The problem of environmental consciousness in the context of health security during emergency response

Relevance. There is no element that reflects the safety of environmental actors in modern concepts of environmental consciousness. This circumstance negatively affects the practice of environmental actions, for example, during cleaning household waste or taking part as volunteers in mitigating aftermath of natural emergencies.

Intention. To identify aspects of environmental actions that may pose a risk to the health of students due to lack of awareness.

Methodology. In 2019, 60 first-year students of Yelets State Ivan Bunin University aged 17–18 were surveyed. Their awareness of the safety of environmental activities at school age was revealed.

Results and Discussion. The survey showed that the problem of safety of environmental actors is especially relevant for schoolchildren. Due to insufficient knowledge in the field of hygiene or health effects of household waste and, in general, the danger of natural emergencies, they are unprotected both in environmental and legal aspects. At the same time, due to increased suggestibility, young people readily respond to environmental calls about protecting nature. Gaps in the environmental consciousness in terms of ensuring their own safety can lead to negative consequences for students in more complex environmental circumstances, for example, emergency situations requiring the involvement of population.

Conclusion. The necessity of developing regulatory documents on the safe behavior of the population involved in some environmental activities is substantiated.

1. Evdokimov V.I., Aleksanin S.S. Naukometricheskiy analiz issledovaniy po meditsine katastrof (2005–2017 gg.): monografiya [Scientometric analysis of research on disaster medicine (2005–2017): monograph]. Sankt-Petersburg. 2018. 67 p. (In Russ.)

2. Levickaya T.E., Trenkaeva N.A., Kozlova N.V. [et al.]. Bezopasnost’ v strukture tsennostej molodezhi, prozhivayushhej v gorodskoj srede [Safety in the structure of values of young people living in an urban environment]. Psikhologiia i pravo [Psychology and Law]. 2018. Vol. 8, N 4. Pp. 20–33. DOI: 10.17759/psylaw.2018080403. (In Russ.)

3. Florova N.B. Èkologiâ sovremennogo detstva: prioritetnye napravleniâ naučnyh issledovanij za rubežom [Ecology of contemporary childhood: priorities for research perspectivesin foreign studies [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sovremennaia zarubezhnaia psikhologiia [Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology]. 2016. Vol. 5, N 2. Pp. 11–23. DOI: 10.17759/jmfp.2016050202. (In Russ.)

4. Yansynbaeva E.V. Razvitie ehkologicheskogo obrazovaniya v sfere obrashcheniya s opasnymi bytovymi othodami na primere g. Ekaterinburga [The development of environmental education in the treatment of hazardous household waste on the example of Yekaterinburg]. Municipalitet: ehkonomika i upravlenie [Municipality: Economics and Management]. 2016. N 2 (15). Pp. 11–15. (In Russ.)

5. Amin L., Mahadi Z., Ibrahim R. [et al.]. The Effectiveness of the «Environment end Health» Course in Increasing Students Awareness end Knowledge on Environmental Health Issues. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012. N 59. Pp. 77–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.248.

6. Bera G., Camargo K., Sericano J.L. [et al.]. Baseline data for distribution of contaminants by natural disasters: results from a residential Houston neighborhood during Hurricane Harvey flooding. Heliyon. 2019. Vol. 5, N 11. Pp.1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02860.

7. Bissing-Olson M.J., Fielding K.S., Iyer A. Experiences of pride, not guilt, predict pro-environmental behavior when pro-environmental descriptive norms are more positive. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2016. Vol. 45, N 3. Pp. 145–153. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.001.

8. Chipeta W.C., Holm R.H., Kamanula J.F. [et al.]. Designing local solutions for emptying pit latrines in low-income urban settlements (Malawi). Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. Parts A/B/C. 2017. Vol. 100, N 8. Pp. 336–342.

9. Coelho F., Pereira M. C., Cruz L. [et al.]. Affect and the adoption of pro-environmental behaviour: A structural model. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2017. Vol. 54 (12). Pp. 127–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.10.008.

10. Collado S., Corraliza J.A., Staats H., Ruiz M. Effect of frequency and mode of contact with nature on children’s self-reported ecological behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2015. Vol. 41, N 3, Pp. 65–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.001.

11. Knap A.H., Rusyn I. Environmental exposures due to natural disasters. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2016. Vol. 31, N 1. Pp. 89–92. DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0010.

12. Letcher T.M., Slack R. Chapter 17: Chemicals in Waste: Household Hazardous Waste. Waste (Second Edition) A Handbook for Management. 2019. Pp. 337–352. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815060-3.00017-7.

13. Mowen T.J. School Safety. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). 2015. Рp. 107–111. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.45081-6.

14. Panov V.I. Ecological Thinking, Consciousness, Responsibility. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013. Vol. 86, N 10. Pp. 379–383. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.583.

15. Phonphoton N., Pharino C. A system dynamics modeling to evaluate flooding impacts on municipal solid waste management services. Waste Management. 2019. Vol. 87. Pp. 525–536. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.036.

16. Swuste P., Groeneweg J., Zwaard C.G-W. [et al.]. The future of safety science. Safety Science. 2020. Vol. 125, N 5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104593.

17. Weng Y., Hsu K.-C., Liu B.J. Increasing worldwide environmental consciousness and environmental policy adjustment. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. 2019. Vol. 71, N 2. Pp. 205–210. DOI: 10.1016/j.qref.2018.08.003.