Environmental Attitudes and Awareness : A Psychosocial Perspective [1 ed.] 9781527504219, 9781443895705

Citation preview

Environmental Attitudes and Awareness

Environmental Attitudes and Awareness: A Psychosocial Perspective By

Geetika Tankha

Environmental Attitudes and Awareness: A Psychosocial Perspective By Geetika Tankha This book first published 2017 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2017 by Geetika Tankha All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9570-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9570-5

CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................................. vii List of Figures............................................................................................. ix Preface ....................................................................................................... xi Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 Introduction Status of Environmental Problems at a Global Level ............................ 3 Status of Environmental Problems at a National Level ......................... 7 Status of Environmental Problems at a Regional Level ....................... 15 Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 19 Review of Literature Proposed Viewpoints and Models of Environmental Concern ............ 19 Socio-Demographic Correlates of Environmental Concern ................. 35 Psychological Correlates of Environmental Concern .......................... 47 Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 63 Methodology Problem Statement .............................................................................. 63 Aim and Objectives of the Study ......................................................... 64 Hypotheses of the Study ...................................................................... 64 Plan of Study ....................................................................................... 64 Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 75 Results and Analysis Gender and Age Differences ................................................................ 76 Correlational Analysis ....................................................................... 105 Cluster Analysis ................................................................................. 113

vi

Contents

Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 117 Findings and Interpretation Socio-Demographic Correlates of Environmental Attitudes and Awareness ............................................................................ 119 Correlational Analysis of Environmental and Psychological Variables ...................................................................................... 127 Cluster Analysis of Environmental and Psychological Variables ...... 131 Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 137 Summary Conclusions........................................................................................ 137 Implications and Future Suggestions ................................................. 143 References ............................................................................................... 145

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Environmental Concerns of Developing and Industrialised Countries Table 2.1 A Summary of the Bivariate Relationship between Indicators of Environmental Concern and Age, Education, Income, Occupational Prestige, Residence, Sex, Political Party and Political Ideology Table 3.1 Socio-demographic Attributes of the Respondents Table 3.2 Correlations of the Goals and Social Values Inventories Indexes with Corresponding Items from Rokeach Value Survey Table 4.1.1 Percentages of Responses of Adult Men and Women on “Affect” sub-scale of MEAK Scale Table 4.1.2 Percentages of Responses of Adult Men and Women on the “Verbal Commitment” sub-scale of MEAK Scale Table 4.1.3 Percentages of Responses of Adult Men and Women on the “Actual Commitment” sub-scale of MEAK Scale Table 4.1.4 Percentages of Responses of Adult Men and Women on the “Knowledge” sub-scale of MEAK Scale Table 4.2 Percentages of Responses of Adult Men and Women on the Three sub-scale of NEP Scale Table 4.3 Percentages of Responses of Adult Men and Women on the Three sub-scales of SAAEQ Scale Table 4.4.1 Percentages of Responses of Young and Middle-aged Adult Men and Women on “Affect” sub-scale of MEAK Scale Table 4.4.2 Percentages of Responses of Young and Middle-Aged Adult Men and Women on “Verbal Commitment” sub-scale of MEAK Scale. Table 4.4.3 Percentage of Responses of Young and Middle-Aged Adult Men and Women on “Actual Commitment” sub-scale of MEAK Scale. Table 4.4.4 Percentages of Responses of Young and Middle-Aged Adult Men and Women on “Knowledge” sub-scale of MEAK Scale.

viii

List of Tables

Table 4.5 Percentages of Responses of Young and Middle-Aged Adult Men and Women on the “NEP” Scale Table 4.6 Percentages of Responses of Young and Middle-Aged Adult Men and Women on the “SAAEQ” Scale Table 4.7 Means, Standard Deviations and Critical Ratio of Adult Men and Women on the Various Scales of Ecological Attitudes and Awareness Table 4.8 Means, Standard Deviations and Critical Ratio of Young and Middle-Aged Adult Men and Women on the Various Scales of Ecological Attitudes and Awareness Table 4.9 Correlation Between Variables of Ecological and Psychological Measures for Adult Men Table 4.10 Correlation Between the Variables of Ecological and Psychological Measures for Adult Women Table-4.11 Cluster Formation for the Intercorrelation Matrix of Adult Men Table-4.12 Cluster Formation for the Intercorrelation Matrix of Adult Women

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Interactions between human and environmental systems Figure 2.2 The proposed model of environmentally-responsible behaviour Figure 2.3 The proposed model of environmentally-responsible behaviour Figure 2.4 A causal model of ecologically-responsible consumer behaviour Figure 2.5 The proposed causal model of environmental concern Figure 2.6 A schematic representation of the model of environmental concern Figure 2.7 An approximate causal model of resource use with examples from residential energy conservation

PREFACE

Today, living in harmony with nature is very important for the survival of the human species. The lack of balance and harmony between humans and the environment has led to disastrous consequences for all and we thus need to look into the source of the problem from a human and psychological perspective. Environmental psychology emerged in the mid1990s, as a field to study this relationship between humans and nature. It has since become an established, international field in the West but there is still a lot to be done in this area in the developing world and emerging developing Asian economies like India. Keeping this in mind, this research was a humble first attempt to examine the attitudes and awareness of people in India towards the issue of environmental pollution and degradation. The environment was always worshipped in ancient Vedic India and the great scriptures like Vedas, Upanishads, and Bhagavad Gita are replete with verses dedicated to and praising the power of nature and its priceless gifts. Since time immemorial, Indian culture has believed in the “balance of nature”. The great sages have always stressed the importance of maintaining balance, and have referred to the environment as “Mother Nature”. A 3000-year-old beautiful verse in the Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita rightly summarises the essence in following lines: “dyau‫ ۊ‬ĞƗntirantarƯk‫܈‬an Ğanti p‫܀‬ithivƯ ĞƗntirƗpa‫ ۊ‬ĞƗntiro‫܈‬adhaya‫ۊ‬ vanaspataya‫ ۊ‬ĞƗntiviswadevah ĞƗntibrahma ĞƗnti‫ ۊ‬sarva ĞƗnti‫ ۊ‬ĞƗntireva ĞƗnti‫ ۊ‬sƗ mƗ Ğntiredhi” (Shukla Yajur Veda 36-17) [Let there be balance in the space, balance in the sky, there be peace on the earth, there be calmness, let there be growth in the plants, and in the trees; Let there be grace in the Gods, Let there be bliss in the Brahman, Let there be balance in everything, and everywhere, Let such peace be with every one of us]

This empirical research study was planned to gain perspective on the attitudes and awareness of the Indian adult population. The author has

xii

Preface

attempted to investigate the influence of socio-demographic dimensions such as gender and age on environmental concern and environmental awareness, as not much information has been available on this aspect in the Indian context. The research also examines the influence of personality traits like narcissism and altruism, along with beliefs and values, which are important in directing human behaviour. The first chapter outlines the status of environmental degradation at global, national, and regional levels. It provides some background to the efforts being made to understand and assess the severity of the problem from the point of view of environmental scientists, governments, and local bodies. It also details the various reports on the state of environmental concerns like climate change, air, water and land pollution and degradation. The second chapter details environmental concern from a psychosocial perspective, which is the major reason for this book to be written. Here, the author has tried to give an informative picture about why the psychologists’ role is important to an understanding of the gravity of the problem and in unearthing sources. This chapter is a review of various models of environmental concern, as well as socio-demographic and psychological correlates of environmental concern, developed over the past two decades or more. It also covers the few empirical studies available in the Indian context. This chapter forms the theoretical basis for the formulation of the research study. The third chapter is dedicated to the methodology based on the theoretical foundation, developed from previous research and studies discussed in the preceding chapter. The research questions that the researcher attempted to answer, and the specific aims and objectives of the study are reported in this chapter. The sample, tools used and the design and procedure of the empirical research are discussed. The fourth chapter discusses the obtained results and analysis. This chapter has been divided into three sections: a) gender and age analysis; b) correlation analysis; c) cluster analysis. The section on gender and age reports the significant differences in environmental attitudes and awareness, based on socio-demographic variables. Some significant results have emerged regarding these two variables in terms of environmental concern and awareness. The terms “environmental concern” and “ecological attitudes” have been used interchangeably to mean environmental attitudes in this chapter and elsewhere in the book. The section about correlation

Environmental Attitudes and Awareness: A Psychosocial Perspective

xiii

analysis indicates that psychological variables also play an important role in guiding the behaviour of individuals. Lastly, the cluster analysis has resulted in few expected groupings among the variables of ecological attitudes and psychological variables. The fifth chapter deals with the original findings and interpretations of the research work. It explains the obtained results in the light of existing research and new possibilities. The sixth chapter highlights the conclusions and future recommendations for future research studies. This book will add to the existing knowledge and help to further an understanding of psychosocial aspects of the environmental attitudes of people in general and the Indian population in particular. I hope that it will be of use to scholars, researchers, and academicians of various disciplines such as environmental sociology, ecology, conservation and environmental psychology, environmental sciences, etc. The book will also be of value to policymakers, as well as anyone interested in an understanding of the behavioural and psychosocial perspectives of environmental concern. I am thankful to Cambridge Scholars Publishing for giving me the opportunity to get this manuscript published. They have extended patience and cooperation and it has been a very pleasant experience to work with their team. Lastly, I acknowledge the support and blessings of the almighty in the form of the support of people and resources made available to complete this academic pursuit.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Recent studies of environmental degradation and social disorder have raised serious concerns about the long-term viability of ecological and social systems (Bratt, Stern, Matthies, & Nenseth, 2014; Koger & Scott, 2007; Scott, Koger, Amel, & Manning, 2016; Stern, 2000; Swim, Stern, Doherty, Clayton, et al., 2011; Vlek, 2000). Humankind is not using but overusing Earth’s resources. Many of our planet's ecosystems are reaching critical levels of depletion or approaching irrevocable change, pushed by economic development and population growth. According to the United Nations, if present trends of pollution and degradation continue and the population grows at a similar rate, it will require three planets to sustain us by the year 2050. In recent research, Swim et al. (2011) rightly stated that global climate change is one of the biggest challenges faced by the human race in modern times. Corson (1995) warned that the rate at which human actions impact the sustainability of the earth’s sustenance is beyond the capacity of the natural cycle of regeneration and recovery. The present pace of waste generation, resource use, population growth and ecological degradation and pollution is too rapid and disastrous for the ecological systems to replace and regenerate. Researchers are of the view that some of the changes, like the expansion of arid land spaces, depletion of the ozone layer, soil erosion, pollution of groundwater, depleting fresh water resources, loss of green cover and other habitats, are irreversible and irrevocable (Ayres, 1993; Brown, Lenssen, & Kane, 1995; McKenzieMohr & Oskamp, 1995). Earth’s atmosphere, which plays a vital role in sustaining human life on the planet, has been greatly endangered by human actions. MckenzieMohr and Oskamp (1995) rightly stated, more than a decade ago, that those human actions have imbalanced the moderate and stable climate, increased solar radiations and polluted the clean pristine air of Earth’s atmosphere. All these are critical for supporting and sustaining life.

2

Chapter One

Human actions have not been limited to this and have also disturbed the forest cover and soil and water quality of our planet, making life on it unsustainable. According to a report by the United Nations, the rate of deforestation increased by 50% during the 1980s (Forest Resources Assessment, 1991). Not only this, the soil has also been degraded and areas as large as the size of countries like India and China have undergone moderate to severe deterioration since World War Two (World Resources, 1992). Combined with this, fresh water in both the developing and the developed world is becoming polluted due to industrialisation, deforestation, increasing human inhabitation and faulty agricultural practices (Brown, Kane, & Ayres, 1993; Gleick, 1993). These environmental problems across the world have typically been attributed to an anthropocentric worldview by social scientists: the belief that humans are the measure of all value, and Earth and its natural resources are valuable insofar as they satisfy human needs (Devall & Sessions, 1985; McHarg, 1970; Nash, 1989). It is a fact that humankind is the creation of nature, but the irony is that it is itself becoming the cause of the destruction of its creator. Civilisation is a testament to human interference with nature. Humans, from the time of their evolution, have tried to channel the energy of the natural ecosystem into an artificial ecosystem to support their own population and animals. Their use has not been restricted to the fulfilment of basic needs of life, but has surpassed the limits of judicious usage and ruthless exploitation of environmental resources, causing dis-equilibrium in the ecosystem and, in turn, endangering the human habitat itself. There is hardly any pocket of land, island, polar region, or space left virgin. Even the remote corners of the earth reveal the scars of human meddling carried out in a bid to realise and translate human aspirations and dreams into a reality. The overexploitation of nature’s resources by human beings has led to the degeneration of the planet and its bounties. The land is scarred and eroded, the rivers, lakes, and oceans are so contaminated with industrial waste that they have become unfit for human use. The air is filled with toxic pollutants and each agent of production and consumption is making a reckless use of natural resources without giving thought to the damage being inflicted on the environment. Perhaps a vast chunk of humanity is unaware of the fact that this will lead to an ecological disaster of a magnitude that may threaten the very existence of the human species in the long run. Garg and Tiwana (1987) have rightly stated that scientists, economists and planners have probably forgotten the law of Newton that states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The environmental

Introduction

3

degradation caused by unprecedented population explosion, exploitation of natural resources, ever-increasing industrialisation and urbanisation is being returned to humanity in the form of cancer through the air and water, land pollution, and resource depletion.

Status of Environmental Problems at a Global Level The authoritative report (INUC, UNEP, WWF, 1991) on the gravity of the crisis was submitted by the three most respected organisations (World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Program, World Wide Fund for Nature) in the world. While working at a global level towards the goal of raising concern for the environment, they have communicated a very clear message about the challenge lying ahead. They have stated that “we depend on the resources of the Earth to meet our basic and vital needs, if they are diminished or deteriorate we risk that our needs and those of our descendants will go unmet. Because we have been failing to care for the Earth properly and living unsustainably, that risk has become dangerously high. We are now gambling with the survival of civilisation.” This statement clearly indicates the extent of the misuse of natural resources, so much so that the very survival of the human species is at risk. No longer can this assault by humans on nature or, as Ramphal (1992) calls it, “ecocide” (the slaughter of nature), be excused as the tolerable side of development, growth and progress. This vertical growth minus the concern for the environment has led to a deterioration of environmental quality. The privileged minority have developed and flourished by using the planet's resources in an alarmingly selfish way and have compromised the less prosperous majority. This has created a colossal gap in the quality of life between the privileged few and the unprivileged majority. This gap has resulted in environmental stress, due to the growing demand on scarce resources by the undeveloped on the one hand, and the pollution generated by the rising living standards of the relatively affluent on the other hand. Bartelmus (1994) identified both poverty and affluence as the driving forces behind environmental degradation and resource depletion. He broadly termed these forces as “pollution of poverty” and “pollution of affluence” respectively. The former refers to the pressure and burden on the environment in the developing countries because of increasing population. The latter refers to the environmental deterioration in industrialised countries due to the impact of high-level economic growth and over-consumption patterns.

4

Chapter One

A number of international surveys, seminars, and studies have been undertaken across the world for the assessment of the state of environmental problems. These have shown that environmental impact can be seen both in developing and developed countries, though the scope and intensity are different in each. The industrialised countries are facing a deterioration in quality of life, but life itself may be at risk in the developing countries when their natural resource base is being destroyed. These different concerns have been tabulated as follows: Table 1.1 Environmental Concerns of Developing and Industrialised Countries Environmental concerns I. Natural environment A. Air B. Land, soil, mineral resources (including energy)

Developing countries

Industrialised countries

Air pollution in major cities

AIR POLLUTION

SOIL EROSION AND DEGRADATION; DESERTIFICATION

C. Water

FRESH WATER SHORTAGE freshwater pollution (sewage, pesticides); pollution of coastal waters DEFORESTATION (especially of tropical forests); loss of genetic resources; endangered species Pollution of coastal ecosystems (decreasing fish catch)

Soil loss and deterioration; dumping of waste; risk of radioactive contamination from nuclear power production Freshwater shortage; INLAND AND MARINE WATER POLLUTION

D. Fauna and flora

E. Ecosystems

F. Natural disasters

FLOODS; DROUGHTS; STORMS; EARTHQUAKES; volcanic eruptions

Loss of genetic resources; ending greed species

Disruption of mountain, wetland, freshwater, (especially FOREST DAMAGE from acid rains and eutrophication) and coastal ecosystems Floods; earthquakes

Introduction Environmental concerns II. Man-made environment and living conditions A. Bio productive systems

B. Human settlements

C. Health

D)Environment and development

5

Developing countries

Industrialised countries

LOSS AND DEGRADATION OF ARABLE LAND; pests and pest resistance; water shortage, pressure on fish population (overfishing, pollution) IMPACTS OF FUELWOOD CONSUMPTION; food contamination, post-harvest losses MARGINAL SETTLEMENTS (RURALURBAN MIGRATION, URBAN GROWTH) MAL-AND UNDERNUTRITION; INFECTIOUS AND PARASITIC DISEASES

Loss of croplands to urban sprawl; pests and pest resistance; contamination of crops and fish; overexploitation of fishing grounds

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

URBAN SPRAWL; NOISE, LAND CONTAMINATION, TRAFFIC CONGESTION CANCER, cardiovascular, diseases, genetic and long term effects of POTENTIALLY TOXIC CHEMICALS and HAZARDOUS WASTE. ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITIES; energy and environment

Global warming and Climate Changes depletion of III. Global consequential effects the OZONE LAYER problems Capital letters indicate issues of particular significance. Source: Cited in Bartelmus (1994, pg. 13)

The above table clearly indicates that although the nature of problems differs, the impact of environmental pollution and degradation can be felt globally, both in the developing and in the developed world. The depletion and degradation of natural resources (land/soil, water, and forests) and the effects on food and energy supplies, marginal conditions in human settlements, environmentally-caused diseases, and natural disasters, are high-priority issues in developing countries. By contrast, industrialised countries are especially concerned about air, land and water pollution, the phenomenon of climate change, and the depletion of the ozone layer. No

6

Chapter One

longer can the developing countries consider environmental concerns as a luxury for the developed and industrialised nations, as the effects of environmental change are not restricted to the political boundaries of countries. Precisely due to the above considerations, Dunlap and Mertig (1995) stressed the global concern for the environment, irrespective of the countries being affluent or poor. They cited a common assumption that public concern for environmental quality is dependent on affluence and is, therefore, stronger in wealthy nations than in poor nations. Dunlap and Mertig (1995) tested this assumption: data were obtained on a wide range of environmental assumptions and opinions from citizens in 24 economically and geographically diverse nations, including India. The aggregate national level scores for a variety of measures of public concern for environmental quality were created and correlated with per capita GNP. Although the results varied considerably depending upon the measure, overall national affluence was found to be negatively rather than positively related to national concern for environmental quality. This was in contradiction to the conventional wisdom and beliefs. The statistics also demonstrated that the major consumers of natural resources and raw material are the developed nations. Parikh and Gokran (1991) reported the results in a study conducted by the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research. They observed that the consumption of raw materials, energy, food, and a wide range of other products for the developing and the developed countries was in inverse proportion to their populations: 78% for the developed countries with 24% of the world’s population; and 22% for the developing countries with 76% of the world’s population. It therefore seems awful that the economic development of developing countries may be halted in the name of environmental concern. The recent fact sheet from the United Nations Environment Programme (2015) also reiterated the fact that we cannot continue with the present rate of growth and development, as that will require a new planet to sustain human beings. The most pressing need is to work jointly towards the goal of ecodevelopment as both the rich and the poor are polluting the environment in their own ways. There is also a need for a change in the attitudes of both the developed and the developing countries towards the relationship between development and the environment, and a need for a better understanding of each other’s priorities. The people globally need to make a shift from the “dominant worldview” to the “deep ecology worldview”

Introduction

7

(Devall & Sessions, 1985). The deep ecology worldview stresses the need for maintaining harmony with nature, limiting growth and valuing all the non-human species equally, rather than exploiting them for human need. Similar views were expressed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978), who named this as the “new environmental paradigm”, emphasising the fact that the environment and humans are at equal status and the survival of humanity is largely dependent on the health of the global environment, and not just on human ingenuity (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, et al. 1992). Stern, Dietz and Kalof (1993) also referred to this view as the “biospheric value orientation” towards the environment.

Status of Environmental Problems at a National Level At this time of ecological imbalance and mismanagement, India stands in a very conspicuous position due to its unique status. It is a nation developing among the developed, and developed among the developing. This unique position has resulted in a spectrum of diseases, ranging from those resulting from poverty and stark need to those resulting from prosperity, affluence and greed (Birundha, 1991). We are thus standing on a doubleedged sword where we have to balance development and growth very pragmatically on one side, and environmental preservation and protection on the other side. Priorities for change should be considered scientifically and pragmatically in the context of our country. Priorities for a sustainable future have thoroughly been considered by Corson (1995). He enumerated almost 20 priority changes that are considered important for a sustainable future and a better environment. These priorities included belief, values and worldview; ethics; education; the media; governance and politics; national security; society; consumption and lifestyles; demographics; gender relations; economics; energy; transportation; technology and information management; urban design; diet; agriculture, environment and national resources. The gravity of the problem is so great that no one section of society can overcome it single-handedly. The need of the hour is to join hands and work out a well-integrated strategy, where the drawbacks of our nation have to be converted into advantages. In other words, the challenging feature of our country is its enormously growing population. However, if stirred and mobilised in the right direction, it could change the course of rivers and move mighty mountains, metaphorically speaking. There is thus a serious need to enlighten and awaken the people of our country through

8

Chapter One

education and information about environmental problems and their longterm effects on the health of our country’s citizens. Indira Gandhi, our late Prime Minister, rightly remarked while addressing a conference on the environment in 1984, that environmental education helps in raising social consciousness and making the community aware of the fact that ecological disruption harms both the individual and the community. The large-scale participation of eco-conscious people is very important for any government to attain the goal of harnessing environmental misuse. The noted environmentalist, Prof. Nicholas Polunin, has rightly commented that “enlightened understanding by a human being of his or her environment is a prerequisite to saving it” (cited in Birundha, 1991). Awareness about the ongoing environmental and developmental crises is said to be a prerequisite for environmental management. Although formal governmental strategies in the USA to protect the environment appeared as early as the 17th century (Grove, 1992), Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring (1962) was arguably the catalyst for contemporary environmental consciousness in the USA. Her thorough and sobering analysis of the effects of pesticides on Earth’s ecological system was the first alarm many Americans heard. Another landmark in this field was Garret Hardin’s classic paper, “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968). The first Earth Day was created by Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin on 22nd April 1970, to raise the environmental consciousness of Americans. It is considered another major benchmark in the modern environmental movement. In recent decades, our vocabulary has been enriched by many terms relating to the environment, which reflects the increasing attention paid to this issue. There has been a gradual change in attitude towards the relationship between development and the environment. The first step in this direction at a global level was made in 1972, when the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in Stockholm. This foregrounded the environment as an issue on the world’s political agenda. However, the Indian Prime Minister (Mrs. Indira Gandhi) and the Swedish Prime Minister (Mr. Olf Palme) were the only heads of government who attended the meeting; today, the situation is different with the environment being high on the agenda of all countries. The 1980s marked an increase in awareness of environmental issues due to a succession of ecological disasters that took place around the world. To name a few: the chemical leakage in Bhopal (1984); the liquid gas explosion in Mexico (1984); drought and famine in Africa (1985); the mudslide in Colombia (1985); the nuclear accident in Chernobyl (1986); four oil spill incidents in USA

Introduction

9

coastal waters (first half of 1989), resulting in the enormous loss and destruction of wildlife. The WCED Report, also known as the Brundtland Commission’s report on the state of our planet, was published in 1987. The report concluded that the only way to prevent global catastrophe was to improve the quality of life for the poor, and make lifestyles more attuned to the ecological realities of the planet, promoting eco-friendly growth rather than growth for the sake of growth. By 1990, the message of this report had penetrated the consciousness of citizens and leaders the world over. The World Development Report (1992) also placed emphasis on sustainable and equitable development as the greatest challenge being faced by the human race. The report tried to explore the two-way relationship between development and environment as they are inextricably linked. Development without environmental protection is undermined and, without development, resources will be inadequate for the investment needed for environmental protection. The report clearly pointed out that developing countries cannot be stopped from developing since alleviating poverty is both a moral imperative and a prerequisite for environmental sustainability. The high-income and industrialised countries must play a major role in financing the protection of the environment (natural habitats; biodiversity) in developing countries, as the whole world benefits from them. They also need to play a primary role in addressing the problems of global warming and ozone depletion in developing countries, as this is the outcome of the higher consumption levels of the rich (the greenhouse gas index is four times higher than in the developing world). UNEP's Global Environment Outlook-GEO 2000 (UNEP, 1999) indicates that, along with the traditional environmental problems, new ones are emerging. The old environmental concerns like water pollution, air pollution, loss of biodiversity and urbanisation, deforestation and land degradation must be combined and, in turn, connected to the needs and hopes of the people. This new millennium finds Earth trapped between two conflicting trends. A wasteful and invasive consumerism, along with continued population growth is causing a threat to the resources that form the basis of human existence. On the other hand, society is attempting to struggle against time in reversing these trends and introduce eco-friendly practices that will ensure the well-being of future generations. The recently-released annual report by UNEP (2015) stated that climate change is influencing the global environment in a manner that the extent of these disastrous changes is still to be witnessed. The average surface

10

Chapter One

temperature in the last century increased to 0.89° C and is likely to further rise another 0.3° C to 0.7° C in the coming 20 years. By now, we are very familiar with the fact that human beings are mainly responsible for environmental pollution and degradation, due to their egocentric attitudes and immediate need for gratification. As the result, they have been unfriendly to nature, wildlife and natural resources in general, and biodiversity in particular. The people of developed countries seem to have contributed more to this unhealthy environmental imbalance of nature, as their development has taken place at the cost of resources from developing countries. It is therefore justifiable to have a sense of concern for environmental protection all over the world, including India. It is thought that improved living standards and income per capita of the nation is directly related to development, but it is rightly hypothesised that development should be harmonised with the environment. As economic growth speeds up, the rate of consumption of natural resources also increases, and toxicity levels, water and air pollution, environmental degradation all increase intensively. Economic prosperity brings an increased sense of awareness and a willingness to pay for a cleaner environment. However, the loss and degradation that occurs in the course of development is irreparable and irreversible and there is therefore a need to make sustainable development a guiding leitmotif behind economic development and growth all over the world. Concern for the environment must be reflected in national and international development policies, along with acceptance of the fact that there is a need to limit economic and population growth (Brandt, 1992). In a democratic country like ours, environmental concerns can only become integrated with development programmes if leaders are sensitive to them (Agarwal, 1997, May). The first prime minister to express concern for the environment was Mrs. Indira Gandhi, who took an initiative in 1976 by getting the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act passed. This incorporated protection and improvement of the natural environment such as forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife as a “fundamental duty” of the citizens of India. Other than this, the Department of Environment and Forests was constituted at both national and state-level in her leadership. The Water and Air Pollution Control Acts, Wildlife Conservation Act, and Forest Conservation Acts were also passed during her regime. The next prime minister to take a real interest in protecting the environment was Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. He was, in fact, the first prime minister to take sustainable development seriously. He made multi-

Introduction

11

dimensional efforts to promote eco-development. During his tenure, the Environment Protection Act was passed, greater expenditure was diverted towards environmental regeneration, and massive afforestation and agroecological planning for Indian agriculture was proposed. Environmental education was included in the new education policy and the Ganga action plan was also initiated, both of which have since seen results. The Department of Environment was upgraded to the level of a ministry, which he headed himself for some time. He also accepted that he could not do much without the support of the political system and the people of India, as he also had to succumb to political pressures. His successors did not do much for the environment, except to degrade the importance of environmental issues in the name of economic development. In our country, there is thus a need for another eco-friendly leader who can balance economic development and the environment in the interests of present and future generations of Indian citizens. The current Prime Minister, Shri Narender Modi, also initiated the “Swatchh Bharat Abhiyan” (Clean India Mission) and emphasis has been placed on sustainable development, predominantly on sanitation, clean drinking water, the cleaning of rivers, agriculture (soil health), and eco-friendly practices. He launched the mission as a tribute to the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, on 2nd October 2014, and envisages a cleaner India by 2019, to mark the 150th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi. So, the preceding pages clearly indicate the gravity of the situation with the increasing threat to the environment. The growth of environmental consciousness the world over is a positive development although not very marked at the present time. There is still a need for a lot more effort to be made on the part of the citizens of the world. Ramphal (1992) rightly stated in his book, The Country, Our Planet, that “there is a need for awareness that as humans we are a part of nature, not apart from it; that we should adopt humility, not arrogance, in our dealings with nature; and that we should resolve to live in harmony, not in contention with nature” (p.3). The following pages now present a closer look at the gravity of the environmental crisis in our country. The Indian Development Report (IDR, 1997) indicated the seriousness of environmental problems in our country in the late 1990s, and stressed the need for immediate attention. The environment of our country is in a dismal condition. Almost all rivers and lakes are polluted heavily; groundwater systems are being overexploited and polluted. The air quality is deteriorating in more and more towns with three big metropolitan areas (Delhi, Calcutta and Bombay) earning the distinction of being among the ten most polluted cities in the

12

Chapter One

world. Less than 5% of Indian’s land has pristine, untouched forests left and nearly a third of India’s lands can be classified as wastelands. This clearly states that India can no longer afford to ignore environmental issues, as it may result in becoming more expensive to society. Air pollution poses a major threat to the health of the people and, in most of the Indian cities, the major source of air pollution is the emission from industrial, vehicular, and household sources, along with natural processes. Urban air quality has deteriorated in all Indian cities, particularly in all metropolitans, due to the combination of industrial and vehicular emissions. The World Bank study by Brandon and Homman (1995), on the air pollution levels in Indian cities, reported that 23 cities with a population of more than one million have air pollution levels higher than WHO standards. Emission statistics indicate that though industries, thermal power plants, and domestic activity also contribute to air pollution in cities, vehicular emissions is the major contributor (64% in Delhi, 52% in Mumbai and 30% in Calcutta). They further indicated that more than 40,000 Indians die prematurely because of ambient air pollution levels (Delhi 7,491; Calcutta 5,726; Mumbai 4,477; Jaipur 1,145). The World Development Report of 1993 also reported that loss of healthy life in India due to environmental causes is 30% as compared to the average of 10% in the developing world. The report also indicated that controlling air pollution should be one of the major priorities of our country. Increasing levels of air pollution is also contributing to global warming, with India contributing 8% of the total contribution. Increasing air pollution levels are therefore likely to manifest more intense effects on health, vegetation, and land topology in the coming 20 years. Rural areas of India are also not free from the ill effects of air pollution, as a substantial quantity of noncommercial fuel (crop residues, animal dung, wood, and coal) is used by people both inside and near homes. This results in a release of biofuels that pollute the air and have a damaging effect on people’s health and on the surrounding environment, with women and children suffering the most. In a recent article by Anand (2016), it was reported that more than five million people around the world die an untimely death caused by breathing polluted air, and that most of these deaths occur in India and China. This alarming situation needs immediate attention. Water pollution is another major problem, both in urban and rural areas of our country. The WHO data and World Bank Report of 1993 indicated that 21% of all the communicable diseases in India are waterborne diseases. The major sources of water pollution are domestic and industrial wastewater, non-biodegradable industrial effluents released from paper,

Introduction

13

textile, leather, and chemical industries without proper treatment, and agricultural runoff. The survey conducted by the Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi (1988) reported that, of the total wastewater released from the 212 Class I cities, only 22 % was treated, while for 241 Class II cities, only 2% was treated. In the villages, 80% of children suffer from diseases due to inadequate sewage disposal facilities and a mixing of night soil in open water sources (IDR, 1997). In urban areas, only 64% of people (on average) are provided with sewerage facilities (Statistical Abstract of India, 1993, cited in IDR, 1997 p.99). Drinking water is also a major problem as only 72% of the urban population has access to safe drinking water, with rural areas being in a much worse situation (Statistical Abstract of India, 1992, cited in IDR, 1997, p.99). Environmentalists predict that the situation may become even worse if proper sewerage disposal and industrial and domestic wastewater disposal facilities are not improved. An international agency, WaterAid, recently reported that 80% of India’s surface water may be polluted (Dey, 2015). Land degradation is also another major problem of environmental pollution and degradation in India. The causes of land degradation in India are deforestation, soil degradation, and deterioration of village commons, as well as solid waste mismanagement. As the forest area in India is just 0.08 ha against the world average of 0.8 ha, the pressures are very high. India’s population has risen from 370 million in 1947 to 880 million in 1994, constituting 18% of the world’s population with 2% of the geographical area, and just 1% of forest cover and 0.5% pasture land. The forest area of the total land area is just 19.5%, though it should be at least 33%. A large part of this is also degraded and productivity is low. As stated in reports by Brandon and Hommann (1995), India’s loss due to environmental degradation amounts to 4.5% of its GDP which, according to Bidwai (1996), is an underestimated cost. Bidwai (who is an environmentalist) argues that the total cost of land degradation is 9% of its GDP, indicating that the development is unsustainable in India. The degradation of land has its own impact in the form of increased soil erosion, floods and groundwater evaporation, which intensifies environmental and economic problems such as low agricultural production, water scarcity for irrigation, as well as increased emissions of carbon due to deforestation, loss of biodiversity, destruction of species and their habitats (IDR, 1997). As discussed in a recent article by Vashishtha (2014), the state of land degradation is also very dismal as 25% of India's total land is undergoing desertification, while 32% is facing degradation in the form of soil and wind erosion. This has affected its productivity, critically affecting the livelihood and food security of millions across the country. Rajasthan is

14

Chapter One

among the leading states in the country facing desertification. Both the government and the people of the state therefore need to wake up and make an effort to save the land from further deterioration. Noise pollution has reached alarming levels in our metropolitan cities. Mumbai is, in fact, the third noisiest city in the world, with Delhi and Calcutta closely following. These cities have an average ambient noise level of 90 dB, which is well above the WHO permissible norms (Sharma, 1995). As stated in the report published by Lentin (2014), three Indian metropolitan cities (Mumbai, Kolkata, and Delhi) have made it onto the list of the top ten noisiest cities in the world, taking first, second and fourth places. Another recent report, published in India Today (“Delhi Among the Noisiest”, 2016) states that Mumbai is the noisiest city, followed by Delhi, Chennai, and Bangalore. The report was based on data collected from nine metropolitan cities by the Central Pollution Control Board. The report also mentioned that ITO in Delhi and Bandra in Mumbai have noise levels higher than the busiest parts of London, New York and Beijing. This growing menace of pollution and degradation has provoked response and awareness amongst the citizens of our country to some extent. Vigorous judicial activism coupled with a sensitisation of public conscience marked the environmental scene during the late 1990s (Staff, 1996). The first pressure group associated with a crusade against environmental degradation was launched (The National Alliance for People’s Movement) in 1996. The apex court issued orders for polluting units to shape up or ship out in many states. On the darker side, air pollution due to vehicular emissions also increased with Delhi, Calcutta, and Mumbai having earned the dubious distinction of being among the ten most polluted mega-cities in the world. The situation has also worsened in terms of water pollution, with an increase in waterborne diseases. As stated in the 1997 report from the Forest Survey of India, we have lost forest cover, which has reduced from 638,879 sq. kms in 1995 to 633,397 sq. km in 1997, due to non-regeneration and jhum cultivation. Surely, citizens have become aware and ecologically-concerned, and have realised that, to ensure survival, they need to live in harmony with nature? Changes to lifestyle are still needed: avaricious consumers of natural resources need to become people who make conscious efforts towards sustainable development.

Introduction

15

Status of Environmental Problems at a Regional Level The environmental situation in Rajasthan is also not very encouraging. Statistics show that, about three decades ago, Rajasthan was assessed as an industrially-backward state with only Jaipur and Kota having some chemical industrial units. However, there are now many large and medium-sized industrial units and they are steadily increasing in number. The major environmental problems in Rajasthan are air and water pollution along with poor sewerage facilities. The annual report of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board RSPCB (1995) identified 49 highly-polluting large and medium-sized industrial units in the state. The report also stated that the major cities were facing air pollution due to industrial and automobile emissions, with SPM levels as high as 400 ug /m3 in Jodhpur and 475 ug / m3 in Delhi (the fourth most polluted city in the world). The textile units in Bagru, Sanganer, Pali and Jodhpur were causing chemical water pollution, while the thermal power, fertiliser and chemical units were responsible for water pollution in Kota. More recently, an article by Ali (2014) reported that, according to the WHO (which includes five cities from Rajasthan in its database of 1,600 cities in 91 countries) an assessment of air pollution levels found Jodhpur and Jaipur to be the top most polluted cities of Rajasthan. Jaipur, the capital city from where the sample of respondents for the present study were taken, faces air, land and water pollution due to the haphazard growth of the town on all sides. Industrial areas, new residential colonies, increasing population and traffic congestion have all resulted in a deterioration of environmental quality. A report on air pollution levels found the total pollution load of the state to be around 1,145 tonnes per day (TPD), of which Jaipur accounts for 280 TPD (RSPCB, 1994-95). Surana and Bhargava (1997a), in an assessment report on air quality in residential areas, reported SPM (Suspended Particular Matter: airborne smoke, dust) levels of 380 ug/m3, which was much higher than the permissible levels of 200 ug/m3. High SPM levels have harmful effects on respiratory organs. In a study conducted by Dr. Singh in the early 1990s (cited in Sebastian, 1994), on the rise of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Jaipur, the children of Jaipur were found to be 1.5 times more prone to asthma due to increased air pollution, compared to the neighbouring districts. Approximately 20 years later, in a recent study by Sharma and Sharma (2016), it was reported that most of the Indian cities in the north are suffering from an unusually high concentration of PM10 in an ambient

16

Chapter One

environment, posing a serious threat to the health of the people, leading to illnesses such as asthma, irregular heartbeat, coughing, and heart and lung diseases. They also reported that the status of the air quality of the city of Jaipur is similar to other cities. It is a matter of great concern, and the government and citizens should take stringent methods to control pollution levels. Another type of pollution that has not received much attention is noise pollution. It has a very damaging effect on both physical and psychological well-being. Surana and Bhargava (1997b) reported ambient noise levels for residential, commercial, industrial and sensitive areas are 75 dB, 78 dB, 78 dB and 77 dB respectively, which clearly indicates that they are higher than the permissible level in all the areas (+ 20 on an average), except in industrial areas where it is marginal (+3). All this suggests that there is a need to study the attitudes and awareness levels of Jaipur residents regarding pollution and degradation of the environment, since they are exposed to high levels of air, water, land, and noise pollution on a daily basis. The preceding pages clearly indicate the seriousness of the environmental problems all over the world, including in our country. Our environmental problems at a national and state level, as well as the localised problems of Jaipur city, have also been pointed out. Environmental problems have been explored by different groups of scientists, but the psychologist’s concern is conspicuous by its absence in this area in our country. Within psychology, the subfield of environmental psychology primarily focuses on how the environment is affected by human behaviour, so a recognition of the dangerous impact of human actions on the environment was relatively slow to develop (Darley & Gilbert, 1985). Environmental attitudes and their relationship to behaviour has been a major topic of study for Western environmental psychologists. However, the study of the environmental movement and public attitudes concerning the environment in developing countries only started to receive considerable attention during the late 1990s (Adeola, 1996). Some social psychologists in our country have shifted their interest within the field of environmental psychology. They have significantly studied crowding behaviour and noise pollution. Indian studies, however, on attitudes and awareness towards environmental pollution and degradation have not raised much concern in behavioural scientists, with a few exceptions (Larijani & Yeshodhara, 2008; Shobeiri, Omidvar & Prahallada, 2006). Therefore, it occurred to this investigator to carry out a study on people’s

Introduction

17

attitudes and awareness of environmental pollution and degradation from a psychological point of view. More specifically, the study proposes to bring out the importance of gender, education and age differences in attitudes and awareness to environmental pollution and degradation commonly referred to as “environmental concern”, an area that has not received the serious attention it deserves. The variables of gender and age are also considered to be important in studying ecological attitudes, as there is not much consistent research on these aspects (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1980; Samdahl & Robertson, 1989). Furthermore, particular psychological variables of personality (narcissism) and values were also included, as these are considered important in the context of the present investigation. These psychological variables have also been examined in the literature on ecology and behaviour (Karp, 1996; Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993). The review of literature amply demonstrates the importance of investigating such variables.

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The problem of environmental pollution, degradation and awareness is so vast that it becomes difficult to categorise it from one viewpoint or the other. The present review has been restricted to the following sections for the sake of convenience: (A). Proposed viewpoints and models of environmental concern; (B). Socio-demographic correlates of environmental concern; (C). Psychological correlates of environmental concern.

Proposed Viewpoints and Models of Environmental Concern 1. Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: A Psychological Viewpoint Psychology is relevant to global environmental change because these changes are no longer an outcome of forces beyond human control and are, instead, largely caused by humans and therefore known as anthropogenic in origin (Stern, 1992). An increased effort is thus being made to understand human interactions with the global environment (National Research Council, 1988, 1990). Stern and his associates (1991) have diagrammatically presented the interaction that is presented on next page:

Environmental changes are called “global” when then impact cannot be localised (for detailed description, see Stern, et al. (1992).

20

Chapter Two

Fig-2.1 Interactions between human and environmental systems Source: Stern et al. (1991)

The above diagram clearly presents that human activities affect the global environment by altering significant environmental conditions. These human activities are the proximate causes of global environmental change. The global environment, in turn, affects people through a subset of events that change aspects that people value. These events are the proximate effects of global change. Social and behavioural sciences can help in understanding how the proximate causes are produced and how people perceive and respond to the proximate effects. Psychology can improve understanding of the function of individual and interpersonal behaviour in all these human-environment relationships. Psychologists can help first of all by identifying the human behaviours which are the potent proximate causes, and then by explaining the driving forces behind these causes. Secondly, they can play an important role in determining the way global changes will be perceived and responded to. Additionally, they can also study how harmful responses can be altered to slow down the rate of change. i. Identifying the important proximate causes and explaining their underlying forces. Psychological research in the past has been related to studying the individual behaviours which influence global environmental change, whereas the present need is to study the behaviour of households and corporations, which have a greater impact on the environment (Stern

Review of Literature

21

& Gardner, 1981a & b). An analysis of global climate change, according to Stern et al. (1991) reveals that the human activities that are the most important proximate human causes of global climate change are the ones which lead to an increase in the release of greenhouse gases (fossil fuel use, CFC use, biomass burning, nitrogen fertilisation, landfills). Identification is not enough though; there is a need to further explain the driving forces behind these causes. The driving forces are varied, ranging from population growth, economic and technological growth, political and economic institutions, to the values and attitudes of people. For example, economic growth harms the environment where materialistic consumer values dominate environmental quality. Psychologists can help in explaining these causes by directing research in the areas of environmental attitudes, with the aim of analysing individual behaviours that affect the global environment, as well as individual behaviours affecting collective actions. These are discussed further. a. Environmental attitudes. Attitudes influence the behaviour of the individual, as well as organisations. They affect behaviours for which other factors do not prevent expression. Environmental attitudes, or concern for the environment, are yet not well understood. However, at least four concepts can be identified to explain their nature. Firstly, environmental concern is a new way of thinking: a “new environmental paradigm.” Secondly, it is tied to “anthropocentric altruism”: people care about environmental quality not only for themselves but because its loss threatens the well-being of a large number of people. Thirdly, environmental concern is a function of “egoism”: people care about the environment only when it threatens their well-being. Lastly, such attitudes are considered to be a function of “deeper causes”, such as Rokeach’s “terminal values” (Rokeach, 1967), underlying religious beliefs (Eckberg & Blocker, 1989), or a shift from materialist to post-materialistic cultural values (Inglehart, 1990). This suggests, therefore, that environmental concern may be ecological, altruistic, egoistic or religious/ideological in nature. Among other things, the present study proposes to focus more on such issues. In some of the previous cross-cultural research on environmental attitudes, Schultz and Zelezny (1998 & 1999), Schultz, Gouviea, Cameron, Tankha, et al. (2004), and Schultz (2000, 2001) attempted to study the nature of environmental attitudes and concern in relation to the values of self-transcendence and self-enhancement. b. Individual behaviours directly affecting the global environment. There are individual consumer behaviours that have a global impact. For example, purchasing decisions (buying air conditioners, refrigerators, fuel

22

Chapter Two

efficient automobiles), daily behavioural choices (level of heating and cooling living spaces), demand for products which depend on vanishing species or disruption of their habitats (fur coats, tusks and animal skins for decoration) etc. Such behaviours are a function of psychological variables (e.g. attitudes, beliefs, motives), interpersonal variables (e.g. communication, social norms), situational structure (e.g. size or level of solidarity of a community facing a common dilemma), and various contextual factors (e.g. demographic background, household size, government regulations, ownership of automobiles, income and prices). A vast panorama of psychological research is available on all these variables (Black et al, 1985; DeYoung, 1989, 1990; Jones, 1990; Stern & Oskamp, 1987) except on contextual factors. Psychological research is necessary in this area because contextual factors interact with psychological variables like attitudes, beliefs and knowledge (Stern et al., 1991). The challenge for psychology is thus to build an understanding of the interactions between contextual and psychological variables, in order to identify the conditions under which the latter make a perceptible difference to global change. c. Individual behaviours affecting collective action. This is a very potent area for understanding the proximate causes of global change, as it will be the individuals who determine what organisations, communities and governments do to preserve the global environment. These collective organisations are influenced by individual action, both through leadership and the pressures that individuals place on leaders through the expression of public opinion. If government action sets the context for individual choices, the attitudes and beliefs of individuals, when combined together, set the direction for the behaviour of government servants. The factors underlying such collective actions are therefore very illuminating for research from a psychological point of view. ii. Perceptions of and responses to global change. Changes that have the potential to harm individual values are bound to elicit a response. Global environmental changes affect the human population in a great way and individuals may thus respond to them either through mitigation (i.e. actions that prevent, limit, delay, or slow the rate of undesired impacts by acting directly or indirectly on environmental systems) or by adaptation to the change (Stern et al. 1991). Depending on the extent to which mitigation or adaptation responses are unsuccessful or incomplete, global changes may continue to create environmental stresses for future populations. Therefore, psychological consequences of these

Review of Literature

23

global changes are worth studying and areas that are of great importance for psychological research are as follows: a. Perceptions of and responses to global environmental change. There are four research problems that relate to perception to define responses to climate change in terms of a decision problem. First: knowledge of the psychological determinants of expert judgements and sources of expert errors and overconfidence (Lichtenstein et al., 1992). Second: understanding the manner in which the experts’ information is interpreted by nonprofessionals. Third: knowledge of the way in which people judge and misjudge the available information on the range of alternatives. Fourth: asking how people combine and convert the available information about options into decisions. Public perceptions and understanding of global changes is thus a potent factor to be researched. b. Changing environmentally-destructive behaviours. Once the behaviours that are harmful for the environment have been identified, research is needed on how these environmentally-harmful behaviours can be changed. There are various ways of doing this but pointing out the most effective techniques and strategies is essential. Information, feedback and persuasive communication is an important means of intervention if used effectively and systematically. Financial incentives for resourceconserving behaviours has proved successful but it requires effort to make the intended audience aware of the incentive. Regulation and technological development can also help to mitigate global changes. Psychologists can be very effective in bringing about change if they rightly apply psychological principles in collaboration with other scientists working in this field who, to date, have not been very successful (Swim, Stern, et al. 2011). c. Changes in support of environmental protection. The timescale for global changes ranges from decades to centuries. Responses therefore depend on the rate at which attitudes and political behaviours towards the environment change, as well as the extent of activism. The rate at which people come to realise the degree of threat thus depends on the amount of public opinion generated by environmental organisations. d. Environmental conflict and conflict management. Environmental policies are always controversial as they have supporters as well as opponents. Stern (1991) observes that the scientific uncertainty about the projections of global environmental change and their varying impacts on different regions will lead to conflicts. Psychologists have the challenging

24

Chapter Two

task of investigating techniques that can resolve such conflicts. The uncertainties attached to these global changes and their long-term impact makes managing them very stressful. e. Individual responses to environmental stressors. Global changes create stress for individuals and communities. The effect of the stress depends on whether or not it is perceived as anthropogenic, as well as the characteristics of the human population it may affect. The uncertainty of the environmental catastrophes which may occur in the distant future is also a stressor, according to Stern (1992). The lack of control over the stress-producing situations (Baum, Fleming & Singer, 1983) is equally stressful. To conclude, global environmental changes are no longer the domain of any one discipline. Rather, they require problem-oriented interdisciplinary research as the technological, economic, political, social factors function interact. Psychology is a field that has something to say about all these factors. A healthy interaction between basic psychological research and studies of the human dimensions of global change can therefore promise to contribute to understanding and responding to environmental problems.

2. Causal Models of Determinants of Environmental Concern i. A causal model of responsible environmental behaviour In recent decades, concern for environmentally-responsible behaviour has steadily grown. This is because, despite a lot of information available on environmental behaviour, none relates to identifying the variable or variables that appear to be most influential in motivating individuals to act in an environmentally-responsible way (Hines et al, 1987). Hines and his associates (1987) thus attempted to propose a model of predictors of environmentally-responsible behaviour based on a meta-analysis of 128 studies conducted in the area of environmental behaviour research.

Review of Literature L

25

Fig. 2.2- The proposed modeel of environmeentally responsibble behaviour 87) Source: Hiness, Hungerford, & Tomera, (198

The above m model clearly indicates thatt an individuaal who has thee intent or will to do soomething is more m likely to engage e in thiss action ratherr than one who has no intention. Hoowever, the in ntention to actt is a combinaation of a number of variables likke cognitive knowledge, cognitive sk kills and personality factors. Just having an intention does not suffice for f taking action on specific issues. The individuaal should be aaware of envirronmental problems annd have know wledge about the issues; thhis is a prereq quisite to action. Alonng with knowlledge of the isssues, anotherr important co omponent is knowledgge of action strategies s (Asch & Shore, 1975; Klingller, 1980; Ramsey, 19979): the soolutions availlable for allleviating the existing environmenttal problems. Another critiical co-compoonent of know wledge of action strategies is action skill: the abillity to perform m the various available strategies. T This ability is critical if an individual haas knowledge of issues and action strategies, buut not the ability or skill to convert these two categories innto taking acction. Both Ramsey R (1979)) and Klingleer (1980) provide stroong evidence that just haviing knowledg e does not leead to the natural evollution of skillls. Rather, th hey have to bbe developed d through behavioural intervention strategies s (MccCutcheon, 19981). The skilll to apply action strateegies to issuess, combined with w appropriaate knowledgee, enables the individuaal to take actioon. Again, possessing the ability to act does noot in itself lead to environmenttally-responsibble behaviourrs; an individdual must po ossess the desire to actt, which is greeatly influenced by a rangee of personalitty factors

26

Chapter Two

like locus of control, attitudes, and personal responsibility. According to Peyton and Miller (1981), an individual with an internal locus of control is more likely to be involved in environmentally-responsible behaviour. Regarding attitude, Hines et al. (1987) found that people possessing highly positive attitudes towards the environment as a whole, as well as towards taking environmental action, are more likely to engage in environmentally responsible behaviour. Lastly, the individual with a sense of obligation or duty towards the environment will act pro-environmentally. An internal locus of control, positive attitudes and a sense of responsibility will, therefore, all lead to the desire to act. So far, the pathway to environmentally-responsible behaviour appears very smooth. However, Hungerford and Volk (1990) rightly stated that the one category of factors which may intervene here, is situational factors (e.g. age, gender and level of education). Other factors may include economic constraints, social pressures and opportunities to choose different actions, which can either counteract or strengthen the other variables. For example, if an individual has the cognitive ability, desire (personality factors), and opportunity to curb pollution by contributing to a local environmental organisation, but cannot afford it financially, he will not engage in the environmental action. In spite of all the other factors present, the situational factor of economic constraint will thus block the model's main pathway. In another case, the same situational factor may strengthen the pathway and increase the incidence of responsible environmental behaviour. Supposedly, due to financial constraints, an individual uses petrol judiciously not only to save money, but to also gain incentives offered by an association, despite the absence of any deep-rooted desire to conserve fossil fuel. Here the situational factor of financial constraint strengthens the pro-environmental behaviour. Situational factors thus add an uncertainty to the prediction of responsible environmental behaviour. However, these factors can be manipulated at different times to entice individuals who do not possess the personality characteristics that could lead to the development of a desire to help alleviate environmental problems. The above model of responsible environmental behaviour thus serves to narrow down the focus of environmental behaviour research to factors, which are strongly associated with responsible environmental behaviour. Such research, in turn, can help to provide environmental education with guidelines for how to achieve this ultimate goal of developing environmentally-responsible and active citizens (Hungerford & Peyton, 1976; Roth, 1970; Stapp, 1971). Based on this perspective, Hungerford

Review of Literature L

27

and Volk (11990) have furthered fu the above modell with the ad ddition of variables and grouped theem into three types of variaables which contribute c to behaviouur: entry variiables, ownerrship variablees and empo owerment variables, thhat have a linear but complex rel ationship, leading to citizenship behaviour. The T model prresented beloow includes the t entry variables, w which are the prerequiisites of reesponsible ciitizenship behaviours, and help in initiating the process of ddecision-making. They include factors like envirronmental sen nsitivity, andrrogyny, know wledge of ecology and attitudes tow wards pollution n. The ownersship variables are more critical as thhey make inddividuals respo onsible, for ppersonal reaso ons, to be associated w with environmental issues. These T include variables likee in-depth knowledge aand personal investment i or identificationn with the issu ue. These variables maake the indiviidual feel and act more ressponsibly, and d enhance the sense off personal ow wnership of th he issue. Lasttly, the empo owerment variables aree the most im mportant of all, as these ggive a feeling of being confident thhat personal behaviour can c bring a change and d resolve environmenttal problems. The empoweerment variablles include kn nowledge and skills off environmental action straategies, as weell as the inteent to act. All these vaariables thus act synergistically and nneed further testing t to understand tthe complex reelationship thaat exists betweeen them.

Fig 2.3 The prroposed model of environmentally responsiblle behaviour Source: Hunggerford & Volk,, (1990)

Bamberg annd Moser (20007) carried outt a meta-analyysis of the inffluence of psychosocial variables onn environmen ntal behaviouur, with respeect to the

28

Chapter Two

work of Hines, Hungerford and Tomera (1987). They endorsed the finding that behavioural intention moderates the impact of these factors on proenvironmental behaviour. According to them, a “personal moral norm” is the third predictor of eco-friendly behaviour, preceded by attitude and behavioural control. Awareness of the problem influences behaviour but indirectly, it is moderated by the moral and social norms, guilt, and the attribution processes of the individual. ii. A causal model of ecologically-conscious consumer behaviour Citizens as consumers are heavily involved in environmental pollution, as many of their consumption patterns are substantially linked to ecological damage. Researchers have found that specific demographics, human values, personality and attitudinal variables are useful in determining ecologically-conscious consumer behaviour. Balderjahn (1988) proposed a causal model to suggest the predictor variables of environmentallyconscious consumer behaviour. The model is figuratively presented below. Demographic and socio-economic Variables

Personality Alienation Emotional expressiveness Ideology control

Attitude Towards Pollution Towards Ecologically conscious living

Consumption Patterns Home insulation Energy curtailment Ecologically responsible buying and using of products Environmental Concern Ecologically responsible use of cars

Cultural and Segmentary Variables Fig. 2.4 A casual model of ecologically responsible consumer behaviour Source: Balderjahn, (1988)

The above model is a hypothesised model of predictor variables, selected from theoretical frameworks and empirical findings relating to ecologically-

Review of Literature

29

concerned consumer behaviour patterns. Balderjahn (1988) based this model on the analysis of one of his earlier and larger empirical studies (Balderjahn, 1986) carried out on a representative sample of ecologicallyconcerned consumers in West Germany. He included five dimensions of ecologically-responsible consumption patterns. These included energy conservation in three forms: home insulation (use of double-glazed windows, use of cavity wall insulation, and insulation of windows); energy curtailment (reducing heating, taking a shower instead of a bath); and ecologically-responsible purchase and use of products. The fourth pattern of environmental concern was tested through ecologically-concerned5 consumers' support or membership of environmental protection organisations. The last pattern was ecologically-responsible use of automobiles, tested via four measures (only driving when necessary; economical living; using bicycles instead of cars; reducing driving). The above five behaviour patterns were analysed in relation to demographic variables and personality variables (locus of control, ideology control, faith in people's power to change adverse conditions). Additionally, attitudes (pro/con attitudes towards nuclear energy, pollution and ecologicallyconscious living) and cultural factors (place of residence, number and position of friends, reflecting the socialisation conditions in which the consumer acts) were also examined. The analyses led to many significant findings of underlying complex social and psychological processes. The predictors of personality showed significant influence on energy curtailment and buying and using eco-friendly products. Those who had an internal locus of control and a belief in the power of the ecological consumer’s ability to curb pollution, were disaffected from society and stopped buying and using environmentally-harmful goods. Personality did not influence the home insulation pattern, whereas demographic and socioeconomic factors showed a positive influence. Attitudes towards pollution and eco-conscious living were influenced by the personality traits of internal locus of control and belief in one’s own power. Personality itself was also influenced by socio-demographic variables like education and age, cultural factors like socialisation conditions and types of friends. The predictor of attitudes influenced the behaviour patterns of driving cars judiciously and buying eco-friendly products. Attitudes were, in turn, influenced by age, sex, and education (socio-demographic variables). The older and educated men (in comparison to women) possessed more positive attitudes towards eco-conscious living. This was reflected in their responsible driving, energy conservation efforts and buying of non-

30

Chapter Two

polluting products. The positive attitudes were negatively influenced by occupational status and upper class. Socio-economic and demographic predictors showed their impact on home insulation, use of cars, saving of energy, and eco-conscious buying and living. The upper-class consumers of an older age and rural background used more energy, whereas better educated, middle-class, blue-collar workers reduced their energy use. On the whole, this model suggests that consumers with an alienated personality, who have positive attitudes towards reducing pollution and living in an eco-conscious way, are older in age and better educated, and who are from the middle-class income group, are more likely to engage in environmentally-responsible consumption patterns. A similar assumption can also be implied for the public in general in relation to environmental concern. iii. A socio-demographic causal model of environmental concern Samdahl and Robertson (1989) attempted to test the much researched socio-demographic and ideological (political) determinants of environmental concern, in the light of recent work on the environmental paradigm and advanced statistical methodologies. They proposed a causal model of determinants of environmental concern in which socio-demographic variables (age, income, education, size of residential community) and political ideology (pro-regulatory liberalism, and social welfare liberalism) were taken as endogenous variables (independent variables) and environmental concern was retained as the exogenous (dependent variable). The model is diagrammatically presented below.

Review of Literature L

31

Fig. 2.5 The pproposed causall model of envirronmental conccern Source: Samddahl and Roberttson, (1989)

This model w was tested onn data drawn from f a generaal population survey s on a sample off 12,000 resiidents of a state, from w which a sub-sample of respondents was randomlly selected. The T results off the analysis indicated that, of the 20 proposed predictors of environmentaal concern, on nly seven did not show w significantt findings. So ocial liberalism m did not prredict the three measuures of enviironmental co oncern, residdence, and education; e perception of environm mental problems did not significantly y predict ecological bbehaviour; agge did not significantly s predict perceeption of environmenttal problems. The model was refined by deleting the non-signnificant pathss and reestimated too obtain an im mproved new model. The final model had h more predictabilityy (X2, for the t revised model m and thhe final mod del, were compared allong with degrees of freedo om, and foundd to be signifiicant on a .001 level) aand was thus retained as the t best modeel for causal effects e of age, educatiion, income, residence and d pro-regulatoory liberalism m, on the three measurres of environnmental concern. The strongest indicator of o support for environmenttal regulation was proregulatory liiberalism (as suggested by y the previouss findings of Buttel & Flinn, 1978aa; Dunlap, 19975; Mazmaniian & Sabatieer, 1981), wh hile social welfare liberralism was found, when tessted, to be an insignificant predictor of any of thhe three measures of enviironmental cooncern. Educaation was found to havve a negative effect on perrception of ennvironmental problems

32

Chapter Two

and support for environmental regulations (contrary to previous findings of Mohai & Twight, 1987; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980) but this effect remained an anomaly, as the authors could not explain the reason for this. Another controversial finding was that age had a positive association in two of the three indicators of environmental concern (support for regulation and ecological behaviour). Income was negatively associated with all three measures, while the size of the residential community was positively associated with two measures but not with ecological behaviour, with which it had no association. This model places a question mark over the viability of conventional factors like socio-demographic variables in explaining the differences in the perception of ecological problems and behaviour. It lays more emphasis on the ideological belief system in explaining the variance in environmental concern. iv. A social-psychological causal model of environmental concern A great deal of research has been conducted in the past two decades relating to environmental concerns of the general public (e.g., Dunlap, 1992; Dunlap & Scarce, 1991; Jones & Dunlap, 1992) but there is still a lack of concrete theoretical basis to explaining environmental concern. According to Heberlein (1981) and Stern (1992), there is no explicit research work on the social psychology of attitude formation and attitudebehaviour relations. Stern et al. (1995) have thus tried to fulfil this theoretical gap with the help of the following causal model of environmental concern:

Review of Literature

33

Position in social structure, institutional constraints, incentive structure

Values

General beliefs Worldview Folk ecological theory Specific beliefs Specific attitudes

Behavioural Commitments and intentions

Behaviour Fig. 2.6 A schematic representation of the model of environmental concern Source: Stern et al. (1995)

The above model is an attempt to understand the NEP model of Dunlap and Vanliere (1978) and a revised model by Dunlap and associates (1992). The NEP states that the survival of humankind is not just possible through human inventiveness but the well-being of the global environment. The authors of this causal social psychological model of environmental concern have tried to examine whether NEP can be considered a “generalised belief” about human-environment relations, underlying the specific beliefs and attitudes regarding the environment. They are of the opinion that the major flow of causation is from top to bottom. The model implies that the strongest causal effects are between the adjacent variables, although the non-adjacent variables may also affect each other directly. The first box indicates that individuals are an inherent part of the social structure, which has a major influence on all the psychological variables. According to Guagnano, Stern and Dietz (1995), social structure

34

Chapter Two

influences the individual in two ways. Firstly, it shapes early experience and, in turn, determines the individual’s values and general beliefs or worldview. Secondly, it provides opportunities and restrictions that guide behaviour and the perceived response to behaviour. Values and worldview are predecessors to specific beliefs which, in turn, precede any of the personally-held norms and the actions that follow. The values and worldviews act as filters, allowing only compatible information to influence individual beliefs and attitudes. Values thus play a very important role in influencing general belief, worldview, or the paradigm of the individual. There are three reasons why values precede worldview. Firstly, values are formed at a young age within the family, whereas a worldview (such as NEP) may be the product of political and social experiences in the larger world. Secondly, values are more general than worldview, and include broad dispositions or orientations, which seem to be as rudimentary as the personality. Even a broad worldview (like NEP) seems to be specific in comparison to values. Lastly, values are more consistent because they can be challenged only in terms of their desirability or appropriateness, not their veracity. On the other hand, beliefs (even the most general ones) can be challenged, whereas values are more robust (Harbermas, 1991). NEP or, in other words, concern for the environment, appears as a set of general beliefs which should fit into this model between values and specific beliefs, such as specific environmental problems. It reflects folk ecological beliefs, which can be seen as a link between social structural forces and the socialisation processes that influence them, and specific attitudes and behaviours that flow from them. NEP is placed in this social psychological model of environmental concern between social, structural and personality variables at one end, and specific behaviour at the other end. Further elaboration by Stern et al. (1999) of the above model as the psychological causal model of environmental concern clearly indicated that VBN theory is the strongest predictor of pro-environmental behaviour. The theory stresses values, beliefs and personal moral norms as the strongest psychological predictors of pro-environmental behaviour. The values (biospheric, altruistic and egoistic), beliefs (NEP, adverse consequences to valued objects and perceived ability to reduce threat) and personal proenvironmental norms all lead to pro-environmental behaviours like environmental citizenship, policy support, etc.

Review of Literature

35

Socio-Demographic Correlates of Environmental Concern Socio-demographic correlates have been extensively studied by social scientists and sample survey techniques are the major tools used in studying environmental concern correlates. The routinely-included sociodemographic variables like age, gender, income, education, occupational prestige, residence, political party, political ideology etc. have been included in most of the surveys. Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) systematically reviewed the role of these variables and provided a summary of bivariate relationships between socio-demographic variables and environmental concern. In their research, they included studies from between 1968 and 1978. Their important observations on sociodemographic correlations and environmental concern are presented in the following table, which needs further elaboration. Table 2.1 A summary of the Bivariate Relationship between Indicators of Environmental concern and Age, Education, Income, Occupational Prestige, Residence, Sex, Political Party and Political Ideology Study Studies Reporting Pearson's R Arbuthnot & Lingg, 1975 Recycling Index Env. Future Orientation Buttel & Flinn, 1976 Awareness of env. Probs. Support for env. reforms Buttel & Johnson, 1977 Ameliorative dimension Redirective dimension Grossman & Potter, 1977 Env. concern (1973) Env. concern (1974) Env. concern (1975) Env. concern (1976) Koenig, 1975 Eng. Concern index Martinson & Wilkening, 1975 Awareness of env. probs. Malkis & Grasmick, 1977 Env. Ideol – production Env. ideol-consumption Springer & Constantini, 1974 Env. Concern Tognacci et. al., 1972 Import of pure env. Attainment of pure env. Conservation scale Pollution scale

Age

Educ.

Inc.

Occ.

Res.a

Sexb

Partyc

Ideold

-.05 -.18

.29 .45

-

-

-

-.11 -.07

-

-

-.33 -.30

.20 .23

-

-

.38 .14

-

.06 .08

.10 .23

-

.08 .26

-

-

-

-

.14 -.01

.35,.34 .25-.03

-.24 -.26 -.21 -.23

.17 .17 .09 .16

.09 .06 .04 .14

.05 .07 .02 .04

-.09 .17 .11 .12

.01 -.01 .09 .02

.10 .08 .09 .03

NAe .15 .15 .12

NRf

NRf

NRf

NRf

-

-

.15

-

-.41

.33

-

-

-

-

-

-

-.32 -.26

.16 .07

-.21 -.17

.13 .03

-

-

-

-

-.17

.12

.05

-

.08

-

NRf

.01f

-.09 -.27 -.34 -.41

.06 .17 .37 .35

-

-

-

-

.1h .01h .001h .001h

.1h

Chapter Two

36

Study Power plan scale Overpopulation scale Pop. control scale Van Liere & Dunlap, 1978 Population scale Pollution scale Resource cons. scale NEP scale Env. funding scale Env. regulations scale Personal beh. scale Public beh. scale Weigel, 1977 Env. behavior index Studies Reporting gama Buttel & Flinn, 1974 Env. as a prob. (1968) Env. as a prob. (1969) Env. as a prob. (1968) Constantini & Hanf, 1972 Env. concern scale Dillman & Christenson, 1972 Pollution value index Harris, 1970 a Air pollution in state Air poll. in community Water pollution in state Water pollution in community Harris, 1970 b Air pollution in state Air poll. in community Water pollution in state Water pollution in community Hornback, 1974 Env. most imp. prob. (1970) Env. most imp. prob. (1972) Mc Evoy, 1972 Env. concern Murch, 1974 Env. concern Murdock & Schriner, 1977 Support envn. protection Nat’ Wildlife Federation., 1972 Env. concern

Age

Educ.

Inc.

Occ.

Res.a

Sexb

Partyc

Ideold

-.33 -.38 -.44

.28 .30 .24

-

-

-

-

.001h .001h .001h

-.04 -.25 -.06 -.08 -.09 -.13 .12 .04

.11 .18 .15 .11 .17 .10 .01 .16

.02 -.03 -.04 -.07 -.06 -.12 -.16 .07

-.04 .12 .00 -.02 .09 -.02 .07 .12

.10 .04 .11 .06 .10 .06 .02 -.04

-.02 .15 .08 .07 .14 .08 .21 .07

-.04 .03 .08 .00 .00 .07 .04 -.06

.12 .19 .20 .21 .16 .23 .04 .03

-.24

.42

-

.32

-

-

-

.34

-

.51 .28 .22

.22 .32 .09

-

-.12 -.08 .03

-

.02

-

NRf

.20

-.13

-

-

-

-

.22,.36

-.21

.20

.12

.17

.05

-

.001g

.13

-.08 -.19 NAe NAe

.11 .26 .05 .22

-

-

.19 .57 .07 .41

-

-

-

-.15 -.20 -.12 -.23

.20 .19 .15 .25

-

-

.15 .35 -.06 .06

-

-

-

-.19

-

-

-

.04

.04

-.06

NAe

-.14

-

-

-

NAe

.03

-.12

.11

-.06

.30

.22

-

.06

-.16

-

-

-

.15

-

.01

-

.07

-

-

-.26

.24

.04

.15

-

-

-

-

-.08

.27

.15

-

.12

-.08

-

-

a) A positive coefficient means that urban residents are more “environmentally concerned” than rural residents b) A positive coefficient means that women are more ‘environmentally concerned” than men.

Review of Literature

37

c) A positive coefficient means that Democrats are more ‘environmentally concerned” than Republicans. d) A positive coefficient means that liberals are more ‘environmentally concerned” than conservatives, Where two coefficients are reported, the first refers to “Anti-Lassiez Faire Liberalism” and the second refers to “Welfare State Liberalism”. e) NA means that data were not available for the year. f) NR means that the actual coefficient was not given, but the author reported ‘no relationship”. g) Chi-square analysis was used and the chi-square statistic was reported as significant at the given h) A difference of means test was used and the difference of means was reported as significant at the given level. Source: Van Liere and Dunlap (1980)

A close inspection of the above table indicates that several sociodemographic variables are related in some way or the other to environmental concern. Studies from the other researchers up until 2016 are also detailed here.

1. Age and Environmental Concern The relationship between these two variables has been extensively researched. Most of the research indicates an inconsistent relationship between the two: some indicate a relationship in a negative direction and others support a positive relationship between age and environmental concern. There are studies (Abrahamse & Steg, 2011; Buttel & Flinn, 1974, 1978b; Chen, Peterson, Hull, Lu, et al., 2011; Dunlap & Van Liere, 1980; Tognacci, Weigel, et al., 1972; Zeidner & Shechter, 1988) that have reported that young people are more concerned about the environment than their older counterparts and thus support a negative relationship between age and environmental concern. In contrast, a number of studies have reported a positive relationship between age and environmental concern (Aminrad, Zakaria & Hadi, 2013; Hamilton, 2011; Irvine, 2012; Schahn & Holzer, 1990; Twenge, 2012; Wiernik, Dilchert & Ones, 2016; Wiernik, Ones& Dilchert, 2013). Moreover, some researchers have reported no significant relationship between age and environmental concern and subsequent behaviours (Frederiks, Stenner & Hobman, 2015; Ostman and Parker, 1987). Malkis and Grasmick (1977) explained the relationship between age and environmental concern as an outcome of age-group differences or

38

Chapter Two

differences associated with the ageing process. They argued that the younger generation is less integrated into the dominant social paradigm (the belief that man is apart and above the rest of nature) and more open to accepting new environmental ideologies. Since solutions to environmental problems rest on changing old traditional values, habitual behaviours and existing institutions (Hornback, 1974) it is difficult for the older people to change. Another explanation for this negative relationship between age and environmental concern, offered by Malkis and Grasmick (1977), is cohort differences, drawn from Mannhiem’s (1952) “theory of generations”. The important premise of this theory is that major historical events occurring at the crucial adolescent and young adulthood phase of the lifecycle can permanently affect a cohort throughout its existence. In the present context of environmental concern, it can be understood that continued exposure of the younger generation to a lot of information on environmental pollution, degradation and deteriorating environmental conditions will leave an indelible imprint on their minds and make them more environmentally aware, concerned and committed. Zeidner and Shechter (1988) studied the demographic correlates of air pollution and found the younger generation to be more willing to pay for air pollution control. Youngsters expressed more concern about increasing air pollution in comparison to older people, thereby suggesting a negative association between age and environmental concern. Wray-Lake, Flanagan and Osgood (2010) made an assessment of environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours of school seniors in US schools over a period of three decades (1976-2005), using a range of indicators. The findings indicated that in the early 1990s, adolescents showed an increase in environmental concern which then declined in the remaining part of the period. This decline was attributed to them refusing to take personal responsibility for the environmental crisis and ascribing it to government leadership. While examining the social-psychological model of environmental concern, Stern et al. (1993) accepted the existence of age, period and cohort differences in environmental concern. They suggested that belief in the consequences of environmental change was largely due to period effects based on changing publicity about environmental issues. The differences in values towards concern reflect cohort effects, as values are a result of socialisation and shared formative experiences of cohorts. Age

Review of Literature

39

effects can be seen in the way people of different age groups react to scientific information about environmental issues. This leads us to understand that age group and cohort effects greatly influence our views on environmental concern. Samdahl and Robertson (1989) reported a significantly positive relationship between environmental concern and age, a result that is contrary to the negative association reported by most of the researchers. In this study, age was positively correlated with environmental concern indicators of support for regulations (r=.128, p