Environmental concern
Environmental concern and the prediction of environmentally responsible behaviours
in Norway: Results from a pilot study and a national survey
Einar Strumse
Faculty of Health and Social Studies
Lillehammer College
N-2626 Lillehammer
Correspondence should be adressed to:
Einar Strumse
Faculty of Health and Social Studies
Lillehammer College
N-2626 Lillehammer
Tel. +47 61 28 80 50
E-mail: einar.strumse@hil.no
Running head: ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND ENVIRONMENTALLY
RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOURS
Environmental concern
Abstract
The results reported in the present paper compares selected data from two Norwegian
environment and behaviour surveys, a pilot study (n=243) and a national survey (n=1413).
The results indicate that environmental concern can be regarded as important predictors of
environmentally responsible behaviours, but mainly for the relatively context-independent
behavioural domains. Thus, environmental concern explained an important proportion of
variance in environmentally responsible consumer behaviours and environmental
involvement. In both cases, specific environmental attitudes were the most powerful direct
predictor, but ecocentric attitudes and an ecological view of human - nature relations appear
to be underlying the more specific pro-environmental attitudes. Rejection of materialism
tended to be weakly associated with green consumer behaviour. For waste reduction and
transportation behaviour, however, the variance explained by environmental concern dropped
dramatically, indicating that other factors such as social and physical constraints, are the most
important factors.
Agreement with materialism was widespread among participants, and did not appear to
influence environmentally responsible behaviour patterns. On the other hand, Norwegians
tend to agree that nature should be valued and protected for it’s own sake, and they exhibit
clearly pro-environmental attitudes towards specific issues. Taken together, these findings
indicate a readiness to act in an environment-friendly manner. However, the self-reported
environmental behaviours included received mixed support: Moderate levels of
environmentally responsible consumer behaviours, suggests that given competitive prices,
environmentally sound products would be rather welcomed by the market. In contrast, low
environmental involvement suggests the need for putting environmental issues back on the
agenda. Moreover, the population sample reported high levels of waste reduction behaviour.
Low levels of environment-friendly transportation indicates that measures should be taken to
make such transportation options more attractive and accessible.
Key words: Environmental concern, environmentally responsible behaviours, ecocentrism,
anthropocentrism, new ecological paradigm, specific environmental attitudes
2
Environmental concern
Environmental concern and the prediction of environmentally responsible behaviours:
Results from a pilot study and a national survey
Although relations between environmental concern and environmentally responsible
behaviours often are weak, there are at least two reasons for obtaining knowledge about
them: First, in a democratic society, popular environmental concern provides politicians with
the needed foundation for political action. Second, studies of the relations between
environmental concern and behaviour may identify both barriers that prevent behaviour from
being expressed, as well as the conditions under which desired behaviours are likely to occur.
In this article, selected results from two Norwegian research projects, a pilot study and a
national survey, focusing on such questions will be presented. Specifically, the paper
examines relations between five distinct aspects of environmental concern and four domains
of environmentally responsible behaviours. Considering a broad range of environmental
behaviours in this type of research is important, because change must occur in several areas
in order to make a difference, such as the fields of transportation, use of fossil fuels, use of
tropical forests, and the management of waste (cf. Gardner & Stern, 1996).
Dunlap et al. (1992), assert that the advent of environmentalism meant the rejection of what
they call the "Human Exemptionalism Paradigm" (HEP), according to which human beings
are exempt from the laws of nature and rulers over the physical world. Today, the HEP is
assumed to be replaced by a new world view more compatible with environmental limits,
often labelled the New Environmental (or Ecological) Paradigm (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978;
Dunlap et al., 1992), hereafter NEP. Based on or compatible with such conceptualisations,
over the last two decades a number of studies have been conducted, employing different
instruments.
However, according to Stern (1992), environmental concern could also be conceived of as
based upon differing values or value-orientations. Stern & Dietz (1994) assumed a tripartite
model of value-orientations to be appropriate. In an egoistic value orientation, the perceived
personal threat due to environmental destruction is seen as the most important factor (cf.
Baldassare & Katz, 1992), whereas in an altruistic value orientation, beliefs about negative
consequences for others is the most important reason for action. Finally, in a biospheric
3
Environmental concern
value-orientation, the perceived consequences for the biosphere are the primary basis for
action. However, the authors failed to reproduce this model in empirical testing. Instead of
identifying a distinct biospheric value orientation they found a combined biospheric-altruistic
value orientation and an egoistic value orientation (Stern & Dietz, 1994). These authors also
note that only those values identified by the literature as relevant, i.e., biospheric-altruistic
and egoistic values, do in fact predict environmental involvement. It is also interesting to note
that Stern & Dietz (1994) found positive intercorrelations among egoistic, social-altruistic
and biospheric values, implying that those who are more concerned about the environment
also are more concerned about negative consequences for people.
Elaborating on this line of research is Thompson & Barton’s (1994) approach to
environmental concern. However, their argument is that egoistic and social-altruistic values
can be included in an anthropocentric motive, whereas biospheric values are close to an
ecocentric motive. Consequently, instead of understanding people as pro or contra
environmental protection, as appears to be the case in Stern & Dietz’s (1994) work, people
can be seen to have different reasons or motives for acting environment-friendly. Thus,
ecocentrism implies valuing nature for it’s own sake, leading to the argument that nature
should be protected because it has intrinsic value. In contrast, anthropocentrism is based
upon the argument that nature should be protected because of its importance in maintaining
or improving the quality of life for people. Because ecocentrists will have more reasons than
anthropocentrists to act environment-friendly, they are assumed to behave environmentally
responsible more often.
While the NEP-scale measures rather general environmental attitudes, Schahn & Holzer
(1990) have developed a more specific attitudinal measure. Items from a short version of
their instrument were included in the present study. The items cover attitudes towards themes
such as reduced energy-consumption in the household, less energy use for transportation,
environmentally responsible purchases, societal involvement, garbage collection and
recycling, reduced water consumption, and protecting own health.
4
Environmental concern
The inclusion of both general and specific measures in the present studies, emphasises two
important issues in research on relations between values, attitudes and behaviour: First,
corresponding levels of specificity is known to increase the strength of attitude-behaviour
relations (see, for example, Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Second, exploration of the relationship
between general and specific environmental attitudes can shed light on the mechanisms
through which general attitudes/values may influence behaviour. One important question here
is whether the effects on behaviour are direct or indirect, through influencing more specific
attitudes. For example, Grob (1995) found strong support for a model of environmental
attitudes and behaviour where personal, philosophical values were allowed to affect both
other attitudinal components and environmental behaviour directly.
As mentioned above, considering a broad range of environmental behaviours in this type of
research is important. Thus, in the present study, responsible environmental behaviours are
understood as comprising several more or less interrelated domains. An exclusive focus on
only one domain (for example, recycling) is not recommended, as one runs the risk of
completely missing the target. For example, a person intellectually involved in environmental
issues, who perhaps reads a lot about them, may not be an active recycler and he/she may
even have arguments that recycling is not really the solution to environmental problems.
Also, within each domain, single behaviours are assumed to be manifestations of an
underlying dimension, meaning that multiple items are needed in order to measure each
domain in a satisfactory manner.
The purpose of the present study was to examine the nature of the relations between
environmental concern and environmental behaviours. The general question is to what extent
environmental concern, both general and specific, predict environmentally responsible
behaviours. This involves more specific research questions such as the following:
- Are some dimensions of general environmental concern stronger predictors of
environmentally responsible behaviour than other dimensions?
- Are some behavioural domains more clearly determined by environmental concern
than others?
5
Environmental concern
- Are specific attitudes stronger predictors of environmentally responsible behaviours
than the more general dimensions of environmental concern?
Method
Pilot study. Participants were 243 voluntary male (n=140) and female (n=103) Norwegian
university and college students, divided into fairly equal parts of students from social science
(n=99) and technology (n=143) programs at the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology in Trondheim. The participants were recruited among students attending
university courses during spring 1996 with questionnaires distributed immediately after
courses to those willing to participate. The questionnaires were completed immediately and
handed in to a research assistant.
National survey. The data collection was made possible through a grant from the Research
Council of Norway’s programme for Environmental Quality of Life. It is a representative
survey of Norwegian men and women older than 15 år. Surveys were mailed to a total of
3845 participants. The initial response rate was, unfortunately, quite poor, so efforts were
done to increase the participation rate. This resulted in a total of 1413 participants, a net
response rate of 37%. Data collection started in March and the final data were handed over at
the end of August 1999. The sample had a slight overweight of women (n=713 or 50,5%) as
compared to 45,7%(n= 646) male participants. Sex was not indicated for 54 persons or
3,8% of the sample.
The behavioural and environmental concern items on which the present analyses are based
were parts of a larger questionnaire designed to explore a wide range of potential psychosocial
predictors of environmentally responsible behaviours, and included the following:
a) A Norwegian translation (Strumse & Aasetre, 1994) of 10 selected items from the
"New Ecological Paradigm scale" (Dunlap et al., 1992). For each item, subjects
were asked to choose one of five alternatives: 'strongly disagree', 'disagree',
'neither agree nor disagree', 'agree', 'strongly agree'.
b) A Norwegian translation of 16 items from Thompson & Barton’s (1994) scale
measuring anthropocentric and ecocentric motives for caring for the environment.
6
Environmental concern
The response format was identical with what is described under (a).
c) A list of 7 value items, drawn from various sources (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz,
1994; Strumse, 1991), and selected in order to reflect a materialistic value
orientation (egoistic, traditional and , freedom). For each item, subjects were asked
to choose one of five alternatives: ‘very important’, ‘important’, ‘neither important
nor unimportant’, unimportant’, ‘very unimportant’.
d) A Norwegian translation of 10 specific environmental attitude items drawn from
the literature (Schahn & Holzer, 1990; DeYoung, 1993) as well as originally
constructed items. Also here, the response format was identical with what is
described under (a).
e) A list of 31 environmental behaviour items, drawn from the literature (DeYoung,
1993; Smith-Sebasto, 1994) as well as originally constructed items. For each item,
subjects were asked to choose one of five alternatives: ‘very often’, ‘often’,
‘sometimes’, ‘seldom’, ‘never’.
Results
Descriptive statistics. In the following, all variables employed are index variables computed
on the basis of previous factorial analyses not reported in the present paper. As can be seen in
table 1, five environmental concern indices and four environmental behavioural indices. The
descriptive properties of environmental concern and behaviour index variables, as well as
their internal consistency measured by the standardised Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, are
given in table 1. Results from the pilot study and the national survey are organised pairwise
under the headings. Thus, we see that the number of single item variables computed into
index variables is identical for Materialistic Value Orientation (MVO), specific
environmental attitudes (SEA), and environmentally responsible consumption (ERC). For
other indices, there are small deviations. In most cases, the reason for this is that the index
giving the best internal consistency was chosen in each single case. An exception is found for
the transportation behaviour data in the pilot study: Here, very few subjects used cars or
motor bikes, thus these single item variables could not be used in any meaningful way in
statistical analyses.
Looking first at the environmental concern variables, it is worth noting that the overall mean
7
Environmental concern
ratings are very similar in both studies. The NEP index received a mean of 3.61 in the pilot
study and slightly less, 3.52 in the national survey, both indicating a moderate support of the
New Ecological Paradigm. Likewise, we see a high agreement with a Materialistic Value
Orientation in both the pilot study and the representative sample of the Norwegian
population. Ecocentric attitudes are high in the pilot study and slightly higher in the
population sample. Also for specific environmental attitudes, there is a close correspondence
between the results from the pilot study and the population sample, in both cases showing
relatively high mean ratings (3.77 in the pilot study and 3.86 in the population sample). The
only major divergence between the data sets is found in the case of anthropocentrism (AC),
with a relatively strong support in the pilot study (3.77), but a low rating in the population
sample (2.62).
For the environmentally responsible behaviour variables, however, the picture is more
complex: In the case of Environmentally Responsible Consumption, the mean ratings are
very close in the two samples, with a moderate mean of 2.95 in the pilot study and 3.06 in the
population sample. Quite similar results are seen also for Environmental Involvement, being
clearly low in both samples (2.28 versus 2.15). However, for the presumably more context dependent
behaviours, the rating levels differ sharply: Waste reduction behaviour received a
low mean rating of 2.56 ("seldom" to "sometimes") in the pilot study, in contrast, in the
population sample this behaviour was rated as high as 4.07 ("often"). This may, in part at
least, be due to the time gap between the two studies: While the pilot study was conducted
during 1996, the national survey data were collected in 1999. During this time, curbside
recycling has gradually been implemented nation-wide. The opposite pattern is seen for
Transportation behaviour, with the pilot sample reporting a high frequency of environment friendly
transportation (mean = 4.10, i.e., "often"), and the population mean being quite low
(2.57, or "seldom" to "sometimes"). Here, it should be recalled that the pilot study subjects
are university students, of which almost none owns or uses motorised vehicles. Finally, table
1 also includes the standardised Cronbachs alpha for each index. The internal consistency is
somewhat low (.63 and .67) for the two transportation behaviour indices, but acceptable
(between .70 and .85) for all other indices.
8
Environmental concern
Table 1.
Dimensions of environmental concern and in environmentally responsible behaviours, Descriptives and internal consistency
as measured by the standardized Cronbachs alpha from pilot study (n=243) and national survey (n=1413).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
# of
items Mean SD Alpha values
Sumscore Pilot National Pilot National Pilot National Pilot National
label study survey study survey study survey study survey
______________________________________________________________________________________________
New Ecological 10 9 3.61 3.52 .51 .58 .76 .76
Paradigm (NEP)
Materialistic 7 7 4.17 4.15 .41 .47 .76 .83
value orientation (MVO)
Ecocentrism (EC) 7 4 3.94 4.11 .54 .67 .81 .79
Anthropocentrism (AC) 9 8 3.70 2.62 .43 .67 .70 .77
Specific environmental 10 10 3.77 3.86 .45 .56 .76 .85
Attitudes (SEA)
Environmentally 12 12 2.95 3.06 .68 .68 .83 .83
Responsible
Consumption (ERC)
Environmental 7 9 2.28 2.15 .58 .58 .81 .81
Involvement (EI)
Waste Reduction 5 3 2.56 4.07 .86 .83 .72 .72
behavior (WRB)
Transportation 2 4 4.10 2.57 .74 .80 .63 .67
behavior (TB)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9
Environmental concern
Not reported in the present paper, the general patterns in the two studies for the bivariate
correlations among environmental concern indices and behaviour indices are strikingly
similar. The most numerous and strongest correlations found between, on the one hand
environmental concern, and consumption and involvement behaviours on the other. Fewer
and/or weaker significant correlations were seen between environmental concern indices and
transportation and waste reduction behaviour indices. It is worth noting that in both studies, a
Materialistic Value Orientation is practically non-correlated with environmentally responsible
behaviours. The only exceptions here are two weak correlations in the population sample
between Materialistic value orientation, and Environmentally Responsible Consumption.
Moreover, in both studies, NEP and Ecocentrism are moderately and positively correlated
with Environmentally Responsible Consumption and Environmental Involvement.
Table 2
Hierarchical regression: Environmental beliefs, values and attitudes as predictors of
responsible consumer behaviour
______________________________________________________________________________
Pilot study (n= 243) National survey (n=1413)
____________________________________________________________________________
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
____________________________________________________________________________
Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta
____________________________________________________________________________
NEP .20** .16* -.02 .27** .22** .03
MVO -.12 -.14* -.13* .11** .09** .03
R
2
.06** .09**
EC .11 -.02 .18** .10**
AC .03 .00 -.03 -.02
R
2
.08** .12**
R
2
change .01 .03**
SEA .50** .49**
R
2
,.25** .30**
R
2
change .18** .18**
_____________________________________________________________________________
R2 = Explained variance, *: p <.05, **: p<.01, ***: p<.001.
Hierarchical multiple regressions were performed using environmental concern indices as
predictor variables and environmental behaviour indices as criterion variables. Regressions
10
Environmental concern
were run in three blocks for each of the criterion variables. In block 1, NEP and Materialistic
value orientation (MVO) were entered, in Block 2 Ecocentrism (EC) and Anthropocentrism
(AC) were added, and in block 3 Specific environmental attitudes (SEA) were entered into
the equation.
Predictors of environmentally responsible consumer behaviour (see table 2). For both
studies, the total variance explained is comparable, 25% in the pilot study and somewhat
higher, 30%, in the national survey. The major portions of the variance are in both studies
accounted for by specific environmental attitudes, increasing significantly the explained
variance by approximately 18% in both studies. However, effects of more general values and
attitudes were also observed: In block 2, NEP and MVO are significant direct predictors in
both studies, and in the national survey, also Ecocentrism emerges as a significant predictor.
However, when SEA is entered into the analysis in the pilot study, only MVO remains a
direct predictor, while in the national survey, ecocentrism is the only significant predictor
besides SEA. In the pilot study, MVO is a negative predictor, i.e., suggesting that rejection of
materialism predicts green consumer behaviour. Moreover, keeping in mind the strong
correlation between NEP and SEA it is reasonable to regard NEP as underlying specific
environmental attitudes.
The results suggest, first, that environmental concern explains an important proportion of
variance in environmentally responsible consumer behaviours. Most important here is
Specific environmental attitudes, but also ecocentric attitudes and ecological view of human nature
relations seem to be underlying the more specific pro-environmental attitudes.
Rejection of materialism tend to be weakly associated with green consumer behaviour.
Predictors of environmental involvement (see table 3). Both data sets yielded overall results
carrying clear similarities with the results for consumer behaviour: In block 3, Environmental
concern variables explained a total of, respectively, 25 (pilot study) and 26% (national
survey) of the variance in environmental involvement. Thus, environmental concern explains
a substantial proportion of the variance, and the results from the pilot study are by and large
reproduced in the national survey. A closer look at the details reveals that at the final step of
the analysis, the only direct predictor in the pilot study was SEA, whereas in the national
survey, also ecocentrism remained a significant predictor. However, going back to block 1, it
can be seen that NEP and MVO did prove themselves to be significant predictors in both
11
Environmental concern
studies, explaining together approximately 6% of the variance. The effect of MVO is quite
Table 3.
Hierarchical regressions : Environmental beliefs, values and attitudes as predictors of
environmental involvement
___________________________________________________________________________
Pilot study (n= 243) National survey (n=1413
_________________________________________________________________________________
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
_________________________________________________________________________________
Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta
_________________________________________________________________________________
NEP .20** .16* -.02 .24** .20** .01
MVO -.12* -.14* -.13* .05* .03 -.03
R
2
.06** .06**
EC .11 -.02 .16** .08**
AC .03 .00 -.01 -.01
R
2
.08** .085**
R
2
change .01 .022**
SEA .50** .49**
R
2
.25** .26**
R
2
change .18** .18**
_________________________________________________________________________________
R2 = Explained variance, *: p <.05, **: p<.01
weak however. In block 2, NEP and MVO remains significant in the pilot study, but in the
population sample, only NEP continues to have a direct effect. Here, however, Ecocentrism
emerges as a significant predictor. The closeness of results of the two studies suggests the
relative independence of physical or social constraints of involvement behaviour, and thus an
increased importance of psychological characteristics, such as attitudes and values.
As will be clear below, the picture is quite different for waste reduction and transportation
behaviour in at two respects: First, the variance explained by environmental concern drops
dramatically, second, their relative predictive power of the variables is less similar in the two
studies.
12
Environmental concern
Predictors of waste reduction behaviour (see table 4). Environmental concern explains a
total of 8% (pilot study) and 6% (national survey), much smaller proportions of the variances
can be explained by individual differences in environmental attitudes and values, suggesting
social and physical constraints as the most important factors. In addition, there are some
clear differences between the two data sets: First, NEP and MVO does not appear to
influence waste reduction behaviour at all in the pilot sample. In contrast, in the population
sample, NEP does appear to have some effect, emerging as a significant predictor in block 1.
Table 4.
Hierarchical regression: Environmental beliefs, values and attitudes as predictors of
waste reduction behaviour
___________________________________________________________________________
Pilot study (n= 243) National survey (n=1413)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
_________________________________________________________________________________
Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta
_________________________________________________________________________________
NEP .04 -.01 -.11 .06* .05 -.05
MVO -.10 -.12 -.12 .04 .02 -.02
R
2
.01 .004*
EC .15* .08 .07* .02
AC .03 .02 .05* .06*
R
2
.04 .01**
R
2
change .02 .01**
SEA .27** .25**
R
2
.09** .06**
R
2
change .05** .05**
______________________________________________________________
R2 = Explained variance
*: p <.05, **: p<.01
This effect is in turn absorbed in block 2 by Ecocentrism and Anthropocentrism, both proving
to be weak, but significant predictors here. Also in the pilot study, Ecocentrism proves to be
a significant predictor in block 2, but this effect is absorbed in block 3 by SEA, which is the
only remaining direct predictor in the pilot study. In the national survey SEA increases
variance explained in block 3 by a statistically significant 5%, allowing only
anthropocentrism to retain its direct predictive power. Thus pro-environmental specific
attitudes appears to be the most important factors, although in particular ecocentric attitudes
13
Environmental concern
appear to be underlying the more specific ones. Ecocentrism, in turn, appears to be related to
support of the NEP.
Predictors of transportation behaviour (see table 5). Results from both data sets confirms
expectations that values and broad attitudes only play a minor role in determining individual
variation in Transportation behaviour patterns: In block 1, neither NEP nor MVO has any
Table 5.
Hierarchical regressions : Environmental beliefs, values and attitudes as predictors
of responsible Transportation behaviour
__________________________________________________________________________________
Pilot study (n= 243) National survey (n=1413)
______________________________________________________________________________
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
______________________________________________________________________________
Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta
______________________________________________________________________________
NEP -.02 -.06 -.12 .14** .12** .01
MVO -.04 -.01 -.01 .02 -.01 -.04
R2
.00 .02**
EC -.05 -.09 .11** .07*
AC .22** .20** .06* .06*
R2
.04* .03**
R2
change .04** .02**
SEA .16* .27**
R2
.06* .09**
R2
change .02* .05**
____________________________________________________________
R2 = Explained variance, *: p <.05, **: p<.01, ***: p<.001.
significant predictive power in the pilot study, whereas in the national survey, NEP does have
a weak effect. In the pilot study, anthropocentrism appears considerably more powerful than
in the population sample, causing a significant 4% change in explained variance, as
contrasted by only 1,5% change in the population sample caused by Ecocentrism and
anthropocentrism together. However, in the national survey, the predictive power of specific
attitudes is considerably larger than in the pilot study, together with weak effects of
ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. One main difference between the results from the two
data sets is that in the pilot study, anthropocentrism is in fact the most important predictor of
transportation behaviour, whereas specific attitudes play the most important part in the
14
Environmental concern
national survey.
Concluding remarks
The results reported in the present paper demonstrates the following general points:
1) Environmental concern should be regarded as important predictors of environmentally
responsible behaviours.
2) Individual variations in environmental concern is more important for relatively contextindependent
environmental behaviours.
3) The fact that the pilot study results were confirmed in a national survey, also confirms the
usefulness of the environmental concern and environmental behaviour dimensions
employed. This is further emphasised by the fact that these dimensions in all cases are, at
best, only moderately correlated.
Environmental concern explained an important proportion of variance in environmentally
responsible consumer behaviours. Most important here is Specific environmental attitudes,
but ecocentric attitudes and an ecological view of human - nature relations seem to be
underlying the more specific pro-environmental attitudes. Rejection of materialism tended to
be weakly associated with green consumer behaviour.
Also for environmental involvement, environmental concern variables explained, in both
studies, a substantial proportion of the variance. Specific attitudes were most important in
both studies, although in the national survey, also ecocentrism remained a significant
predictor. However, both agreement with an ecological view of human-nature relations and
materialism influenced environmental involvement indirectly.
However, for waste reduction and transportation behaviour, the variance explained by
environmental concern dropped dramatically, indicating other factors such as social and
physical constraints to be more important. Some of the variance in waste reduction behaviour
is explained by pro-environmental specific attitudes, and an indirect effect is found for
ecocentric attitudes. A similar relationship is seen in the case of transportation behaviour,
although the results from the pilot study suggest that anthropocentrism may play a role
among some subgroups.
15
Environmental concern
Some of the environmental concern and behaviour dimensions appear to have general support
in all segments of the population, indicated by very similar results in the two data sets. The
mean ratings tell us that Norwegians, being clearly ecocentric, agree that nature should be
valued and protected for it’s own sake, and that they tend to disagree with the view that
nature should be protected only because of its importance for people. Moreover, participants
were clearly pro-environment on specific issues, suggesting that people are quite ready to act
environment-friendly. At the same time, materialism is supported, thus, everybody appears to
appreciate the conveniences of an affluent society. This may function as a barrier against
adopting more environmentally responsible behaviour patterns.
Participants in both studies reported moderate levels of environmentally responsible
consumer behaviours, indicating that with competitive prices, the market would welcome
organic food and other environmentally sound products. Low environmental involvement
suggests the need for putting environmental issues back on the political agenda, Also, it is
likely that the strong materialistic trend overshadows environmental issues. While the
population sample reported high a level of waste reduction behaviour, the student sample was
low in this respect, perhaps due to the time gap between the two studies, thus reflecting that a
good job has been done getting the population to understand the need for waste reduction.
The opposite was true for transportation behaviours, with the population reporting clearly low
levels of environment-friendly transportation. Thus, if one wants to increase environmentally
sustainable transportation patterns, measures should be taken to make such transportation
options attractive and accessible. This is hardly the case in Norway today, with public
transportation fares being the most expensive in Europe.
In particular, more research is recommended on the psychological aspects of choosing
sustainable transportation and of environmental involvement. Another issue that should be
examined is whether a materialistic value orientation counteracts actual environmentally
responsible behaviours.
16
Environmental concern
References
Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1992): The personal threat of environmental problems as
predictor of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior, 22, 602-616.
DeYoung, R. (1993): Promoting source reduction behavior. The role of motivation.
Environment and Behavior, 25 (1), 70-85.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D. (1978): The "new environmental paradigm." A
proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental
Education, 1978, 9 (4), 10-19.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., Catton, Jr., W. R. & Howell, R. E.
(1992) : Measuring Endorsement of an Ecological Worldview: A Revised NEP Scale (Very
Preliminary Draft). Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, The
Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, August, 1992 and at the Sixth Meeting of
the Society for Human Ecology at Snowbird, Utah, October 1992.
Fishbein, M & Ajzen, I (1975): Belief attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wiley.
Gardner, G.T. & Stern, P.C. (1996): Environmental Problems and Human Behavior.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Grob, A. (1995): A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavior. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 15 (3), 209-220
Rokeach, M.: The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press, 1973.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994):Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human
values? Journal of Social Issues, 50 (4), 19-45.
Schahn, J. & Holzer, E. (1990): Studies of individual environmental concern. The roles of
knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22 (6), 767-786.
Smith-Sebasto, N. J. (1994): The Environmental Action Internal Control Index. Journal
of Environmental Education, 25 (4), 23-29.
Stern, P.C. & Dietz, T. (1994): The value basis of envirnmental concern. Journal of
Social Issues, 50, 65-84.
Stern, P. C. (1992): Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annual
Review of Psychology, 43, 269-302.
Strumse & Aasetre (1994): Preferanser for jord-og skogbrukslandskaper. I: Friluftsliv:
Effekter og goder. Referat fra forskningskonferanse. Trondheim: DN-notat 1994-7.
17
Environmental concern
Strumse, E. (1991): Miljøbevissthet og økologisk bærekraftige
beslutninger.Litteraturoversikt og implikasjoner for forskning og miljørettede tiltak.
University of Bergen, Institutt for samfunnspsykologi: Hovedoppgave i psykologi, 1991.
Thompson, S.C.G., & Barton, M. A.(1994): Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes
toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157.
18