The Effects of Carbon Footprint Calculation on Student Trip Leaders

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

1

The Effects of Carbon Footprint Calculation on Student Trip Leaders: A Pilot Study Lee Collette and Keith Crawford Appalachian State University

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Abstract The purpose of this pilot study is to conduct an in-depth investigation of the

2

characteristics and possible relationship between having University-Sponsored Outdoor Program (OP) student leaders calculate the carbon footprint of an OP trip and the decisions they make while planning that trip. The decisions the researchers focused on are the distance traveled and food choices. This intervention may be useful to other programs at colleges and universities across the United States as a means of promoting environmentally sustainable programs throughout the outdoor recreation industry. Researchers collected archival data from the previous academic year to calculate carbon footprint data prior to any intervention. To encourage student trip leaders to analyze the ecological impacts of their proposed trips, a carbon footprint calculator was included with all trip proposal forms in the fall of 2011. The trip proposal form has been in use at OP since the 20102011 school year and collects basic trip details (such as destination, meals, and travel needs), which makes it a logical place to have trip staff begin to think about the carbon footprint of their trip. The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and other variables were compared to those of the previous semesters’ proposed trips. Data analysis revealed significantly lower average carbon footprints for the post-intervention semester. A -47.1% magnitude of change from the fall 2010 semester and a -54.9% magnitude of change from the spring 2011 semester. Researchers also investigated the environmental attitudes of student trip leaders compared to those of a representative sample of students. Online surveys using the New Ecological Paradigm (NEPR) (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000) were used to make this comparison. The analysis of the surveys revealed that student trip leaders had a slightly lower NEPR scores than the control group.

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

3

To provide insight into the quantitative results from survey responses student trip leaders were invited to a focus group. Major trends from these groups included: study participants feeling that there was a positive impact (sustainably speaking) on their trip proposals as a result of completing the carbon footprint calculation, OP should continue the practice of having student trip leaders calculate carbon footprints for proposed trips, and lastly that an educational workshop would have been beneficial prior to the trip proposal so that they would have a better understanding of why they were calculating carbon footprint. If outdoor professionals proclaim to be stewards for the environment, then how can college outdoor programs begin to create awareness in staff about their impacts on the environment? The authors believe educating student trip leaders in the early stages of their development will lead to a ripple effect of positive changes within and beyond the outdoor industry. This pilot study will provide insight into educational interventions with OP student leaders and methods to measure carbon footprint of university sponsored OP trips. Keywords: carbon footprint, college outdoor program, environmental attitude, environmental sustainability

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

4

The Effects of Carbon Footprint Calculation on Student Trip Leaders: A Pilot Study According to President Barrack Obama, “the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. (2009)”. While many college outdoor recreation programs place great emphasis on respecting and caring for the environment while in the field, few programs are aware of the impacts their decisions outside of the field are having on our planet. The purpose of this pilot study is to use Appalachian State University’s Outdoor Programs (ASU OP) to conduct and in-depth investigation of the characteristics and possible relationship between having student leaders calculate the carbon footprint of a trip and the decisions they make while planning that trip. For example, if a student calculates the amount of carbon produced by a trip they are proposing, will this impact student decision-making on issues such as the distance that they will travel or the types of food they will purchase? This study will also provide a model of how to measure greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of outdoor programs. This model may be useful to other programs at colleges and universities across the United States as a means of promoting environmentally sustainable programs throughout the outdoor recreation industry. Researchers collected archival data from the previous academic year to calculate carbon footprint data prior to any intervention. In the fall student trip leaders will then receive an updated version of the trip proposal form, which will have a new section asking them to calculate the GHG emissions created by the travel and food consumption associated with their proposed trip. These will then be collected by researchers and the GHG emissions and other variables compared to those of the previous semester’s proposed trips. Surveys will also be used to compare the trip leaders’ environmental attitudes to those of a representative sample of the ASU student population. Additionally, focus-groups will be held clarify the meaning of the data collected.

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

5

By using student trip leaders, the researchers plan to reveal how educating staff about GHG emissions and asking them to calculate their trip’s carbon footprint affect their trip planning decisions and environmental attitudes. The decisions we will focus on are the distance traveled and food choices. While there are many other aspects of outdoor recreation trips which impact the environment we have chosen to focus on these for two reasons. The first reason is that these are the factors which student trip leaders at ASU OP have direct control of, the second reason we chose these factors is because they are two which are currently easiest to quantify in terms of GHG emissions. If outdoor professionals proclaim to be stewards for the environment, then how can college outdoor programs begin to create awareness in staff about their impacts on the environment? The authors believe educating student trip leaders in the early stages of their development will lead to a ripple effect of positive changes within and beyond the outdoor industry. Research Questions 1. What is the relationship between having student trip leaders calculate their trips’ carbon footprint and their decisions for trip planning? 2. What is the relationship between carbon footprint calculation and environmental attitudes? Review of the Literature Literature in the fields of outdoor recreation and higher education is void of research on the behavioral and attitudinal effects of calculating carbon footprint. Only one published article is available that discusses the carbon footprint of an outdoor recreation program. This case study from Texas Tech University analyzed the carbon footprint of its Outdoor Pursuits Center (Lloyd-

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

6

Strovas and Hayhoe, 2009) and that study was a catalyst for the creation of this project. This article does an excellent job of explaining the methodology behind measuring the carbon footprint of a college outdoor program and the reasons why they measured certain components and not others. The researchers will utilize the information from the Lloyd-Strovas and Hayhoe (2009) article and create a pilot study to determine if carbon footprint education and calculation is an effective means of reducing carbon footprint and creating more environmentally aware student trip leaders at Appalachian State University. There are a number of articles in the outdoor recreation and higher education literature which act as a call to action, imploring these industries to take measures to lessen their overall impact on the planet (Cortes, 2009; O'Connell, Potter, Curthoys, Dyment & Cuthbertson, 2005; Irwin, 2010; Ross, 1996) These articles provide inspiration and good ideas yet stop at the point of putting the ideas into practice and evaluating their effects. Behavior and Attitude Modification As It Relates to Sustainability Two articles have reported that training people about carbon footprint is an effective way to create positive change in their environmental attitudes and behaviors. (Graham, Koo & Wilson, 2011; Wakeland, Sears & Venkat, 2009) Using a computerized carbon footprint education tool Wakeland, Sears and Venkat (2009) were able to show increased knowledge and environmental influence beliefs in food consumers while Ghramam, Koo and Wilson (2011) were able to decrease people’s driving by having them visit a website every other day and log how many times they had avoided using their cars and then providing them with feedback about money and/or pollution saved. Both of the aforementioned studies used college students. The Wakeland, Sears and Venkat (2009) studies utilized college students who were taking courses in Sustainability and Supply Chain Management, these students are likely to be more prone to adapt

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

7

positive environmental attitudes and behaviors due to their previous interest in the subject. Both of these studies provide optimism that education and implementation of a new tool may prove to be an effective method for changing Appalachian State University Outdoor Program’s student trip leaders’ environmental attitudes and actions. Bamberg (2002) found that implementation intentions, or having someone create concrete plans to implement a behavior (the use of a new bus route as an example), were important in modifying the habits of the college students participating in his studies. Bamberg states, “the results of both presented studies confirm that also in the field of environmentally related behaviours the initiation of an intended new behaviour seems to be a barrier at which people often fail” (2002, p. 408). The authors of this study are curious to discover if the calculation of a trip’s GHG emissions will act as an implementation intention and assist trip leaders in becoming environmental stewards. A limitation to Bamberg’s study is the use of incentives to encourage participants to follow through with the intervention. The offer of incentives may have skewed the data concerning the effectiveness of implementation intentions, as more people may have followed through due to their desire to receive the incentive than based solely on the fact that they created a plan. Sustainability Education in Academe and Outdoor Recreation There is a vast amount of literature discussing the integration of sustainability literacy education in both higher education and outdoor recreation (Higgins & Kirg, 2006; Lugg, 2007; Nicol, 2002; Parkin, Johnston, Brookes & White, 2004; O’Connell, Potter, Curthoys, Dyment & Cuthberson, 2005). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have created an initiative to "re-orient teacher education towards sustainable futures” (2004). According to Lugg (2007), “Higher Education has a role to play in developing

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION sustainability literacy but understanding of what knowledge and skills are required is

8

emerging...” (p. 108). Wright (2009) expands on this notion stating “our institutions of higher education are failing in that they teach skills and knowledge, yet do not provide a situation where students can adopt positive attitudes towards the environment and society, and therefore graduate ill equipped to deal with sustainability problems” (p. 112). In reviewing these various authors’ statements, there is a common thread centered on the need for a more holistic approach to how institutions deliver sustainability related curricula (Cortesse, 2003; Ecologist, 2009; Lugg, 2007; Wright, 2009). Lugg goes on to state “there is considerable potential for experiential methods such as community-based and/or outdoor pedagogy to make a significant contribution to developing sustainability-literate graduates” (p. 103, 2007). One can infer from this passage that through a blending of traditional methods of education and the experiential process associated with “outdoor pedagogy”, that institutions stand to enhance the relevancy of sustainability for its’ students. Supporting this idea for collaborative efforts, Cortese (2003) writes “designing a sustainable human future requires a paradigm shift toward a systemic perspective emphasizing collaboration and cooperation. Much of higher education stresses individual learning and competition, resulting in professionals who are ill prepared for cooperative efforts” (p. 16). Cortese (2003) goes on to state “Higher education institutions bear a profound, moral responsibility to increase the awareness, knowledge, skills, and values needed to create a just and sustainable future. Higher education plays a critical but often overlooked role in making this vision a reality” (pg. 17). This statement provides insight into the imperative nature of incorporating a holistic approach towards sustainability education for students. It suggests that through a multi-pronged approach (i.e. theoretical curricula, practical application, and value

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION assessment) students can take ownership over their role in creating a sustainable culture. As this study seeks to use Outdoor Programs staff as it’s’ target population,

9

acknowledgement must be made of the “impediments” that stand to hinder educative sustainable initiatives and subsequent student development (O’Connell et al., 2005). O’Connell et al. list six factors that impede this development. These being: complexity of changing values and lifestyles, Western society’s psychosocial history and conceptualization of the out-of-doors, the lack of inclusiveness in outdoor recreation, the development of technology and implications for outdoor recreation, the commodification of outdoor recreation, and disempowerment (pg. 8284). While this list is far from exhaustive, it does present some foundational ideas that must be addressed in order for institutions of Higher Education to effectively create a culture of sustainability in their respective outdoor student staff. Most notably of these six, complexity of changing values and lifestyles is at the forefront of consideration for creating sustainably literate students. O’Connell et al. (2005) state that Many of these people, including outdoor recreation students, dutifully practice LNT…However, when it comes to complex external stressors affecting protecting areas, such as pollution, it becomes a much more difficult task to explore the relationship between actions/behaviors and morality/ethics/personal philosophy. In this way, it has become easier for students to embrace environmental ethics as a series of ‘rules’ to follow and disregard factors external to their immediate experiences…Yet it is this task that is central to sustainability education…(pg. 82). This notion suggests that sustainability education must incorporate a broader spectrum of impacting forces in an effort to empower students to consider implications of the entire experience, not just time spent in wilderness areas.

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

10

Additionally, authors Raines and Hobbs have stated “...many organizations have done an excellent job of incorporating LNT into their backbountry operations, fewer have examined their entire organization from a more holistic perspective” (Raines and Hobbs, 2007). This sentiment furthers the idea put forth by O’Connell et al. that in order for Outdoor Programs to instill a sustainable attitude in its staff, it must take intentional steps to alter its front country programmatic culture. What Others Are Doing The National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) is not only the world leader in wilderness education but also seems to be leading the way in environmental sustainability in outdoor recreation. NOLS has three full-time staff dedicated to environmental stewardship and education. With the help of these staff they have created a sustainability initiative which encompasses their entire organization and includes several different methods of reducing their impact on the earth. One of the many things NOLS has done is implement the third largest solar panel array in Wyoming to power several of their buildings, this is part of a goals NOLS has to reduce its carbon footprint by twenty percent before 2020 (NOLS). To measure their progress in meeting this goal, NOLS has created an online reporting system that allows the manager of each of their branches to report the carbon emissions associated with that branch’s activities (NOLS). Another impressive thing NOLS has done is hire an external reviewer to produce a sustainability report for the entire organization. This was done in 2008 and NOLS made the results available to all of their employees through an internal website (NOLS). On April 20th of 2010 the Outdoor Recreation program at the University of South Carolina (USC) began their carbon neutral campaign (University of South Carolina). To accomplish this, the program calculated their total carbon footprint, in this calculation they

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION included travel and office electricity and paper usage, but not food. They then planted an

11

equivalent number of trees to offset their footprint (University of South Carolina). The program has also hired a Service and Sustainability Manager to help coordinate the carbon neutral efforts (University of South Carolina). The researchers feel that Appalachian State University’s Outdoor Programs unit could look to the efforts of USC as a model for its practices related to carbon emissions reduction. Outdoor Programs at Appalachian State University in Boone, N.C. has been looking for ways to become more environmentally friendly for several years and one of the ways they have done that is by offsetting the GHG emissions associated with their Student Outdoor Learning Expeditions (SOLE). These are typically month-long expeditions and may involve international travel. The GHG emissions associated with these trips are calculated using a calculator created with the help of a professor in the Sustainable Development department and trees are planted to offset total footprint calculated (R. Cambell, personal communication, March 5, 2011). One of the researchers of this study sent out an informal survey to the Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education email listserv to determine if any college or university programs were regularly calculating the carbon footprint of their trips. None of the seven schools that responded said they did. One of the respondents mentioned their university was considering selling carbon offsets as an option when signing-up for a trip (AORE Listserv, personal communication, February5, 2011) (see Appendix C). To gain a broader perspective the researchers looked to the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). AASHE stands as a unifying body for institutions of higher education in terms of sustainability practices. Through their mission, “to empower higher education to lead the sustainability transformation...by providing

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

12

resources, professional development, and a network of support to enable institutions of higher education to model and advance sustainability in everything they do, from governance and operations to education and research”, AASHE has the potential to generate a powerful presence in the movement to create sustainable campuses that also educate students about living harmoniously with nature (AASHE: Mission, Vision, and Goals, 2011). Just as much of the aforementioned literature (Higgins & Kirg, 2006; Lugg, 2007; Nicol, 2002; Parkin, Johnston, Brookes & White, 2004; O’Connell, Potter, Curthoys, Dyment & Cuthberson, 2005) suggests, AASHE has developed a measurable, multi-pronged approach to sustainability action through education and practical application of research initiatives. While AASHE tends to focus on campus-wide interventions, in the future Outdoor Programs could use AASHE ideas as a staging ground for implementing sustainability practices. Higher Education & Sustainability Based on the literature reviewed, we feel it is critical for institutions of higher education to look at their current methods of sustainability education and training in its students and student staff. The research has shown that by adding an educational element combined with a concrete goal, positive change is possible. The various studies mentioned above serve as a springboard for our research to move forward. The relative lack of research, as it specifically applies to our study, leads us to believe that this study will stand to contribute to the existing body of knowledge surrounding carbon footprint education and its effects on participants. Intentional interventions and collaborative efforts between educational and administrative bodies are the foundation for institutions to establish positive practices for creating “sustainably literate” graduates (Graham, Koo & Wilson, 2011; Lugg, 2007; O’Connell, 2005; Wakeland, Sears & Venkat, 2009; Wright, 2009). This study will offer a lens from which the research

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

13

questions can be critically assessed through implementing both a research and intervention structure that utilizes: behavior and attitudinal modification, curricula development, and study of environmental awareness. Methodology This project has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at Appalachian State University and was exempt from further review; the project has the support of the professional staff at Appalachian State University Outdoor Programs (ASU OP). The researchers utilized a mixed-methods approach to determine the effects of carbon footprint calculation. Background The Trip Proposal Form at ASU OP provided a great place to collect carbon footprint information because it is where the logistics and the goals of the trip are first expressed by the Trip Leader. Trip proposal forms have been in use at ASU OP since the 2010-2011 academic year. The original forms collect the following information: staff name(s), trip location, activities, date(s), risk management strategies, minimum and maximum number of participants and meeting location. Measuring Carbon Footprint   Trip proposals from the previous academic year (August 2010 - May 2011) were collected from ASU OP administrators and the researchers utilized this archival data to calculate the Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from trips prior to any intervention. In the subsequent semester, a carbon footprint calculator was sent as an attachment to all trip proposal forms (see Appendix D). This calculator was used as a tool by trip leaders to calculate their carbon footprint as they planned their trip. The method of delivery for these forms was an email attachment in the form of an editable Adobe Acrobat file; student Trip Leaders also had the

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

14

option of having the form printed for them in the Outdoor Programs office. The electronic version of the calculator was created in a way that automatically calculated the travel, food and total GHG once the Trip Leader input their trip’s number of participants, mileage and number of meals to prevent mathematical errors as much as possible. This calculator contained a space to enter mileage, number of breakfasts, lunches, dinners and snacks and a way to note if these meals contain meat. The multipliers for these categories were provided. To encourage consistency in mileage calculations student trip leaders were asked to use Google Maps to measure distance traveled. They were also be told to measure mileage to the put-in for waterbased trips and to the trail head for land-based trips. The multiplier used to determine carbon emissions from travel is based on information provided by Transport Direct. The gas mileage for the vehicles was collected from the Environmental Protection Agency’s fuel economy website (Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). The numbers used to calculate the carbon emissions associated with food were retrieved from the The Nature Conservancy. Knowing a vegetarian meal creates 42% less GHG than the average American meal, the researchers will reduce the GHG of each vegetarian meal by this amount (Eshel & Martin, 2006). Measuring Environmental Attitude Through analyzing literature, the researchers found an appropriate instrument to measure the environmental attitudes of trip leaders and the general population of ASU, the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) created by Dunlap and Van Liere in 1978 was chosen. The NEP has become a widely-used measure of pro-environmental orientation (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000), in fact according to Cordano, Welcomer and Scherer (2003) “the impact of the original NEP is difficult to overestimate given the continuing stream of studies using the scale”

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

15

(p. 23). In 2000 the NEP was revised to address concerns about its validity and dimensionality (Cordano, Welcomer and Scherer, 2003), this updated version of the NEP is named the New Ecological Paradigm Revised (NEPR) and has a “good deal of internal consistency (coefficient alpha of .81)” according to Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones (2000). The revised version contains 15 questions, divided into five sections to measure: (a) limits to growth, (b) antianthropocentrism, (c) fragility of nature’s balance, (d) rejection of human exemptionalism, and (e) belief in eco-crisis (Dunlap et al., 2000). The research team has received permission to use this scale from Dr. Riley Dunlap (personal communication, April 5, 2011) (see Appendix E). Another instrument considered by the researchers was the General Ecological Behavior Measure (GEB) (Kaiser and Wilson, 2000). However, it seemed to be targeted at cross-cultural applications. Also, the number of questions in the GEB could have a negative impact on the rate of return considering our University setting. An Internet-based NEPR (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000) survey was used to compare the environmental attitudes of ASU OP’s trip post-carbon footprint calculation and those of a representative, random sample of ASU students. The surveys were created using Google Forms and the data were stored in a private Google Spreadsheet until the surveys closed (see Appendix A). In addition to the questions based on the NEPR, several demographic questions were included to gather information on the population surveyed (Dillman and Dillman, 2000). Also, a question was included on the survey to assess the previous experience of participants with environmental sustainability education and carbon footprint calculation to moderate this possible influence (see Appendix A). Using Dillman and Dillman (2000) as a basis for implementation methods, researchers attempted to reach respondents with “multiple contacts” in an effort to ensure a maximum rate of return. Additionally, it is suggested by

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Dillman and Dillman (2000) that the use of token incentives for participants is of vital

16

importance to entice a response (Dillman and Dillman, 2000). As an incentive, anyone who completed the survey had a chance to win tickets to the Banff Mountain Film Festival in Boone, North Carolina in 2012. Identical surveys were provided to student trip leaders and the control sample of ASU students. The responses of the two groups were stored in separate spreadsheets as a means of easily defining the groups from one another. To provide further insight into the findings based on survey responses, student trip leaders were invited to participate in one of two focus group sessions. To ensure validity, the focus group questions (see Appendix B) were reviewed by ASU OP professional staff, student development professionals from other departments, as well as published authors in the field of recreation management. These focus groups were modeled on the suggestions provided by Schuh and Upcraft (2001) and Pickering, Paredes, Zerwas & Danner (2010). These suggestions include providing incentives to encourage participation (Pickering, Paredes, Zerwas & Danner, 2010) and ensuring that the location is easily accessible to trip leaders (Schuh and Upcraft, 2001). To accomplish this the researchers provided food and beverage and the interviews took place in the Outdoor Programs facility. Schuh and Upcraft ( 2001) also suggest that moderators have no stake in the study and begin with an opening statement and alert the group that participation is voluntary. To accomplish this the researchers trained moderators, who are college student development professionals and have not participated in this study, and provided them with an outline for the meeting (Pickering, Paredes, Zerwas & Danner, 2010). The moderators were asked by the researchers to ensure that only one person spoke at a time, that people used names and that everyone felt comfortable to answer freely (Schuh and Upcraft, 2001). To refresh the memories of the student trip leaders a copy of the carbon footprint

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

17

calculator was provided. The focus group was audio recorded and then transcribed verbatim into an electronic text document. Each researcher independently examined the contents of the transcripts to identify themes and the researchers compared their findings. An electronic text parser was also used as another resource to identify repeating phrases in the focus group transcripts. Analysis Researchers used a pre and post test method to compare the effects of carbon footprint calculation. To compare the quantitative data raw scores were downloaded into a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. The average carbon footprint per person per day of ASU OP collectively, of each of the semesters before and after the intervention was computed. Calculations were then performed to calculate the magnitude of change between the post-intervention semester and each of the previous semesters. To compare the environmental attitudes of student trip leaders to those of other students the researchers exported a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet from the Google Docs survey. In Excel, the researchers cleaned the data by removing incomplete surveys, coded each response for previous carbon footprint calculation, and removed participants from the control group who had an extensive background in this area. The researchers calculated the average the scores of the control group and the student trip leaders and the average age of each group. The average environmental attitude scores were used to construct graphs in Microsoft Excel to provide a visual representation of the data. Furthermore, the data was imported into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 19 to perform a one-sample T-test to help determine significance between the (2) group means. To compare qualitative data the researchers began by creating transcripts of the audio

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

18

recordings from each focus group. Researchers then independently analyzed the transcripts and noted trends discovered. The researchers then compared their independently created lists of trends to create a master list. These trends were then compared to the literature for help in determining their importance. The researchers discussed the trends with a broad range of outdoor education professionals for further assistance in determining which trends to highlight. Researchers implemented member checking to increase the accuracy and validity of the qualitative section of the research (Yanow, & Schwartz-Shea, 2006). Findings Analysis of the proposed trips carbon footprint produced exciting results. There was a significant decrease in the average carbon produced per person per day.

Figure 1. Average Carbon Produced on Proposed ASU OP Trips by Semester. This figure illustrates the average carbon produced per person per day on proposed ASU OP trips by semester.

The results of the carbon footprint calculation were compared using simple means and then analyzed further using a delta. As shown in Figure 1 the pre-intervention semesters produced

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

19

much higher averages of carbon emissions per person per day than after the student trip leaders began to calculate their trips’ carbon footprints. The fall 2010 semester average was 218.16 pounds of carbon per person per day with a sample size of 4. In the spring 2011 semester the average increased to 255.76 with a sample size of 5. In the fall semester of 2011, when student trip leaders calculated the carbon footprint as they planned their trip, the average decreased to 115.44 with a sample size of size of 6. This is a -47.1% magnitude of change from the fall 2010 semester and a -54.9% magnitude of change from the spring 2011 semester. This provides a limited, yet intriguing, answer to the question, what is the relationship between having student trip leaders calculate their trips’ carbon footprint and their decisions for trip planning? In this pilot study, it appears the effect of asking student trip leaders to calculate their trip’s carbon footprint has been to lower overall Greenhouse Gas (GHG) production in proposed trips at Appalachian State University Outdoor Programs (ASU OP). These results align with what Bamberg (2002) has previously found, that having a college student concretely identify steps to help them meet a goal is an effective way to create positive change. The authors feel that having an option to plan vegetarian meals may have been a major factor in the decrease. As noted in the methodology section a vegetarian meal creates 42% less greenhouse gas emissions on average than a meal containing meat (Eshel & Martin, 2006). Of the six trips proposed in the fall 2011 semester, four of them included at least one vegetarian meal request. The environmental attitude surveys showed that ASU OP student trip leaders had slightly lower NEPR scores than a representative, random sample of ASU students.

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

20

Figure 2. Average NEPR Scores. This figure illustrates the average NEPR score of a control group compared to ASU OP student trip leaders. The minimum score is 15 (Anthropocentric) and the maximum score is 75 (Ecocentric). (Dunlap et al., 2000)

The Internet-based surveys used to score environmental attitudes were sent out to six student trip leaders (four male, two female) and had a response rate of 100%. The survey was also sent to a random, representative sample of 1,000 Appalachian State University students and had a response rate of 10.4% (n=104). Researchers determined that any control group participant that noted any type (previous class, readings, major of study, etc) of sustainability training would not have their responses used. After accounting for previous environmental sustainability education the researchers were able to use the results of 71 (29 male, 42 female) of these surveys. The average age of the control group was 20.54 and of the student trip leaders was 22.67.

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

21

The post-intervention environmental attitudes of student trip leaders as compared to a random, representative sample of Appalachian State University students showed that the random sample scored slightly higher. ASU OP student trip leaders scored an average of 49.83 on a scale based on the New Ecological Paradigm Revised (NEPR) (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000) and had a sample size of six. The control group had a sample size of 71 and scored an average of 55.66 on the same scale. The NEPR scores were shown to not be significant in relation to being a student trip leader by performing a one-sample T-test (p = .13). It is hard to draw any formal conclusions from this data for several reasons. A huge reason is the discrepancy in sample sizes. Another reason is the fact that the averages are so close. The researchers believe this data would be much more compelling had a more formal, educational intervention been able to take place (see Limitations). Independent analysis by the researchers revealed a few trends in the focus group data. One trend that stood out is that student trip leaders would have liked to have had more education about carbon footprint and sustainable practices in trip planning prior to performing the calculation. When asked what could have been improved about the carbon footprint calculation process one student trip leader said “I would have liked to have some background information, and also to know what was high and what was low.” This education would help with the fact that several participants reported not knowing exactly what it was they were calculating. An additional theme that came about is exemplified by a participant’s response to the question of whether the act of calculating a trip’s carbon footprint had effects on their life outside of Appalachian State University Outdoor Programs (ASU OP). The respondent stated “I can see how if this was put on every trip, it’s kind of right there in front of you all the time...then I could definitely see that having an affect on your daily living in general considering your job

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

22

is so close to that.” Specifically speaking to this study’s population, student trip leaders, there is a notion that positive reinforcement of sustainability education and assessment of carbon emissions has a powerful tie between one’s personal and professional practices. Despite reporting some technical difficulties with the electronic version of the calculator, focus group participants unanimously stated they think ASU OP should continue to ask student trip leaders to calculate carbon footprint. Several trip leaders mentioned, in some manner, that calculating carbon footprint helps to illustrate that logistical planning decisions have implications beyond just their trip. In this vein, several focus group participants mentioned that some type of cumulative measure should be made for the entire program in terms of carbon emissions. In respondents’ minds, being able to see an overall carbon footprint for the program would clarify how their trip’s carbon footprint fits into the bigger picture. To conclude, researchers found that there was a significant decrease in the GHG emissions of trips that were proposed post intervention (-47% from fall 2010 and -54.9% from spring 2011). While the researchers found no significance between being a student trip leader and NEPR scores there were some interesting points which came out of focus groups. Of greatest importance was the student trip leaders feeling that the act of calculating a carbon footprint for a proposed trip is positive. Other notable trends from focus groups included trip leaders not feeling there was a clear sense of why they were calculating their carbon footprint as well as their desire to have a cumulative measure of ASU OP’s carbon footprint in an effort to understand the overall impact of their decisions. Discussion and Recommendations Haque and Roper (2005) state “the adage that every journey starts with a single step comes to mind when reviewing student actions. Each of these small steps is multiplied when

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

23

they ask their roommates, friends or family to participate as well.” (p. 59) Numerous focus group participants noted, the simple process of having to calculate one’s carbon footprint at least; if only for a moment, creates an awareness that they as programmers are using consumptive practices in their efforts. This notion put forward by the student trip leaders exemplifies this sentiment put forth by Haque and Roper (2005). As such, it is the recommendation of the authors that the practice of carbon footprint calculation continue to be used at ASU OP. While present transportation and programming options truly limit the reality of a program being able to go “carbon neutral” there is much to be said for generating discussions around changes in programmatic culture that have this ideal at the forefront of its mission and guiding principles. The authors feel that simply providing the carbon footprint calculator to the trip leaders will make a positive impact. Based on focus group results and the literature (Graham, Koo & Wilson, 2011; Wakeland, Sears & Venkat, 2009) the researchers suggest that ASU OP add an educational component prior to carbon footprint calculation. This should include: a definition of carbon footprint, how the student trip leaders can affect their trip’s carbon footprint and information on how to gauge the numbers they receive when calculating a carbon footprint. This last piece of information could be simply included on the calculator itself. Beyond a single workshop for student trip leaders, it should also be noted that professional development opportunities be provided for professional staff as well. As we continue to enter an age where sustainability becomes more and more important, it must be the aim of institutions to provide its professional staff with guidance and meaningful educational opportunities. In having other campus entities such the Office of Sustainability or the Appropriate Technologies department provide OP professional staff with educational sessions, the program sets itself up to more effectively train

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

24

its student staff in sustainable practices. Efforts such as this have the potential to have a ripple effect where student staff then take these lessons into the field and train student participants, then participants inform their friends and also take these lessons other jobs on campus, etc. ASU OP should continue to offer the option of vegetarian meals on trips. The researchers speculate that this is a major reason for the decrease in average carbon produced in the fall 2011 semester. There were also several positive comments in focus groups regarding the vegetarian menu options. This would be an area where the educational background previously mentioned would be vital to prevent confusion in regards to the reasoning behind vegetarian menus. As O’Connel et al. (2005) suggest, the development and introspection of a programs front-country identity must be addressed. It is no longer enough for programs to simply teach and train leaders to use the ubiquitous “Leave No Trace” ethic. While this sentiment is promoting a generation of outdoor leaders to serve as stewards for the environment, it is also having the potential of limiting these individuals scope of how large the concept of “Trace” really is. The ethic must extend to preservation and conservation practices in the office, in trip planning decisions, as well as the wilderness. As noted previously, intentional interventions and collaborative efforts between educational and administrative bodies are the foundation for institutions to establish positive practices for creating “sustainably literate” graduates (Graham, Koo & Wilson, 2011; Lugg, 2007; O’Connell, 2005; Wakeland, Sears & Venkat, 2009; Wright, 2009. OP units often stand as a powerful leadership development tool for student trip leaders that they will take with them into professional careers in a variety of fields, often not related to the outdoors. In this vein, it can be inferred that OP should seek opportunities for further development of these individuals’ greater awareness of how decisions they make as professionals

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

25

have far reaching ramifications. This instance of allowing them to recognize that the carbon footprint of their proposed trip has global implication affords yet another developmental lens for these students to develop their own perceptions and awareness from. One major factor in the success of initiatives such as this must come from collaborative efforts between universities on a national scale. Through using organizations such as the Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education (AORE), the Association of Experiential Education (AEE), the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), and the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA) we can begin a national dialogue among industry professionals to establish programmatic practices and standards for OP units. This can only come from a concerted effort to develop committees and create standards. This would be mutually beneficial to the continued development of positive programming opportunities and environmentally sound practices. Limitations The findings of this study should be considered only in light of the following potential limitations. One limitation occurred because of an unexpected schedule change by the Appalachian State University Outdoor Programs (ASU OP) coordinators. In the fall semester of 2011 the coordinators decided to send out trip proposal forms electronically for the first time and to do this at a much earlier point than in previous semesters. This prevented the researchers from presenting an educational workshop on carbon footprint as an intervention to the student trip leaders prior to them filling out the carbon footprint calculators. As mentioned in the review of literature, the inclusion of education to promote sustainability is pivotal to the success of intervention strategies. Through our focus group discussions we determined that many of the student trip leaders

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

26

have a high regard for issues of sustainability. This is exemplified by their statements to the question of whether the process had any effects on their lives outside of OP. Most stated that they already lived in a way that reflected having a solid definition of their personal ethics as it relates to environmental sustainability. Due to this we can not conclude the reduction of trip carbon footprints to our intervention of carbon footprint calculation. Another limitation of this study is the small number of proposals and the small sample size. Several proposals were not used in the calculations because they were proposed by one of the researchers. The small sample size makes it impossible to generalize the results of this study outside of ASU OP. Additionally, there are potentially alternative explanations for the research findings which the researchers were not able to account for. These could include, but are not limited to: other programs on carbon footprint calculation on campus, weather in the region affecting trip planning decisions, the turnover of student trip leaders, gear availability differing between semesters. As with all self-reported data, our surveys and carbon footprint calculators relied on the participants to provide truthful answers. Since mistakes and misrepresentation are always possible, we must list this as a limitation to our study. Further Research This pilot study has left much room for continued research in the area of the effects of carbon footprint calculation. The researchers suggest conducting a longitudinal study using multiple university outdoor programs units. Having a control group of student trip leaders to compare to an experimental group of student trip leaders would also add to the validity of the research. Increasing the sample sizes would dramatically improve the study as well.

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

27

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION References Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2011) AASHE:  mission,vision, and goals. Retrieved from http://www.aashe.org/about/aashe-mission-vision-goals

28

Bamberg, S. (2002). Effects of implementation intentions on the actual performance of new environmentally friendly behaviours: Results of two field experiments. Journal of  Environmental Psychology, 22, 399-411. Cordano, M., Welcomer, S. A., & Scherer, R. F. (2003). An analysis of the predictive validity of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 34(3), 2228. Cortese, A. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Society for College and University Planning. Retrieved on 27 February 2011 from: http:// www.aashe.org/resources/pdf/Cortese_PHE.pdf Dillman, D. A., & Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley. Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442. Ecoversity putting eco into the university. (2009). Ecologist, 39(2), 70-71. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011, March 25). Fuel economy. Retrieved from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

29

Eshel, G., & Martin, P. A. (2006). Diet, energy, and global warming. Earth Interactions, 10(1), 1-17. Graham, J., Koo, M., & Wilson, T. (2011). Conserving energy by inducing people to drive less. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 106-118. Haque, M., & Roper, C. (2005). Ecological footprints: measuring and reducing students' consumption of the earth's resources. North American Colleges and Teachers of  Agriculture, 49(1), 57-61. Higgins, P., & Kirk, G. (2006). Sustainability education in Scotland: The impact of national and international initiatives on teacher education and outdoor education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(2), 313–326. Irwin, David. (2010). Weaving the threads of education for sustainability and outdoor  education. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ. Retrieved from 10092/3637/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing people's general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(5), 952-978 Lloyd-Strovas, J, & Hayhoe, K. (2009). Tracking the carbon footprint of outdoor recreation programs: a case study of Texas Tech University's outdoor pursuits center. Journal of Outdoor  Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 1(2) Lugg, A. (2007, December). Developing sustainability-literate citizens through outdoor learning: possibilities for outdoor education in Higher Education. Journal of Adventure Education  and Outdoor Learning, 7(2), 97-112. http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/ Unpublished manuscript, Adventure Recreation and Outdoor Education,

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

30

National Outdoor Leadership School. (n.d.). Environmental stewardship and sustainability home. Retrieved from https://rendezvous.nols.edu/content/section/19/407/ The Nature Conservancy. (n.d.). Climate change: carbon calculator - greenhouse  gas and carbon dioxide calculation information. Retrieved from http:/ /www.nature.org/groups/webcontent/@web/documents/webcontent/ carbon_calculation_information.html#food_diet Nicol, R. (2002). Outdoor environmental education in the United Kingdom: A conceptual framework of epistemological diversity and its educational implications. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 7(2), 207–223. Obama, Barack. “United Nations Summit on Climate Change.” New York, NY. 22 Sept. 2009. O'Connell, T. S., Potter, T. G., Curthoys, L. P., Dyment, J. E., & Cuthbertson, B. (2005). A call for sustainability education in post-secondary outdoor recreation programs. International  Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(1), 81-94. Parkin, S., Johnston, A., Buckland, H., Brookes, F. & White, E. (2004). On course for sustainability: Report of the Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability 2000–2003. London: Forum for the Future. Pickering, J., Paredes, T., Zerwas, S., & Danner, M. (2010). Building an assessment toolbox:  toolbox: designing designing rigorous and relevant focus groups. Retrieved from http:// www.odu.edu/ao/ira/assessment/toolbox/FocusGroupPresent_files/FocusGroups2.pdf Raines, T., & Hobbs, W., (2007). Greening your outdoor recreation program. Proceedings and Research Symposium Abstracts of the 21st Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education Conference. (pp 25-28). Whitmore Lake, MI: Association of Outdoor

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Recreation and Education. Ross, J. (1996). Will the real eco-educator please stand up? Association of Outdoor Recreation & Education Conference Proceedings, 145-154.

31

Schuh, J. H. , & Upcraft, M. L. (2001). Assessment practice in student affairs: an applications  manual. San Fransisco: Josey-Bass. Transport Direct. (n.d.). Route planner, online journey planner & travel news | transport direct. Retrieved from http://www.transportdirect.info/ UNESCO (2004). United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development: International Implementation Scheme. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 27 February 2011. University of South Carolina. (n.d.). Carbon footprint | outdoor recreation. Retrieved from http://campusrec.sc.edu/orec/carbonfootprint Wakeland, W., Sears, L., & Venkat, K. (2009). Measuring the effects of food carbon footprint training on consumers. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 2(1), 45-52. Wright, T. (2009). Sustainability, internationalization, and higher education. New Directions for       Teaching & Learning, 2009(118), 105-115. doi:10.1002/tl.357

Yanow, D, & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Interpretation and method: empirical research methods  and the interpretive turn. M E Sharpe Inc.

Appendix A

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Environmental Attitudes Survey and Informed Consent

32

This survey is part of a research project entitled: The Effects of Carbon Footprint Calculation on Student Trip Leaders: A Pilot Study Principal Investigators: Keith Crawford & Lee Collette Department: Human Development & Psychological Counseling Contact Information: Keith Crawford - (704)223-0460 - 173 Howard St. Boone, NC 28607, Daisy Waryold - (828)262-6067 - Duncan Hall, Boone, NC 28608

You are being invited to take part in a research study about the effects of carbon footprint calculation. If you take part in this study, you will be one of about 400 people to do so. By doing this study we hope to learn how sustainability education and carbon footprint calculation change a student trip leaders decision making.

The research procedures will be conducted at https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform? formkey=dElnVkJhOXF4LS1ZOWxVanpkZ2NCcFE6MQ. You will need to complete this survey one time, which will take a maximum of 15 minutes.

You will be asked to answer an 18 multiple choice questions about yourself and your environmental beliefs.

You should not volunteer for this study if are under 18 years of age. There are no foreseeable risks in participating in this research.

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

33

There may be no personal benefit from your participation but the information gained by doing this research may help others in the future. We will not pay you for the time you volunteer while being in this study. By completing the survey you are able to enter a random drawing for a pair of tickets to the Banff Mountain Film Festival in Boone, NC in 2012.

Your information will be combined with information from other people taking part in the study. When we write up the study to share it with other researchers, we will write about the combined information. You will not be identified in any published or presented materials.

We will make every effort to prevent anyone who is not on the research team from knowing that you gave us information or what that information is. Your email address, if you decide to provide it, will be removed from the rest of the data and will be kept for a maximum of 1 year. Email addresses will then completely be erased from any computer systems.

The people conducting this study will be available to answer any questions concerning this research, now or in the future. You may contact the Principal Investigator, Keith Crawford, at 704-223-0460. If you have questions about your rights as someone taking part in research,

contact the Appalachian Institutional Review Board Administrator at 828-262-2130 (days), through email at [email protected] or at Appalachian State University, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, IRB Administrator, Boone, NC 28608.

Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. If you choose not to volunteer, there

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

34

will be no penalty and you will not lose any benefits or rights you would normally have. If you decide to take part in the study you still have the right to decide at any time that you no longer want to continue. There will be no penalty and no loss of benefits or rights if you decide at any time to stop participating in the study.

This research project has been approved, as required, by the Institutional Review Board of Appalachian State University. This study was approved on [Approval Date]. This approval will expire on [Expiration Date] unless the IRB renews the approval of this research.

A Survey to Determine Environmental Attitudes at Appalachian State University We would like to get your opinion on a wide range of environmental issues. For each of the following statements please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree.

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable.

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

35

Humans are severely abusing the environment. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations. * Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

Human destruction of the natural environment has been greatly exaggerated. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

The earth has only limited room and resources. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

36

Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological disaster. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree

If you would like to be entered to win a pair of tickets to the Banff Mountain Film Festival in Boone, NC in 2012 enter your email address below. This is optional What is your age?

What is your gender?

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

37

Please list, below, any experience you have with carbon footprint or environmental sustainability education.

Note. From “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale,” by R. Dunlap, K. Van Liere, A. Mertig A. and R. Jones, 2000, Journal of Social Issues, 56, 3, pp. 425-442. Copyright 2000 by The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Reprinted with permission.

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Appendix B Focus Group Questions and Informed Consent

38

I agree to participate in a focus group described in this research project, which concerns the effects of carbon footprint calculation. I understand that my comments will be audio recorded and transcribed and used for a class project to be conducted by Keith Crawford and Lee Collette, Masters students in the College Student Development program. The focus group will take place one time and last for no longer than one hour. I understand that there are no foreseeable risks associated with my participation. I also know that this study will be used as an assessment tool for Outdoor Programs and its environmental sustainability. During the course of the focus group discussions, I will not mention any personal or private, identifiable information (such as names) of individuals who are not participating in the focus group. In addition, I agree that all conversations, which take place in the focus group, should not be discussed with anyone outside of the focus group and its participants.

I give Keith Crawford and Lee Collette ownership of the tapes and transcripts from the focus group and understand that tapes and transcripts will be kept in researchers’ possession. I understand that information or quotations from the transcripts may be published and that no identifiers will be associated with these. I understand that my participation is voluntary and I can end it at any time without consequence. I also understand that if I have questions about this research project, I can call the Faculty Advisor, Diane Waryold, at 828-262-6067 or contact the IRB Administrator at (828) 262-7981 or [email protected]. By participating I confirm that I am 18 years of age or older.

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Signature:________________________________ Questions:

39

1. Did you change any parts of your trip plan (such as location or menu options)as a result of calculating its carbon footprint? 2. Has calculating carbon footprint caused you to change the way you use resources (electricity, fossil fuels, water, etc) outside of OP? Has it changed anything else about your life, big or small? 3. Has calculating a carbon footprint related to your trip changed your perceptions of OP in any way? 4. What did you like about the carbon footprint calculator itself? What would you change about it? (provide copy of calculator) 5. Do you believe you understood what it was you were calculating? 6. Should ASU OP continue to have trip leaders calculate the carbon footprint of their trips? Why or why not? 7. If ASU OP does continue to have trip leaders continue to calculate their proposed trip’s carbon footprint, what should they change about the calculation process?

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

40

Appendix C Informal Survey of Other Higher Education Outdoor Programs Results Respondent Do you calculate carbon footprint? Lynchburg College Outdoor Leadership Program University of Michigan Outdoor Adventures Appalachian State University Colorado School of Mines North Idaho College Outdoor Pursuits CSU-Chico Sam Houston State University Outdoor Recreation Program No No No No No No No

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Appendix D Carbon Footprint Calculator Worksheet

41

EFFECTS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Appendix E NEPR Permission Email

42

Hi Dr. Dunlap, Myself and my colleague, Lee Collette, are Master's students at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina. We are currently working on a research project entitled "The Effects of Carbon Footprint Calculation on Student Trip Leaders." We are hoping to use the scale created by you and your colleagues to compare the environmental attitudes of the trip leaders who go through our workshop to those of students who do not participate in this training. Please let me know how we could go about obtaining your consent to use the NEPR scale in our project. Our plan is to reproduce the scale in an internet-based survey. The only additions would be an informed consent section and a few questions to determine the participant's age, sex and major. Our project advisor is Dr. Diane Waryold ([email protected]). Thanks, Keith Crawford

Dear Keith, It's fine for you and Lee to use the Revised NEP Scale in your project. I'm attaching an essay I wrote to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the publication of the original NEP Scale as it may provide some helpful background material for your project. Good luck with it. Riley E. Dunlap, Chair ASA Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change Regents Professor Department of Sociology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 405-744-6108