Social Work Students and Lifestyle Changes for Resource Conservation

1. Social Work Students and Lifestyle Changes for Resource Conservation Dr. Marita Flagler & Dr. Richard Flagler Shippensburg University, PA, USA

2. Problem Statement Sustainability “involves taking a global perspective” (p. 7) which encompasses amongst other things, restrained use of natural resources and levels of consumption by people in the economically developed countries both for the sake of the people living in the rest of the world and that of future generations (Cahill, 2002).

3. Problem Statement (cont.) • In the last two decades, the social work profession, with its central person-in-environment paradigm, has shown an ever increasing interest in sustainable development (Kemp, 2011; McKinnon, 2008) as an area of social action and community organizing (Hoff & Polack, 1993) directly linked to basic concepts of social justice (Carrilio, 2007) and human rights (Cahill, 2002).

4. Problem Statement (cont.) • Engagement of social workers in the economically developed countries in local and global social action for resource conservation, sustainable development and protection of the environment is predicated on: • their understanding and acceptance of the need for major lifestyle changes • their willingness to participate in promoting these changes amongst their peers and their communities.

5. Are we preparing a future generation of social workers that is ready to be engaged in promoting environmental sustainability?

6. Research Questions • (1) Are social work students aware of the impact of their lifestyle of unrestrained use of natural resources and high level of consumption on the world resources and the environment? • (2) Are these students ready to make lifestyle changes that reduce their own use of natural resources to benefit sustainable development? • (3) Are the social work students willing to promote the necessary lifestyle changes in their communities by being involved in community organizing and social action?

7. Methods • Design: mixed • Quasi-experimental: Pre-test, post-test • Focus groups (3, N=36) • Participants • SW students (N=37) • General Ed Students (N=22) • Instruments • Pre Test & Post Test Quiz (true, false, not sure) • Attitude scale (5-point scale) • Open ended questions for focus groups • Data collection • IIRB approval, informed consent, in class, • SW students: research class, 45 minute educational workshop • GE students: beginning and end of Environmental Bio course • Focus groups notes • Data processing • SPSS • Identification of themes

8. Results: Lifestyle

9. Results: Awareness of Life Style Impact Pre-Test • SW Quiz Mean: 13.19/20, SD=3.81 (66%, D) • E.BioQuiz Mean: 13.45/20, SD=2.45 (67%, D) • Difference not statistically significant • 35% of SW students do not know that major cause of air pollution in the USA is transportation. • 32% of SW students do not know that paper and packaging are the major part of American solid waste. • 41% of SW students do not know that burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal provide the majority of electricity. • 51% of SW students are not aware that composting helps in reducing carbon footprint. • 32% of SW students are not aware that buying locally grown food reduces carbon footprint. • 86% admit that “my lifestyle may cause waste and /or overconsumption.”

10. Results: Awareness of Life Style Impact • Post-test: Education matters • SW Quiz Mean: 7.3/10 (73%, C), T-TEST, pretest-posttest, p=0.025 • E.Bio Quiz Mean: 8.2/10 (82%, B),T-TEST, pretest-posttest, p=0004 • Focus groups • Little awareness, little attention paid • Need education

11. Results: Attitude Towards Lifestyle Changes

12. Results: Attitude Towards Lifestyle Changes Focus groups: • It’s got to be done; we cannot afford to be selfish. • Some changes are not difficult, like using reusable water bottles. • Change in society’s attitude and support is needed to impact student lifestyle changes.

13. Results: Willingness to Promote Lifestyle Changes

14. Results: Willingness to Promote Lifestyle Changes Focus groups: • Social workers need to be involved; it is important for the community. • There are many way to be involved at the university and the community, we need to become active.

15. Implications for Practice • More education is needed to bring about awareness ; part of the required courses? • Infusion of sustainable development content may be well received by students • Students may enjoy participating in service learning projects related to sustainable development.

16. List of References • Cahill, M. (2002). Environment and social policy. In Pete Alcock (Ed.) Environment and social policy (pp. 1-17), New York, NY: Routledge • Carrilio, T. (2007). Utilizing a social work perspective to enhance sustainable development efforts in Loreto, Mexico. International Social Work,50(4), 528-538. • Hoff, M. & Polack, R. (1993). Social Dimensions of the environmental crisis: Challenges for social work. Social Work, 38(2), 204-211. • Jones, P. (2010). Responding to the ecological crises: transformative pathways for social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(1), 67-84 • Kemp, S. P. (2011). Recentring environment in social work practice: Necessity, opportunity, challenge. British Journal of Social Work, 41(6), 1198-1210 • McKinnon, J. 2008. Exploring the nexus between social work and the environment. Australian Social Work, 61(3), 256-268. doi:10.1080/03124070802178274