Hellevik, O. (2002). ”Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviour towards the Environment”, i W.M. Lafferty, M. Nordskog and H.A. Aakre (eds.). Realizing Rio in Norway. Oslo: Prosus. Side 7-19.
Beliefs, attitudes and behaviour towards the environment
Ottar Hellevik
Introduction
Popular beliefs, attitudes and behaviour in relation to environmental problems are important factors in the quest for a sustainable development. Sustainability depends on the degree to which environmental concerns are taken into consideration in the choices made by ordinary citizens. In addition their behaviour as voters and consumers affect the decisions made by more influential actors, such as political and business leaders.
By means of a series of surveys the development in beliefs, attitudes and behaviour towards the environment for the Norwegian population is described. Problem awareness and anxiety concerning the environmental situation may be expected to influence attitudes towards the environment, which in turn will affect the tendency to engage in environmental friendly behaviour.
The data
The data used is from the Norwegian Monitor (NM). This is a series of large surveys, both in terms of sample size (increasing from 2200 in the first wave in 1985 to more than 4000 in the last three ones) and number of questions (close to 3000), carried out biennially by the market research institute MMI. The introductory questions are asked by an interviewer, from 1997 over the phone, earlier in the home of the respondent, while the major part is included in a self-completion questionnaire. The samples are representative for the population aged 15 and above (from 1997 simple random sampling from telephone directories has been used, earlier two-stage cluster sampling). Of those contacted over the phone, 60-65 percent fills out and returns the questionnaire.
The majority of questions relating to environmental issues were introduced in the 1989 survey, when the Ministry of the Environment and SFT (Government Agency of Pollution Control) became clients. Some go back to the first wave of 1985, however. A major aim of the NM is to describe value preferences of the Norwegian population, and concern for the environment versus economic growth is one of 25 value indexes measured.
Beliefs and worries
A question asked since 1989 gives an impression of how Norwegians experience the environmental situation in general. The respondents choose between four descriptions, from a pessimistic view of unavoidable disaster to an optimistic denial that serious problems exist. Very few choose these extreme alternatives, even if there has been an increase for the latter in recent years (Figure 1). A major shift in perceptions has taken place between the two middle alternatives. In 1989 as many as 61 percent felt that the statement “The situation is grave. Immediate and drastic measures are needed” best captured their own feelings. This in 2001 is down to 26 percent. The other middle alternative, “With patience and perseverance we in the long run will turn the trend away from environmental deterioration”, increases its share from 32 to 56 percent. Such a dramatic change in outlook for large parts of the population within a 12 year time span, from an urgent feeling of the necessity of immediate changes to a much more relaxed attitude, is not often seen in survey data.
Figure 1. Perception of general environmental situation (Percentages).
Figure 2. Worries concerning specific environmental problems (Percentage “Very much worried”)
A parallel development of reduced tendency to worry about the environment takes place when we look at the level of anxiety with regard to specific environmental problems (Figure 2). At the outset depletion of the ozone layer is what worries the most, closely followed by acid rain, with climate change somewhat lower and only a few concerned about household waste. The percentage who feel “very much worried” declined dramatically between 1989 and 2001, e.g. from 62 to 16 for the problem of the ozone layer depletion or 56 to 11 for acid rain. Except for the period of 1993-1995 the anxiety level is steadily dropping during the entire time span.
Attitudes
Between 1989 and 1993 there is a clear trend towards less support for environmental friendly policies. Fewer people mark off “strengthening efforts at environmental protection in Norway” as one of the political purposes they want to give priority, down from 65 to 37 percent. The percentage disagreeing with the proposition “To ensure economic growth, we need to develop our production industries further, even if this is at odds with concerns for the protection of nature” drops from 46 to 34 percent. Fewer agree with the proposition “we should increase prices for all kinds of energy (gasoline, oil, kerosene, electricity, etc.), in order to reduce consumption and pollution of the environment”, down from 45 to 34 percent. And the percentage feeling that the statement “I support environmental organisations” fits very well with what they themselves think or do declines from 30 to 12 percent.
Figure 3. Attitudes towards public environmental issues (Percentage answering as indicated)
From 1993 on the pattern is mixed, with one item showing an increase in environmental positive answers, two others stable or slightly decreasing, and the fourth one, concerning increase in energy prices, showing a more marked decrease.
The only series of results starting in 1985 shows a marked increase in support for environmental concerns between 1985 and 1989. The same pattern is seen in Figure 4, with questions on attitudes towards own behaviour in relation to the environment. The percentage agreeing with the proposition “I’m willing to renounce from goods and services I’m presently using, if I in this way may contribute to preserving out natural resources” increases from 30 to 52 from 1985 to 1989.
Figure 4. Attitudes towards own behaviour in relation to environment (Percentage answering as indicated)
Between 1989 and 1993 the same decline in positive attitudes towards the environment occurs within the private as we have seen in the public sphere. From 1993 on the dominant pattern is one of stability or increase, with the exception of the first of the two questions concerning reduction of own consumption. If we look at the time series for the sum of fully or partly agree to this proposition, the decline is less dramatic (75, 84, 90, 85, 82, 76, 73, 71 percent from 1985 to 2001).
Behaviour
Unfortunately the number of time series for questions on behaviour related to the environment is restricted, due alterations in question content and wording resulting from changes in the kinds of behaviour considered relevant. The results in Figure 5 do not indicate any clear downward tendency when respondents are asked how often they do different things out of a desire to be more considerate with regard to the environment. The percentage often using collective means of transportation when driving was an alternative is stable. There is a slightly downward trend for the percentage reporting that they often buy environmental friendly products such as unbleached paper, while the tendency to use public waste disposal arrangements such as those for glass and paper has risen considerably. More people in 2001 than in 1995 are trying systematically to save energy in their homes, e.g. by lowering the temperature during the night.
Figure 5. Self-reported environmental conscious behaviour (Percentage answering as indicated)
The pattern for self-reported behaviour is mixed, but we find no clear parallel to the reduction in worries and attitudes from 1989 onwards. Rather the tendency seems to be in the direction of an increasing level of environmental friendly behaviour.
Summary of trends
While the reduction in tendency to worry about environmental problems is clear and uniform for all indicators, the pattern for attitudes and behaviour is mixed. Different indicators show divergent patterns of change. Whether the conflicting tendencies reflect real differences between the various aspects of environmental attitudes and behaviour, indicating a complex pattern for how the public thinks and acts towards the environment, or the divergence is caused by variations in question format and wording, is difficult to decide. We will not attempt to answer this question, but instead make a rough average for the development shown by the indicators in each of the previous graphs (Figure 6).
The sharpest decline has taken place for the tendency to worry about the environment. The curve shows the average for the level of general concern from Figure 1 (the sum of the grave and disaster alternatives) and the specific anxieties in Figure 2 (the percentages very worried over specific problems, minus household waste, which was not measured in 1989). Except between 1993 and 1995 the decline is manifests over the entire period.
Figure 6. Beliefs, attitudes and behaviour towards the environment – a summary (Averages of percentages for several indicators)
The average for the two sets of attitude indicators in Figures 3 and 4 (minus the last item asked only since 1993) show a decline in positive attitudes towards protection of the environment between 1989 and 1993, a little steeper for public than for political than for private issues. From 1993 onwards there on the average is stability for the seven attitude indicators. For self reported environmental friendly behaviour the average for the indicators of Figure 5 (minus the item introduced in 1995) the trend is a slight increase between 1991 and 1999.
Discussion
Is the dramatic reduction in anxiety level a reflection of improvements in the actual environmental situation? An earlier article (Hellevik and Høye 1999) concluded that while the trends for the ozone layer and acid rain were positive, the picture was mixed with regard to household waste and negative with regard to greenhouse effect and climate change. Members of the public do not seem to make such distinctions between problem areas, however. The pattern of development is uniform for all indicators of perception of environmental problems included in the survey.
The reduced tendency since 1989 for the public to worry over environmental problems must be seen in relation to the extraordinarily high level in 1989. That this year represents a peak in environmental concern is suggested by trends between 1985 and 1989 for the two questions on environmental attitudes dating back to 1985 (reported in Figures 3 and 4). Dramatic media focused historical events, such as the Tsjernobyl accident in 1986 (?), causing severe radioactive pollution for districts in Norway, and the invasion of poisonous algae along the Norwegian coast in 1987 (?), causing massive death of fish, probably contributed heavily to the surge in environmental concern registered in the 1987 and 1989 surveys.
A decline from this extremely high level of anxiety had to be expected. There are limits to how long it is possible for individuals to live with the extremely pessimistic perspective on the environmental situation reflected in the 1989 results. Anxiety reduction mechanisms make people look for brighter aspects of the development. As time goes by and the predicted catastrophe fails to appear, this may seem to refute the doomsday rhetoric used by some environmental organisations to stir up public concern. As the level of anxiety drops, so does the trust in these organisations (Figure 3).
The feeling that efforts are being made to correct negative trends may also have contributed to reduce the worries over the environmental situation (Hellevik and Høye 1999). People may think that politicians and business leaders are becoming more concerned, and have hopes that international agreements like the Kyoto Protocols will reverse the trends. They may also feel encouraged by the opportunities provided by the authorities for environmental friendly behaviour such as sorting of household waste. Taking part in these efforts may lead to a feeling of contributing to improve the situation.
Results from the Monitor surveys contradict such a development of a more optimistic outlook, however. The percentage disagreeing with the proposition “Når kritikkverdige miljøforhold avdekkes, tar næringslivet sakene alvorlig og rydder opp raskest mulig” rose from 45 in 1995 to 56, 59 and 55 in 1997, 1999 and 2001. The public thus seems to have become more rather than less cynical with regard the environmental record of business leaders.
When asked in 2001 what development they expect for the years to come in various areas of society, only 14 percent believe that the situation with regard to environment and pollution will improve, while 31 percent expect deterioration (43 percent answered “no major changes” and 10 percent “don’t know”).
The opinion climate in 2001 thus may be described as less characterised by worry and fears than ten years before, but at the same rather pessimistic with regard to how the environmental situation develops. The last aspect may help to explain why the decline for pro-environmental attitudes has been smaller than the reduction in worries, and why the tendency to act environmental friendly has been stable or possibly even increasing.
Generational differences and the future
Changes in opinion distributions over time have two sources, effects of events in the period and of generational replacement. Period effects influence the entire population. We have already suggested that the trends in beliefs and attitudes towards the end of the 1980s were influenced by environmental disasters of this period. The question to be addressed in this section is what role generational replacement plays for the development of environmental concern. Are the new generations more prone to take environmental problems into consideration than the older ones? This in case would mean that generational replacement would change the distribution of attitudes and behaviour in a more environmental friendly direction in the future.
According to an influential theory of cultural development in Western industrialised nations, this is what we should expect. In the postmaterialism theory of Ronald Inglehart (1977, 1990) the economic situation during adolescence is of critical importance for the value priorities individuals develop and carry with them for the rest of their lives. Increasing prosperity in the last decades of the twentieth century stimulated a feeling of economic security during the formative years of the new cohorts entering the adult population, resulting in a shift in the distribution of values of the population from materialism to postmaterialism. A central ingredient of postmaterialism is giving priority to the environmental concerns over economic growth. Inglehart sees the emergence of green organisations and parties as manifestations of the postmaterialist cultural trend.
The negative trend since 1989 for environmental concern in Norway is consequently at odds with the prediction of Inglehart. Even so, it is possible that his assumption of a postmaterialist cohort effect may be empirically tenable. The young may still be more inclined towards pro environmental attitudes than older age groups, and the effect of cohort replacement work in the direction of stronger concern for the environment. This will be the case if the trends described above are the net result of strong negative period effects outweighing the positive effect of cohort replacement.
For value change in general, it has been shown that the predictions from Inglehart’s theory is at odds with the development in Norway since 1987. The new cohorts coming out of adolescence in the 1980s or 1990s are clearly more oriented towards materialistic values than prior generations (Hellevik 2002). This is a new kind of materialism, characterised by the seeking of pleasure rather than economic security as in the traditional kind of materialism discussed by Inglehart.
It is possible that the specific development for environmental values deviates from this general picture. To test whether there is a more pro environmental value orientation among the new cohorts, we shall start by looking at the relationship between age and indicators of concern for the environment (Table 1).
There are a few examples of the younger age classes scoring higher than older ones, when we look at worries and political attitudes. When it comes to attitudes towards own efforts and self-reported behaviour, the tendency is markedly in the opposite direction, the elderly seem more concerned and willing to sacrifice for the sake of the environment than the young. In particular the age classes 20-39 years in many cases represent the lowest level of involvement. The youngest age class, 15-19 years, often scores higher, making several of the distributions U-shaped.
Table 1. Age differences in concern for the environment (Percentages. NM 1997-2001)
15-19 / 20-24 / 25-29 / 30-39 / 40-49 / 50-59 / 60-69 / 70- / %-dEnvironmental situation:
Grave/Disastrous / 39 / 33 / 33 / 30 / 30 / 27 / 28 / 26 / -13
Very much worried about:
Depletion of ozone layer / 33 / 24 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 24 / 30 / 32 / -1
Greenhouse effect and climate change / 16 / 17 / 15 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 19 / 19 / 3
Acid rain / 14 / 15 / 11 / 12 / 14 / 19 / 24 / 26 / 12
Economic growth priority over protection
of nature: Fully/partly disagree / 62 / 56 / 56 / 53 / 50 / 41 / 36 / 33 / -29
Environmental protection chosen from list
of political priorities (multiple choice) / 43 / 35 / 34 / 33 / 38 / 35 / 32 / 38 / -5
The price of all sources of energy should
be raised: Fully/partly agree / 26 / 18 / 20 / 22 / 27 / 25 / 25 / 29 / 3
I support environmental organisations:
Fits very/fairly well / 35 / 26 / 29 / 31 / 37 / 34 / 39 / 41 / 6
Willing to cut down own consumption:
Fully/partly agree / 59 / 65 / 70 / 74 / 76 / 75 / 76 / 78 / 19
I personally want to do something for the
environment: Fits very/fairly well / 33 / 35 / 40 / 45 / 52 / 53 / 63 / 60 / 27
I boycott producers who pollute: Fits
Very/fairly well / 28 / 29 / 37 / 36 / 43 / 43 / 48 / 50 / 22
Used collective means of transportation
when driving was an alternative: Often / 22 / 15 / 15 / 13 / 17 / 21 / 20 / 29 / 7
Systematically try to save energy in the
home / 17 / 19 / 29 / 33 / 39 / 43 / 50 / 56 / 39
(N) / (741) / (683) / (1355) / (3081) / (2417) / (1992) / (1196) / (934)
The additive value index for environmental concern used in the Monitor study consists of two items from the table, the fourth (economic growth versus protection of nature) and the eight (willingness to cut down on own consumption). The age pattern differs sharply between the two items, rendering the index nearly uncorrelated with age. Lack of correlation with age would imply that no effect on environmental concern of generational replacement is to be expected. The conclusion from the complete picture presented by table 1 is another, however. Especially with regard to willingness to act environmental friendly in everyday life, the young fall below older age groups.