direct link between environmental hazards and their health, students who did not separate their waste had an average score of 5.6319, and students who did separate their waste had an average score of 5.9029 (P = 0.047) (Table 5). When the posttest asked if their personal concern for the environment is necessary for improvements in the environment, students who did not separate their waste had an average score of 5.5903, and students who did separate their waste had an average score of 5.8514 (P = 0.032) (Table 5). When the posttest asked if incentives or rewards would help change their environmental protection behavior, students who did not separate their waste had an average score of 2.9236, and students who did separate their waste had an average score of 2.6171 (P = 0.033) (Table 5). The findings indicated that, compared to students who did not separate floral waste, students who did separate floral waste had higher mean scores for all significant questions and a lower score for the incentive question, which indicated that environmental concern for certain areas was greater among those in the waste separation group and a decreased need for incentives.
Results of the t test and descriptive statistics indicating differences between posttest responses of students who sorted their floral waste and those of students who did not sort floral waste.
These findings support the findings of a previous study that was conducted at the University of Wisconsin La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA, and found that students who enrolled in courses with environmental attributes reported greater proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors than students who were not enrolled in such courses (Schmidt 2007).
Conclusions
The findings of this study indicated that college students who enroll in a university course with environmental components maintain a higher level of environmental concern than that of students who enroll in the same course without environmental components. These results indicate the need to emphasize the significance of environmental awareness in an educational setting. By integrating environmentally sustainable practices and environmental health into a university course, students can gain additional knowledge. The findings of this study indicate that separating waste could be used as a supplemental activity when instructing students enrolled in a floral design course about environmental health. Ultimately, educating the next generation of floral designers is at the forefront of real-world applications. This research may also act as the foundation for other floral educators to replicate this type of waste separation program at other universities and floral education institutes.
Recommendations for future studies include analyses of older participants in a similar study to determine whether results vary among older populations. Additionally, longitudinal studies should investigate whether participants’ responses change over time after completing a university course with environmental aspects.
This study had some limitations. The sample size was small. Furthermore, respondents were volunteers who agreed to complete the survey; they were not randomly sampled. Therefore, the results are not necessarily generalizable beyond this study.
References cited
Boca GD, Saraçl S. 2019. Environmental education and student’s perception, for sustainability. Sustainability. 11(6):1553. http://doi.org/10.3390/su11061553.
Cebrián G, Junyent M, Mulà I. 2020. Competencies in education for sustainable development: Emerging teaching and research developments. Sustainability. 12(2):579. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020579.
Dimitrova A, Vaishar A, Št’astná M. 2021. Preparedness of young people for sustainable lifestyle: Awareness and willingness. Sustainability. 13(13):7204. http://doi.org/10.3390/su13137204.
Etheredge CL, Waliczek TM. 2020. Perceptions of environmental health and willingness to compost fresh cut floral waste by retail flower shop owners. HortTechnology. 30(6):751–760. http://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04724-20.
Gabrielova K, Buchko AA. 2021. Here comes Generation Z: Millennials as managers. Bus Horizon. 64(4):489–499. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.013.
Hariadi MJ, Dewiyani S, Sudarmaningtyas P. 2016. Development of web-based learning application for Generation Z. Intl J Evaluation Res Ed. 5(1):60–68. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v5i1.4523.
Isaacs AN, Scott SA, Nisly SA. 2020. Move out of Z way Millennials. Currents Pharm Teach Learn. 12(12):1387–1389. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2020.07.002.
Likert R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 22:140–155.
McFarland AL, Waliczek TM, Zajicek JM. 2008. The relationship between student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life. HortTechnology. 18(2):232–238. http://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.18.2.232.
Ratnapradipa D, Brown S, Middleton W, Wodika A. 2011. Measuring environmental health perception among college students. Health Ed. 43(2):13–20. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967821.pdf.
Schmidt JE. 2007. From intentions to actions: The role of environmental awareness on college students. J Undergraduate Res. 1–4.
Seemiller C, Grace M. 2016. Generation Z: Educating and engaging the next generation of students. About Campus. 22(3):21–26. http://doi.org/10.1002/abc.21293.
Stewart M. 2010. Transforming higher education: A practical plan for integrating sustainability education into the student experience. J Sustain Educ. 1(1):195–203. http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Stewart2010.pdf.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2022. Labor force statistics from the current population survey. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm. [accessed 23 Feb 2022].
Wojtowicz GG. 1995. Health and environmental protection: A survey of student attitudes. University of North Carolina. Charlotte, NC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED386447. [accessed 3 Feb 2019].
Žalėnienė I, Pereira P. 2021. Higher education for sustainability: A global perspective. Geo Sustain. 2(2):99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2021.05.001.
