7

ISSN 1392 – 0758 SOCIALINIAI MOKSLAI. 2011. Nr. 4 (74)

ISSUES OF SUSTAINABILITY IN INDIVIDUAL AND

ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE

Explaining Private and Public Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

Aiste Balzekiene and Audrone Telesiene

Kaunas University of Technology

Donelaicio 73, LT-44029 Kaunas, Lithuania

http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ss.74.4.1031

Abstract

The aim of this article is to characterise the

prevalence of personal sphere environmental behaviour

and evaluate the influence of background variables,

environmental concern and knowledge upon this

behaviour, leaning upon a representative sample. The

article draws upon ISSP representative survey

‘Environment’ conducted in 2010. The article employs

the data from the Lithuanian sample. The research

indicates that individuals tend to be more engaged in

private sphere environmental behaviour (waste sorting,

environmentally-friendly consumer habits, saving

water and energy) than in public sphere environmental

behaviour (environmental group membership, financial

support of such groups, signing petitions, participating

in demonstrations). The results indicate that active

private sphere environmental behaviour is more

common among women, older people, people with

university degree and inhabitants of small towns.

Public sphere environmental activities are influenced

significantly by education level and place of residence.

Environmental concern has a significant influence upon

environmental behaviour, whereas knowledge about

causes and solutions of environmental problems has a

significant but weak influence.

Keywords: environmental behaviour,

environmental concern, environmental activism,

environmental knowledge.

Introduction

In this article we draw upon the International Social

Survey Program (ISSP) data set generated in 2010. Each

year members of ISSP conduct surveys with thematic

modules. In 2010 the thematic module was ‘Environment’.

ISSP borrowed the environment module from the General

Social Survey (GSS) and together with Dunlap’s Health of

the Planet Survey (e.g. Dunlap, Gallup and Gallup, 1993)

represents one of the most comprehensive available data

sets on environmentalism ever collected across the globe.

ISSP ensures high quality data, comparable diachronically

and/or internationally. This article employs the Lithuanian

national data set and seeks to answer the following

questions:

• What are the patterns of environmental behaviour?

To what extent the respondents are actively involved

in private sphere environmental behaviour and public

sphere (activist) environmental behaviour?

• What is the statistical portrait of environmentally

active individual?

• What influence has the level of environmental

concern upon environmental behaviour?

• What is the influence of subjectively assessed

environmental knowledge upon environmental

behaviour?

The aim of the article is to reveal the features of

personal environmental behaviour and to analyse its

relations to background variables, levels of environmental

concern and environmental knowledge, leaning upon a

representative sample. The authors employ the data from

Lithuanian sample, as it has all the necessary scientific

methodological quality prerequisites and represents a

relatively typical case which has not been yet

comprehensively explored. The article presents theoretical

perspectives analysing environmental behaviour and

factors that can have influence upon behavioural patterns.

An exploratory rather than confirmatory approach is used.

Environmental behaviour has been widely researched

by sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists

throughout several recent decades. The worldwide schools

of environmental sociology (focusing upon personal

environmental behaviour analysis) would include Dunlap

and his colleagues (e.g. Dunlap and van Liere, 1978;

Dunlap et al., 2000), Stern and his colleagues (e.g. Stern,

2000, 2005) and other researchers.

In Lithuania environmental behaviour has been

addressed in several sociological studies. The first

comprehensive study (representative survey) was

conducted in 1998-1999 by a group of sociologists from

Vytautas Magnus University (Vietine darbotvarke, 1999).

They aimed to study Kaunas inhabitants’ environmental

consciousness which they operationally defined as

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

8

environmental attitudes, knowledge, environmental

concern and environmental behaviour. Among the main

results was the statement that the residents of Kaunas are

more active in locally oriented environmental behaviour

and do not tend to involve in environmental activist

behaviour. The strongest tradition of research in

environmental sociology in Lithuania comes from Kaunas

University of Technology. Leonardas Rinkevicius has

published numerous publications on organizational

environmental behaviour, political environmental decision-

making and environmental movement in Lithuania (e.g.

Rinkevicius, 2000, 2002). He mainly grounds his studies

upon the theory of ecological modernisation, risk society

thesis and theory of reflexive modernisation. Another

tradition of analysing normative aspects of environmental

behaviour comes from the field of environmental ethics.

Kalenda analyses environmental ethics and the possibilities

of implementation of environmental imperative in societal

development (e.g. Kalenda, 1992, 1998, 2003).

The most recent study into environmental attitudes,

environmental discourse and environmental behaviour was

conducted as part of RINOVA project (2007-2009),

coordinated by Kaunas University of Technology. Some of

the findings of qualitative and quantitative research carried

out under this project revealed very high concern about use

of pesticides and chemicals in food (89.3 percent of the

respondents indicated that there is a high threat)

(Balzekiene et al., 2009, p. 240). This research also

showed that over one third of the respondents have

environmentally friendly consumer behaviour (they always

or often: read food labels (37.2 percent), buy ecological

products (35.6 percent) (RINOVA, 2009, p. 61).

The novelty of the environmental behaviour analysis

as presented in this article lies in several aspects: the new

nationally representative data generated following high

international quality standards set by ISSP, and the

verification of an explanatory model, containing

background variables and variables of environmental

concern and knowledge.

The article is structured according to the main

analytical steps (tasks) that were fulfilled in order to

achieve the aim of the article: conceptualization and

operational definition of environmental behaviour,

description of empirical basis and methods, descriptive

analysis of environmental behaviour, statistical portrait of

environmentally active citizens, explanatory analysis of

influence of environmental concern and knowledge upon

environmental behaviour.

Conceptualization and operational definition of

environmental behaviour

This section presents an overview of academic

discussion analysing the types, structure of environmental

attitudes and listings of possible factors that have influence

upon environmental behaviour. The academic literature

overview serves as grounds for operational definition of

environmental behaviour.

Environmental behaviour has been one of the

dominant themes in environmental sociology for several

decades and is rich in theoretical approaches and empirical

groundings. Environmental consciousness, environmental

attitudes, environmental concern and environmental

knowledge have long been analysed together with patterns

of environmental behaviour.

Environmental behaviour in this article is understood

as a social behaviour that can reasonably be defined by its

impact: the extent to which it changes the availability of

materials or energy from the environment or alters the

structure and dynamics of ecosystems or the biosphere

itself (Stern, 2000, p. 407). Stern (2000, 2005) and Dietz et

al. (1998) base their environmental behaviour typologies

upon the data from General Social Survey (GSS).

International Social Survey Program (ISSP) borrowed the

environmental module from General Social Survey, thus

the definitions and typologies used or developed by these

authors are applicable when analysing the ISSP 2010 data

for Lithuania.

Within academic literature there is a clear distinction

between research on personal environmental behaviour and

organizational environmental behaviour. The latter is the

top theme in ecological modernisation theory and

academic fields of environmental management and

environmental policy. The authors of this article follow the

more common sociological path of analysing personal

environmental behaviour. Personal environmental

behaviour might be conducted by individuals either in

private or in public settings (Stern, 2005). Private sphere

behaviour includes recycling, energy conservation, litter

control, consumer choices, modes of travelling, home

design decisions, also planting trees, etc. – the acts of

behaviour that take place in individual’s everyday life and

are directed towards diminishing the environmental

negative impacts or towards improving environmental

quality. This type of behaviour differs from public-sphere

behaviour as it does not require cooperation or collective

coordinated action. Public-sphere environmental behaviour

includes participation in demonstrations, environmental

group membership, financial support for such groups,

petition signing, cybernetic activism, etc.

Stern (2000) distinguishes between direct and indirect

impact environmental behaviour. Examples of direct

behaviour, or behaviour with proximate effects would

include, for example, clearing of a forest. Indirect

behaviour does not have an obvious direct effect, but is

significant as it shapes the context in which choices are

made that directly cause environmental change, for

example, signing a petition on environmental issue.

Another distinction was made by Stern and his

colleagues based upon factor analysis of 1993 GSS data

(Stern, 2005; Dietz, Stern and Guagnano, 1998). Four

major types of environmental behaviour were

distinguished: committed activism (active involvement in

organizations, political demonstrations), non-activist

support of environmentally relevant public policies (e.g.

financial contributions to organizations), personal

organizational behaviour (following environmental criteria

in one’s routine job decisions and actions), personal

private-sphere environmental behaviour (purchase, use and

disposal of personal and household products). Committed

activism and non-activist support of policies are types of

indirect impact environmental behaviour.

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

9

Table 1

Structure of personal environmental behaviour

Indicator Item/question

PRIVATE SPHERE BEHAVIOUR

How often do you make a special effort to sort glass or tins or plastic or newspapers

and so on for recycling?

How often do you make a special effort to buy fruit and vegetables grown without

pesticides or chemicals?

And how often do you cut back on driving a car for environmental reasons?

How often do you reduce the energy or fuel you use at home for environmental

reasons?

And how often do you choose to save or re-use water for environmental reasons?

And how often do you avoid buying certain products for environmental reasons?

PUBLIC SPHERE BEHAVIOUR

(ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM)

In the last five years, have you signed a petition about an environmental issue?

In the last five years, have you taken part in a protest or demonstration about an

environmental issue?

In the last five years, have you given money to an environmental group?

Are you a member of any group whose main aim is to preserve or protect the

environment?

Personal organizational behaviour is little analysed and

researched. Personal private-sphere environmental

behaviour might be both types – direct or indirect impact

environmental behaviour.

Operational definition of environmental behaviour is

made leaning upon the items that were present in the 2010

ISSP module on environment and following the typologies

developed by Dietz et al., 1998; Stern, 2000, 2005 (Table

1).

Environmental behaviour in this article is operationally

defined as a private sphere or public sphere behaviour

(environmental activism), where the former is measured by

6 items and the later is measured by 4 items from the

questionnaire.

Together with endeavours to outline various types of

environmental behaviour and describe its main

characteristics, the models explaining environmental

behaviour are also reviewed. Throughout research

literature one can find an extensive discussion on the

causes and interrelationships of/between social values,

environmental attitudes, environmental concern and

behaviour, also on their linkages to broader social

paradigms.

Academic literature is dominated by the central

assumption that environmental concern has a direct strong

impact on people’s behaviour in specific environmentally

related domains like recycling, energy saving, buying

environmentally friendly products or travel mode choice

(Bamberg, 2003). Following such an assumption authors

analyze the strength of correlation between environmental

concern and behaviour and try to develop explanatory

models. These models usually explain behaviour as a direct

function of varying degrees of concern and concern itself is

explained including three types of factors: 1) socio-

demographic variables like gender, income, education, etc.

(e.g. Jones and Dunlap, 1992; Dunlap, Gallup and Gallup,

1993; Dunlap and Mertig, 1995); 2) perception of factual

risks of environmental problems and knowledge (e.g.

Slovic, 1995; Carriere, 2001); 3) values and attitudes (e.g.

Inglehart, 1990; Guagnano, Stern and Dietz, 1995; Dunlap

and Mertig, 1997; Beckmann et al, 1997; Brechin and

Kempton, 1994, 1997; Stern et al, 1999; Dietz, Stern and

Guagnano, 1998).

Many studies show that there is a discrepancy between

environmental concern and environmental behaviour -

individuals who express concern seldom engage in

environmentally responsible behaviour. One of the

dominant explanation here is that presented by ‘attitude –

behaviour’ model (Van Meer, 1981, cited in Spaargaren,

1997):

‘In this model, environmental behaviour is conceived

of as (the result of) a conscious, rational process of

selection on the part of the actor. This process of decision

making or selection is determined both by individual’s

assessment of the consequences of different behaviour

options in terms of personal ‘rewards’ and by the

individual’s assessment of the wishes and demands

stemming from the social environment. These two aspects

of the individual weighting-up processes are indicated as

the motivational and the normative (social norm- related)

components of attitude, respectively’ (Spaargaren, 1997, p.

126).

According to this paradigm, behaviour is influenced by

motivational and normative attitudes, and background

variables (such as socio-demographic ones) are influencing

behaviour indirectly but through attitudes (Spaargaren,

1997, p. 128). Motivational component indicates that

individual chooses behavioural patterns that can have

certain benefits (for example sorting glass or paper to earn

money). Normative attitudes are social norms that are

framing society’s behavioural patterns. People can choose

to act environmentally friendly because this is a norm in

their community, or vice versa, people are choosing not to

act in environmentally friendly way because such

behaviour are not internalised as a social norm in

community. Van der Meer (1981, cited in Spaargaren

1997, p. 128) also indicates limitative and operative

determinants of environmental behaviour. Limitative

determinants indicate limitations to personal behaviour.

Behavioural patterns are limited by certain factors, e.g.

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

10

driving a car can be the only option in situations where

public transportation is unavailable in living area. Also

individual behaviour has operative determinant, e.g. people

often behave unconsciously. For example people can have

a habit of buying certain products not taking into account

whether these products are environmentally friendly or not.

Stern, Dietz and Guagnano (1995) proposed a

sophisticated causal model of environmental concern,

where ‘causal sequence begins at the institutional level of

society and proceeds successively to value systems,

general environmental beliefs, specific environmental

beliefs, behavioural intentions, and behaviour’ (Beckmann

et al., 1997). ISSP 2010 data does not allow testing of such

a sophisticated model. Still this model is good for

understanding the complex set of interdependent factors

that shape environmental behaviour.

Frick, Kaiser and Wilson (2004) added another factor

into the explanatory model. They made an overview of

scientific literature analysing the influence of knowledge

upon environmental behaviour and proved that knowledge

is a necessary precondition for a person’s pro-

environmental behaviour. Still they’ve conducted a survey

and proved that different types of knowledge exert

different influences on environmental behaviour: action-

related knowledge and effectiveness knowledge have a

direct effect upon performance; in contrast, system or

general knowledge is more remote from behaviour. The

ISSP 2010 Environment module has items on measuring

general environmental knowledge. The study by Frick,

Kaiser and Wilson (2004) is valuable here in terms that it

proves the strong influence of knowledge. Thus we will

test the influence of general knowledge upon

environmental behaviour.

In his later works, while trying to explain what impacts

individual behaviour Stern (2000, 2005) listed four types

of factors: contextual factors (available technology,

convenience, social norms and expectations, etc.), personal

capabilities (literacy, financial resources, social status,

etc.), habit and routine, attitudinal factors (personal values,

behaviour-specific norms and beliefs, etc.). As Stern puts

it, the impact of factors depends upon what kind of

behaviour is under question. If an environmental behaviour

is costly, constrained and difficult to conduct (as recycling,

buying green products, etc.) then contextual and personal

capabilities factors have main influence. If an

environmental behaviour is not much constrained, then

habit and routine or attitudinal factors have greater

influence. This is the so called low-cost hypothesis which

predicts that the strength of effects of environmental

concern on environmental behaviour diminishes with

increasing behavioural costs. Thus, as stated by Diekmann

and Preisendorfer (2003), environmental concern

influences behaviour primarily in situations and under

conditions connected with low costs and little

inconvenience for individual actors.

All the above presented authors underline the limits of

single-variable explanations for environmental behaviour.

The behaviour is determined by multiple variables, and

sometimes these variables even interact with each other.

Thus, for explanation of environmental behaviour in

Lithuania, the authors of this article chose to use two

factors, widely discussed in the scientific literature and

listed in all the above mentioned publications, namely:

environmental concern and environmental knowledge.

Environmental knowledge in this article is defined as a

set of information possessed by an individual about the

environment and nature, flora, fauna, environmental

problems, their causes, effects and solutions (Juraite, 2002,

p. 12). Environmental concern is defined as awareness of

seriousness and conscious reflection of the environmental

situation, environmental problems, recognition of the need

to do something about this situation and problems.

Environmental concern is like an ‘eye-openerʼ that makes

the individual sensitive to environmental issues and ready

to accept the information or to take action.

Besides the factors of environmental knowledge and

concern, the explanatory model will also include structural

factors. Numerous studies presuppose that social structural

factors have significant influence upon environmental

behaviour and usually refer to several variables: gender,

race, age, education, socioeconomic status, residence,

political ideology (traditional left-right) (Carriere 2001, p.

7-8). Among these variables age and education are

supposed as having the most significant influence,

followed by gender and residence. Thus these four back-

ground variables will be included in our study. The

relationship between gender and environmental concern is

analyzed quite often.

Table 2

Operational definition of explanatory model: environmental concern, environmental knowledge and socio-

demographic characteristics

Indicator Item/question

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN Generally speaking, how concerned are you about environmental issues?

SUBJECTIVELY ASSESSED

ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE

How much do you feel you know about the causes of these sorts of environmental

problems?

And how much do you feel you know about solutions to these sorts of environmental

problems?

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS

Gender

Age of respondent

Highest completed degree of education

Place of living: urban – rural

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

11

Women are found to have higher levels of concern and

several mediating factors are being explored: experience

and effects of parenthood, labour-force participation and

ethical socialization (Dietz et al., 1998). Various studies

tend to state, that individuals who are female, well-

educated, liberal and living in urban areas are more

environmentalist than those who are not (Jones and

Dunlap, 1992; Kanagy, Humpher and Firebaugh, 1994;

Dietz et al., 1998; Carriere, 2001).

Dietz et al. (1998, p. 455) indicate, that in cases of

large scale surveys, environmental items are not derived

from existing theory, therefore exploratory model rather

confirmatory should be used. Consequently, in this article

we will explore environmental behaviour trying to explain

its patterns, but we are not seeking to confirm theoretical

model.

Table 2 presents the operational definition of

environmental concern and environmental knowledge.

Environmental concern is measured by one item which

is a classical question used worldwide in various opinion

polls. Environmental knowledge has twofold operational

definition: subjectively assessed knowledge and

objectively assessed knowledge. ISSP 2010 questionnaire

contains items for both measurements. But to our opinion,

the items measuring objectively assessed knowledge are

too narrow and too specific – asking only about climate

change1, thus not enough to measure the real level of

general environmental knowledge. Subjectively assessed

level of environmental knowledge is measured by two

items from the questionnaire.

It is supposed that the higher the level of

environmental concern is, the more there is of the tendency

to conduct an environmental behaviour. Also it is

hypothesized that environmental knowledge has positive

correlation with environmental behaviour.

As mentioned in literature review, environmental

behaviour are often significantly structured by socio-

demographic characteristics, therefore, in this article we

will explore the influence of structural (gender, age,

education, income and place of residence), attitudinal

(environmental concern) and personal capabilities

(environmental knowledge) factors towards the patterns of

environmental behaviour.

Empirical basis and methods

Empirical data is based on representative public

opinion survey, conducted in Lithuania in 2010 as part of

ISSP (International Social Survey Program). Sample

included 1023 respondents, interviewed face-to-face. Field

work was conducted by public opinion research company

‘RAITʼ from December 2010 to January 2011.

The survey encompassed several ISSP questionnaire

modules: ‘Environment’, ‘Social Inequality’ and

Background Variables Questionnaire; the ISSP

questionnaires were complemented with nationally

developed modules on Social Policy and Social Media.

1 Items measuring objectively assessed environmental knowledge: In your opinion, how true is this? ‘Climate change is caused by a hole in the earth’s atmosphere’ (false) AND In your opinion, how true is this? ‘Every time we use coal or oil or gas, we contribute to climate change’ (true).

Using the module on ‘Environment’ we developed

operational definitions of environmental behaviour,

environmental concern and environmental knowledge and

we used several items from the block of socio-

demographic variables. The ISSP used 10 items that asked

respondents to report past or present behaviour regarding

environmental issues. These 10 items are deductively

sorted into groups: private sphere behaviour and public

sphere behaviour.

The dataset was weighted according to the socio-

demographic structural composition of a population.

Research results in this article are presented as

follows: descriptive patterns of environmental behaviour

(private sphere and environmental activism); typology of

environmental behaviour; and explaining environmental

behaviour analysing influences of environmental concern,

environmental knowledge and background variables).

Data analysis includes frequency distribution, chi-

square tests and correlation analysis.

Descriptive patterns of personal environmental

behaviour in Lithuania

Descriptive analysis of private-sphere environmental

behaviour

Within our model the domain of private-sphere

environmental behaviour includes consumer behaviour,

driving frequency, recycling, litter control, and residential

energy use. This first section of data analysis gives

answers to question ‘What are the patterns of private

sphere environmental behaviour in Lithuania?’. Frequency

distributions are presented in Figure 1.

The results indicate that most common private sphere

pro-environmental behaviour characteristic to Lithuanians

is related to shopping habits, i.e. effort to buy fruit and

vegetables grown without pesticides or chemicals (74,2

percent reported that they always, often or at least

sometimes make this effort). The environmental

motivation of this kind of behaviour should be put under

question. During the survey, media discourses in Lithuania

were full of discussions on the negative health effects of

preservatives and conservatives, as well as some other

synthetic additives in food. The active (during that period)

public discourse might have had a strong influence upon

public opinion, but this influence cannot be measured by

instruments of ISSP survey. Efforts to buy certain fruit and

vegetables are typologized as consumer choices or

consumer behaviour and is characterised as indirect impact

environmental behaviour.

Another item measuring consumer choices is ‘avoid

buying certain products for environmental reasons’. 57.7

percent of the respondents said they at least sometimes

avoid buying certain products and do that for

environmental reasons. Direct impact environmental

behaviour as recycling and reduction of energy or water

consumption is always, often or sometimes conducted by

two thirds of the respondents on average. Least popular

type of behaviour is cutting back on driving a car. Only

one out of four respondents at least sometime chose not to

drive a car for environmental reasons. Environmental

motivation can again be put under question here.

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

12

Figure 1. Respondents by private-sphere environmental behaviour: frequency distribution, in percentage (N=1023)

Mobility preferences might be well understood as socio-

economic status signifiers in Lithuania. Public transport

inherited bad reputation from soviet times and only

recently retrieved some public confidence and attraction.

In minds of many a personal car is a symbol of higher

status and convenience, as provided by personal driving, is

thought of as a very high benefit. Driving frequency is also

restricted by objective factors (Tanner, 1999). Public

transportation systems are well developed only in the

inner/central areas of bigger cities like Vilnius, Kaunas or

Klaipeda. Residents living in remote neighbourhoods of

cities, or living in other areas in Lithuania lack the

possibilities to effectively use public transport. In rural or

peripheral areas lack of a car has the characteristic of a

constraint that cannot be overcome.

In spite of the different levels of involvement (in

various types of environmental behaviour), all the six items

constitute a coherent measurement of personal private

sphere environmental behaviour (Table 3), with internal

consistency coefficient Cronbach alpha that equals 0,77.

Table 3

Mean scores and standard deviation of private sphere environmental behaviour indicators

Mean* Std. Deviation

Sorting glass or tins, plastic or newspapers and so on for recycling 2.65 1.01

Buying fruit and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemicals 2.43 0.96

Cutting back on driving a car for environmental reasons 3.49 0.74

Reducing the energy or fuel used at home for environmental reasons 2.78 1.04

Choosing to save or re-use water for environmental reasons 2.88 1.09

Avoiding buying certain products for environmental reasons 2.87 0.94

Cronbach alpha = 0,77 (6 items) * Values from 1 – ‘always’ to 4- ‘neverʼ

Table 4

Index of ‘Private sphere environmental behaviour’

Mean Std. deviation

2.82 0.7 N=1023

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

13

In order to explain environmental behaviour patterns,

we derived index ‘private sphere environmental

behaviour’ (mean score of 6 private sphere behaviour

items). The value of index ranges from 1 (high level of

environmental behaviour) to 4 (low level of environmental

behaviour). The mean score and standard deviation of

cumulative index are presented in Table 4.

In general, Lithuanians are rather passive in their

private sphere environmental activities. Further we analyse

public sphere environmental behaviour.

Descriptive analysis of environmental activism

Within our model the domain of environmental

activism includes indicators of

(1) environmental group membership,

(2) financial support for environmental groups,

(3) policy driven actions of petition signing, and

(4) taking part in protests or demonstrations.

Lithuanian ISSP 2010 data show very low rates of

environmental activism (Figure 2). The committed activist

behaviour (group membership and financial donation) is

least characteristic to Lithuanian population. Only 1.2

percent of Lithuanians said they financially support

environmental groups and only 1.8 percent of respondents

said they are members of an environmental group. This

coincide the general low political participation tendency in

Lithuania. For example, Flash Eurobarometer 189a on EU

Communication and the citizens (2006) show that in 2005

the average intensity of political participation in Lithuania

was much lower than in most of the other EU member

countries (third lowest, with Latvia and Estonia having

lowest levels of participation).

One of the most empirically grounded approaches to

explain the low levels of active involvement in

environmental activism is presented by Stern (Stern, 2000,

2005). He argues that the cost associated with performing a

specific behaviour is an important factor. Environmental

behaviour is most likely to occur when it involves little

cost in terms of time, money or comfort (Bamberg, 2003,

p. 22). As Lithuanians tend to rank economy related issues

a top priority (as seen e.g. from Special Eurobarometer

372, 2011), it is evident that financial costs are not

bearable and this constraints the committed environmental

activism and donations to environmental groups. Further

studies are needed for more comprehensive explanation of

low rates of environmental activism in Lithuania.

Policy-driven behaviour is slightly more popular

among Lithuanian population. ISSP survey recorded 2.7

percent or population that has taken part in a protest or

demonstration on environmental issues in past five years.

And the highest rate is for petition signing – 6.6. percent of

all respondents indicated that they’ve signed such a

petition in the last five years. Why this rate is three times

higher than rates of other environmental activism

indicators? We would call upon Stern’s low cost

hypothesis (2000, 2005) again. There is a correlation with

intensity of internet use (Cramer’s V=0.187, p=0.000).

80.3 percent of those, who have signed a petition in recent

five years use internet several or more times per week; and

47 percent of those who didn’t sign a petition use internet

several or more times per week.

Figure 2. Respondents by environmental activist behaviour, percent (N=1023)

Table 5

Typology of environmental behaviour patterns, percent

Passive percent Active percent Total percent

Private sphere behaviour 69.1 30.9 100

Public sphere behaviour 91.3 8.7 100

N=1023

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

14

Probably the frequent internet users sign the internet based

petitions. The special petition websites are common and

often used (e.g. www.peticijos.lt). As website based

petitions are easily promoted and accessed, they diminish

the cost of this type of environmental behaviour. Thus we

have higher rates for petition signing than for other

indicators of environmental activism.

Typology of environmental behaviour

One of our goals was to compare private sphere and

public sphere environmental behaviour in Lithuania.

However, in the ISSP questionnaire the categories of these

variables were coded in different formats (‘Personal sphere

environmental behaviourʼ items are coded in ordinal scale,

public sphere behaviour items are coded as dichotomous

(yes/no) variables). Consequently, we had to recode

variables in a way that they could be comparable. From

‘Personal sphere environmental behaviour indexʼ we

calculated dichotomous variable PER_TYPE with values

‘activeʼ and ‘passiveʼ (if value of index <=2.5, then

PER_TYPE is active, if value >2.5, then PER_TYPE is

passive). Also we calculated the public sphere

environmental behaviour index (PUB_TYPE). If at least

one answer to environmental activism questions (Figure 2)

was YES, then PUB_Type is active, if all answers were

NO, then PUB_Type is passive.

As a result, we could classify and compare

environmental behaviour in private and public spheres.

Distribution of respondents according to the types of

environmental behaviour is presented in Table 5.

Research results indicate that Lithuanians are more

engaged in private sphere behaviour than in public sphere

behaviour. About one third of respondents are in one or

another way active environmentally in private sphere,

however only 8.7 percent of respondents are engaged in

environmental activism activities. Presumably, public

sphere behaviour requires more efforts both in financial

and time-consuming aspects. Plus, private sphere

behaviour encompass more daily activities, that sometimes

are not even motivated by environmental reasons; for

example saving water and energy presumably could be

more motivated by economic concerns.

Having categorized environmental behaviour, we

further will examine the influence of several factors,

described in theoretical part of this article.

Explaining environmental behaviour patterns in

Lithuania

As indicated above, one of main attitudinal factor

influencing environmental behaviour is environmental

concern. The more people are concerned with the state of

surrounding environment, the more they are supposed to be

engaged in environmentally protective and friendly

behaviour.

In Lithuania general concern about environmental

issues is not very high (Figure 3). Although 41.9 percent of

respondents indicate that they are concerned or very much

concerned about the environment, but over third indicate

that they are moderately concerned. One fourth of

respondents (23.5 percent) are not or not at all concerned

about environmental issues. Such results can indicate that

people in Lithuania are more concerned with economic or

social issues rather than environmental ones, as revealed in

our previous study (Balzekiene et al., 2009).

Environmental concern is significantly correlated with

private sphere environmental behaviour index (Spearman

rho=-0.325, p<0.01), and also with public sphere

environmental behaviour index (Cramer’s V = 0.20,

p<0.01). The higher the concern about environmental

issues, the more active are people in environmentally

oriented activities.

Environmental concern is significantly correlated with

all items of private sphere environmental behaviour (see

Appendix 1), though correlations are not strong. Among

these, strongest correlation is with ‘recyclingʼ item

(Spearman rho =-0.270, p<0.01), and weakest is with

‘water saving or reusingʼ item (Spearman rho = - 0.160,

p<0.01). Presumably such behaviour pattern as water

saving is related more with economic concern than

environmental concern. On the other hand, recycling in

Lithuania is not very induced financially; therefore it is

more related to concern about environmental condition and

pollution in general.

Knowledge about causes and solutions of

environmental problems could also be important in

choosing to act environmentally friendly. Research results

show (Figure 4) that level of environmental knowledge is

quite low. Lithuanians know more about the causes of

environmental problems than about their solutions. Almost

half of respondents (49.4 percent) indicate that they know

nothing or very little about the solutions of environmental

problems.

Figure 3. Environmental concern of respondents, percent (N=1023)

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

15

Figure 4. Subjectively assessed knowledge about causes and solutions of environmental problems percent (N=1023)

Table 6

Correlations between private sphere behaviour, concern and knowledge (Spearman rho)

Environmental

concerna

Knowledge: causes of

environmental

problemsb

Knowledge: solutions of

environmental

problemsc

Private sphere environmental

behaviour indexd

-.325** -.118** -.176**

** p < 0.01

a. Q: ‘Generally speaking, how concerned are you about environmental issues?ʼ, answers from 1 – ‘not at all concernedʼ to 5 – ‘very much concernedʼ;

b. Q: ‘How much do you feel you know about the causes of environmental problems?ʼ, answers from 1 – ‘nothingʼ to 5 – ‘very muchʼ;

c. Q: ‘How much do you feel you know about the solutions of environmental problems?ʼ answers from 1 – ‘nothingʼ to 5 – ‘very muchʼ;

d. Scale from 1 – ‘very activeʼ to 4 – ‘very passiveʼ.

Table 7

Associations between public sphere behaviour, concern and knowledge (Eta coeff.)

Environmental

concern

Knowledge: causes of

environmental problems

Knowledge: solutions of

environmental problems

Public sphere environmental

behaviour (environmental activism) a

0.201** 0.195** 0.193**

** p < 0.01; a. dichotomous variable.

These findings could partially explain why people in

Lithuania are very passive in environmental activities,

especially in public sphere – there is lack of knowledge as

of the ways individuals can contribute to solving

environmental problems.

Knowledge items are significantly correlated both with

private sphere and public sphere environmental behaviour

(Tables 6 and 7). Respondents, who are active both in

private sphere and public sphere environmental behaviour,

indicate they know more about causes and solutions of

environmental problems than those who are passive.

However, correlations are very weak, not exceeding 0.2

value. Further research should search for other meaningful

constructs that have influence upon environmental

behaviour in Lithuania, for example behavioural

intentions, general worldviews or political orientation.

In conclusion, environmental concern has stronger

influence upon environmental behaviour patterns than

knowledge. It would be important to investigate, whether

low level of environmental knowledge is because of lack

of information or low interest of people in environmental

issues in general.

Last part of our analysis is dealing with background

variables that can have influence upon environmental

behaviour patterns in Lithuania. Our aim was to reveal

what characteristics are common to environmentally active

citizens. Table 8 explores distribution of active and passive

respondents along variables of gender, age, education and

place of residence.

Our research has revealed that in private sphere,

environmental behaviour activities are more common to

female; older people (aged over 55); those having

university degree and living in city or small city.

Table 8

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

16

Environmental behaviour types by socio-demographic variables, in percentage

Private sphere environmental behaviour, percent Public sphere environmental behaviour, percent

Active Passive p * Active Passive p *

Total 30.8 percent 69.2 percent 8.7 percent 91.3 percent

Gender .000 .515 Male 24.4 percent 75.6 percent 8.1 percent 91.9 percent

Female 36.4 percent 63.6 percent 9.3 percent 90.7 percent Age .000 .103

17-24 19.4 percent 80.6 percent 12.9 percent 87.1 percent 25-39 25.6 percent 74.4 percent 8.9 percent 91.1 percent 40-54 31.0 percent 69.0 percent 8.2 percent 91.8 percent

55+ 41.9 percent 58.1 percent 6.5 percent 93.5 percent Education level .000 .000

Primary/ not completed primary

40.4 percent 59.6 percent

.0 percent 100.0

percent

Lower secondary 20.0 percent 80.0 percent 2.4 percent 97.6 percent Secondary 24.9 percent 75.1 percent 6.8 percent 93.2 percent

Vocational/ technical 34.0 percent 66.0 percent 6.4 percent 93.6 percent Colledge 33.3 percent 66.7 percent 8.3 percent 91.7 percent

University degree 40.7 percent 59.3 percent 21.0 percent 79.0 percent Place of residencea .000 .000

Big city 27.0 percent 73.0 percent 9.9 percent 90.1 percent Small city or town 38.6 percent 61.4 percent 11.4 percent 88.6 percent

Country village 27.1 percent 72.9 percent

1.9 percent 98.1 percent

* Chi-square test, significance; a. Questionnaire included categories ‘the suburbs or outskirts of a big cityʼ and ‘a farm or home in the countryʼ. We

excluded these categories from our analysis because of small n.

Average percentages of active respondents in these groups

are higher than population average. Interesting finding is

that respondents with primary and not completed primary

education are more active (40.4 percent) than average

(30.8 percent). A more detailed analysis of this group

revealed that 76 percent of respondents from this education

group are older than 70 years. This age group is more

active in such activities as saving water and energy

because of financial reasons.

Concerning public sphere environmental activism,

women are slightly more active; however this difference is

statistically insignificant. In contrast with private sphere

behaviour, young people (17-24 years old) are more

involved in public sphere environmental behaviour than

people aged 55 and above. These results support thesis

about the relations between environmental activism

(specifically petition signing) and internet use, as young

people use internet more frequently. People with university

degree and those from small cities or towns are much more

involved in public sphere environmental activities than

other groups.

From background variables, educational level has

strongest influence upon public sphere environmental

behaviour (Cramerʼs V= 0.237, p=0.000).

Our analysis has identified that the influence of attitudinal

(environmental concern), knowledge and background

variables is significant but in most cases rather weak,

therefore further research should use more elaborated

theoretical models, that include wider attitudinal variables,

such as world views, behavioural intentions; also

contextual variables such as political orientation or

religious beliefs.

Conclusions

• The research has revealed that individuals tend to be

more active in private sphere environmental activities

than in public sphere environmental activities. Most

common private sphere environmental behaviour is

related to consumer habits, trying to avoid pesticides

and chemicals in food. Lithuanians almost never try

to cut back on driving a car for environmental

reasons. The level of environmental activism is very

low in Lithuania. From public sphere activities people

tend to choose easier way of participation – that is

signing electronic petitions rather than participating

in environmental organisations. These findings prove

the need for further research on environmental

activism and environmental organizations in

Lithuania, analysing the causes of low level of

publicly visible environmental activities.

• Environmental behaviour both in private and public

spheres is related to certain socio-demographic

characteristics. Active private sphere environmental

behaviour is more common among women, older

people, people with university degree and inhabitants

of small towns. Public sphere environmental

activities are influenced significantly by education

level and place of residence.

• Environmental concern has significant influence upon

the patterns of environmental behaviour. Even though

the level of environmental concern is not very high in

Lithuania, those who are more concerned about

various environmental problems are more eager to

engage in environmental activities.

• Subjectively assessed knowledge about the causes

and solutions of environmental problems has also

significant influence upon environmental behaviour,

though it is weaker than influence of environmental

concern. In general, the level of environmental

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

17

knowledge in Lithuania is rather low, despite all

initiatives to raise the level of environmental

consciousness of society that have taken place in

recent years.

Acknowledgements

The article employs data generated by the research

project ‘Monitoring of social problems: implementation of

International Social Survey Program (ISSP)’. The research

was funded by a grant (No. SIN-15/2010) from the

Research Council of Lithuania. Period of implementation

2010-2011, coordinated by the Institute of Politics and

Public Administration, Kaunas University of Technology.

References

1. Balžekienė, A., Butkevičienė, E., Rinkevičius, L., ir Gaidys, V. (2009). Ekologinių ir techologinių rizikų suvokimas: Lietuvos visuomenės požiūriai ir nuostatos. Filosofija ir sociologija, 20, 4, 237-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00078-6

2. Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence

specific environmentally related behaviour? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21-32.

3. Beckmann, S.C., Kilbourne, W.E., van Dam, Y., & Pardo, M.

(1997). Anthropocentrism, Value Systems, and Environmental Attitudes: A Multi-National Comparison. E-archivo Universidad

Carlos III de Madrid. Retreived November 11, 2011, from e-archivo.uc3m.es

4. Brechin, S.R., & Kempton, W. (1994). Global environmentalism:

A challenge to the postmaterialism thesis. Social Science

Quarterly, 75, 245-269. 5. Brechin, S.R., & Kempton, W. (1997). Beyond postmaterialist

values: National versus individual explanations of global environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 16-20.

6. Carriere, E. (2001). Sources of environmentalism: A model

incorporating knowledge and Douglas and Wildavskyʼs ‘grid-group cultural theoryʼ. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 2001). Dissertations Collection for University of

Connecticut, Paper AAI3038037. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3038037

7. Diekmann, A., & Preisendorfer, P. (2003). Green and Greenback:

The Behavioural Effects of Environmental Attitudes in Low-Cost and High-Cost Situations. Rationality and Society, 15, 4, 441-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1043463103154002

8. Dietz, T., Stern, C.P. & Guagnano, G.A. (1998). Social structural

and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and behaviour, 30, 4, 450-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000402

9. Dunlap, R.E., van Lierre, K.D., Mertig, A.G., & Jones, R.E.

(2000). Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 3, 425-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176

10. Dunlap, R.E., & van Liere, K.D. (1978). The ‘New Environmental

Paradigmʼ: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.

11. Dunlap, R.E., & Mertig, A.G. (1995). Global concern for the

environment: Is affluence a prerequisite? Journal of Social Issues, 51, 4, 121-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01351.x

12. Dunlap, R.E., & Mertig, A.G. (1997). Global environmental concern: An anomaly for postmaterialism. Social Science

Quarterly, 78, 24-29. 13. Dunlap, R.T., Gallup, G.H.J., & Gallup, A.M. (1993). Global

Environmental Concern: Results from an international public opinion survey. Environment, 35, 7-15, 33-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1993.9929122

14. Flash Eurobarometer 189a: EU Communication and the citizens

(2006). Brussels. Retrieved November 15, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_189a_en.pdf

15. Frick, J., Kaiser, F.G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental

knowledge and conservation behaviour: exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and individual

differences, 37, 8, 1597-1613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015

16. Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on

attitude-behaviour relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behaviour, 27, 699-718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916595275005

17. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 18. Jones, R.E., & Dunlap, R.E. (1992). The social bases of

environmental concern: Have they changed over time. Rural

Sociology, 57, 28-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00455.x

19. Juraitė, K. (2002). Ekologinė sąmonė ir masinė komunikacija:

visuomenės nuomonės apie aplinkosaugą konstravimas

žiniasklaidoje (Daktaro disertacija, Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 2002). VMU Thesis and Dissertation Catalogue.

20. Kalenda, Č. (1992). Ekologinis idealas. Vilnius: Ethos; VPU

leidykla. 21. Kalenda, Č. (1998). Ekologinės etikos tapsmas. Vilnius: VPU

leidykla. 22. Kalenda, Č. (2003). Ekologinės etikos baruose. Vilnius: VPU

leidykla. 23. Kanagy, C.L., Humphrey, C.R., & Firebaugh, G. (1994). Surging

environmentalism: Changing public opinion or changing publics. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 804-819.

24. Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1995). The role of effect and worldviews

as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of

nuclear power. Eugene, OR: Decision Research. 25. Rinkevičius, L. (2002). Sustainable development policy in

Lithuania: public participation. In R. Juknys (Ed.). National report

on Sustainable Development: from Rio to Johanesburg, from

transition to sustainability, pp. 22-26. Vilnius: Ministry of the environment, UNDP.

26. Rinkevičius, L. (2000). Ecological modernisation as cultural

politics: transformations of civic enviromental activism in Lithuania. In A.P.J. Mol, D.A. Sonenfield (Eds.). Ecological

modernisation around the world: perspectives and critical debates,

pp. 171-201. London: Frank Cass. 27. Rinova: Rizikos suvokimas, viešoji komunikacija ir inovatyvus

valdymas žinių visuomenėje: Projekto baigiamoji ataskaita (2009). Retrieved November 15, 2011, from http://rinova.ktu.lt

28. Spaargaren, G. (1997). The Ecological modernisation of

production and consumption: Essays in Enivironmental Sociology. Wageningen: Thesis Landbouw Universiteit Wageningen.

29. Special Eurobarometer 372: Climate Change (2011). Brussels.

Retrieved November 14, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_372_en.pdf

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

18

30. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., & Kalof, L.

(1999). A Value-Belief-Norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human ecology

review, 6, 2. 31. Stern, P.C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global

environmental change. Annaul Review of Psychology, 43, 269-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.001413

32. Stern, P.C. (2000). Towards a coherent theory of environmentally

significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 3, 407-424. 33. Stern, P.C. (2005). Understanding Individuals’ Environmentally

Significant Behaviour. The Environmental Law Reporter: News &

Analysis, 11-2005, 35 ELR 10785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175

34. Tanner, C. (1999). Constraints on environmental behaviour.

Journal of environmental psychology, 19, 145-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0121

35. Vietinė darbotvarkė 21-Kaunas projekto ekologinės sąmonės

tyrimo ataskaita (1999). Kaunas: VDU, Sociologijos katedra.

A.Balžekienė, A.Telešienė

Aplinkosauginė elgsena Lietuvoje

Santrauka

Šiame straipsnyje analizuojami Tarptautinės socialinio tyrimo programos (angl. International Social Survey Program, ISSP) 2010 m. apklausos duomenys. Apklausa atlikta vykdant Lietuvos mokslo tarybos finansuojamą projektą „Socialinių problemų stebėsena: Tarptautinės socialinio tyrimo programos įgyvendinimas“, kurį koordinavo KTU Politikos ir viešojo administravimo institutas. ISSP kiekvienais metais atlieka tematines apklausas, kurių metu surenkami tarptautiniu mastu ir diachroniškai palyginami duomenys. Straipsnyje analizuojama duomenų dalis iš 2010 m. apklausos modulio „Aplinka”.

Straipsnio tikslas – ištirti Lietuvos gyventojų aplinkosauginę elgseną bei atskleisti sociodemografinių charakteristikų, aplinkosauginio susirūpinimo ir aplinkosauginių žinių sąsajas su aplinkosaugine elgsena.

Aplinkosauginės elgsenos tyrimai aplinkosaugos sociologijoje ir gretimose disciplinose populiarūs jau kelis dešimtmečius. Aplinkosauginė elgsena suprantama kaip elgesys, siekiant kuo mažesnio neigiamo poveikio aplinkai arba teigiamai paveikti aplinkos kokybę. Remiantis mokslinės literatūros analize, straipsnyje pateikiamos skirtingos aplinkosauginės elgsenos tipologizacijos. Straipsnyje analizuojama tik individuali aplinkosauginė elgsena, apimanti veiksmus, kuriuos žmogus atlieka savo asmeniniame gyvenime, pvz., dalyvauja aplinkosauginės organizacijos veikloje, rūšiuoja atliekas, taupo energiją ar vandenį, vartoja ekologiškus produktus, priima ekologiškus dizaino ir namų ūkio sprendimus, pasirenka ekologiškus keliavimo būdus ir kt. Individuali aplinkosauginė elgsena dar skirstoma į privačiosios ir viešosios erdvės elgseną. Privačiosios erdvės aplinkosauginė elgsena straipsnyje operacionalizuojama kaip vandens ir energijos taupymas, vartotojiški kasdieniai pasirinkimai, vairavimo dažnumas ir atliekų rūšiavimas. Viešosios erdvės elgsena dažnai vadinama aplinkosauginiu aktyvizmu ir susijusi su koordinuota, kolektyvine veikla viešojoje erdvėje. Straipsnyje ši elgsena operacionalizuojama kaip narystė aplinkosauginėse organizacijose, finansinis tokių organizacijų rėmimas, dalyvavimas demonstracijose ar protesto akcijose bei peticijų aplinkosaugos tematika pasirašymas.

Straipsnyje pristatomi įvairūs aplinkosauginę elgseną aiškinantys modeliai. Paprastai teigiama, kad aplinkosauginė elgsena labiausiai susijusi su aplinkosauginiu sąmoningumu, o šis aiškinamas atsižvelgiant į tris grupes veiksnių, tai: 1) sociodemografinės charakteristikos; 2) rizikos suvokimas; 3) požiūriai ir vertybės. Aplinkosauginei elgsenai įtakos gali turėti objektyvieji kontekstiniai veiksniai, pvz., technologijų ar infrastruktūros prieinamumas; taip pat aplinkosauginės žinios/žinojimas. ISSP indikatorių struktūra apriboja plačių kompleksinių priežastinių modelių statistinį verifikavimą. Šiame straipsnyje pristatomas modelis, pagal kurį aplinkosauginės elgsenos ypatumai analizuojami priklausomai nuo sociodemografinių charakteristikų: lyties, amžiaus, išsilavinimo ir

gyvenamosios vietos; taip pat priklausomybė nuo aplinkosauginio susirūpinimo ir aplinkosauginių žinių.

Analizė remiasi reprezentatyvios Lietuvos gyventojų apklausos duomenimis (N=1023), kuri atlikta 2010 m. gruodžio – 2011 sausio mėn. Apklausą atliko „Rait“ bendrovė.

Straipsnyje pagrindžiamas privačiosios ir viešosios erdvės aplinkosauginio elgesio tipologizavimas į aktyvų ir pasyvų elgesį. Tyrimo rezultatai atskleidė, kad Lietuvos gyventojai yra daug aktyvesni privačioje erdvėje (30,9 proc. aktyvių) negu viešojoje (8,7 proc.).

Dažniausiai aplinkosauginė elgsena privačioje sferoje susijusi su maisto pirkimo įpročiais - trys ketvirtadaliai respondentų nurodė, jog visada, dažnai ar bent kartais perka vaisius ir daržoves, užaugintas be pesticidų ar chemikalų. Maždaug pusė respondentų nurodė, kad kartais atsisako tam tikrų pirkinių siekdami saugoti aplinką. Visada, dažnai ar bent kartais rūšiuoja, taupo energiją bei vandenį namuose maždaug du trečdaliai respondentų. Kyla klausimas, ar respondentai taupo energiją ir vandenį dėl aplinkosaugos? Mažiausiai respondentų pažymėjo, jog bent kartais atsisako važiuoti automobiliu dėl aplinkosaugos (tik ketvirtadalis). Straipsnyje taip pat pateikiama trumpa diskusija apie privataus automobilio vaizdinius ir lietuvių įpročius, tampančius šios proekologiškos elgsenos kontekstinėmis kliūtimis.

Analizuojant viešosios erdvės aplinkosauginę elgseną atskleista, jog aplinkosauginis aktyvizmas būdingas tik labai mažai daliai Lietuvos gyventojų. Tik vienas iš šimto skiria pinigų aplinkosauginėms grupėms ir tik du iš šimto yra tokių grupių nariai; maždaug trys iš šimto per pastaruosius penkerius metus dalyvavo aplinkosauginėje demonstracijoje ar protesto akcijoje. Populiariausia viešosios erdvės aplinkosauginio aktyvizmo forma yra aplinkosauginių peticijų pasirašymas (tris kartus daugiau respondentų pasirinko šį būdą nei kitas aplinkosauginio aktyvizmo formas). Straipsnyje argumentuojama, jog tai susiję su internetu. Rastas statistiškai reikšmingas ryšys tarp peticijų pasirašymo dažnio ir interneto naudojimo intensyvumo. Šį ryšį gali paaiškinti mažų kaštų hipotezė - asmuo lengviau renkasi tas elgsenos formas, kurios nereikalauja didelių finansinių, laiko ar pastangų kaštų. Šiuo metu Lietuvoje peticijos yra lengvai prieinamos elektroninėje erdvėje, o tai populiarina šią aplinkosauginio aktyvumo formą.

Ištyrus aplinkosauginės elgsenos ir keturių sociodemografinių charakteristikų – lyties, amžiaus, išsilavinimo ir gyvenamosios vietos - ryšius atskleista, kad visi nagrinėti kintamieji reikšmingai veikia privačiosios erdvės aplinkosauginę elgseną, nors ryšiai yra labai silpni. Aktyvesniu aplinkosauginiu elgesiu privačioje erdvėje pasižymi moterys, vyresni žmonės, žmonės, turintys aukštąjį išsilavinimą bei tie, kurie gyvena mažuose miestuose ar miesteliuose. Viešosios erdvės aplinkosauginis aktyvumas priklauso nuo išsilavinimo bei gyvenamosios vietos.

Iš nagrinėtų veiksnių didžiausią įtaką elgsenai turi aplinkosauginis susirūpinimas. Kuo labiau žmonės rūpinasi aplinka ir ekologinėmis problemomis, tuo dažniau užsiima įvairia aplinkosaugine veikla. Ekologinių problemų priežasčių ir jų sprendimo būdų žinojimas taip pat reikšmingai sąlygoja aplinkosauginį elgesį, nors ryšys yra gana silpnas. Tyrimas atskleidė, kad Lietuvos gyventojai daugiau žino apie ekologinių problemų priežastis nei apie jų sprendimo būdus. Bendras aplinkosauginių žinių lygis Lietuvoje yra gana žemas, nepaisant pastaraisiais metais vykusių socialinių – šviečiamųjų akcijų ekologijos klausimais.

Tolesni aplinkosauginės elgsenos srities tyrimai galėtų būti vystomi keliomis kryptimis. Pirma, aiškinant aplinkosauginės elgsenos ypatumus į analizės modelius reikėtų įtraukti daugiau veiksnių, nusakančių aplinkosauginius požiūrius, pasaulėžiūras, taip pat tokius kontekstinius veiksnius kaip politinės pažiūros ar religinė konfesija. Antra, tikslinga būtų tirti aplinkosauginį aktyvumą ir aplinkosaugines organizacijas Lietuvoje, taip pat priežastis, kodėl jos yra mažai matomos ir įtakingos viešojoje erdvėje.

Raktiniai žodžiai: aplinkosauginė elgsena, aplinkosauginis susirūpinimas, aplinkosauginis aktyvizmas, aplinkosauginės žinios.

First received: October, 2011

Accepted for publication: November, 2011

Social Sciences / A. Balzekiene, A. Telesiene. Explaining Private and Public

Socialiniai mokslai. 2011. Nr. 4 (74) Sphere Personal Environmental Behaviour

19

Appendix 1

Correlations between environmental concern and variables of private sphere environmental behaviour (Spearman

rho)

Environmental

concern a

Knowledge causes of environmental

problems b

solution of environmental

problems c

Sorting glass or tins, plastic or newspapers and so on for recycling

-.270** -.117** -.169**

Buying fruit and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemicals

-.240** -.135** -.157**

Cutting back on driving a car for environmental reasons -.207** -.160** -.228**

Reducing the energy or fuel used at home for environmental reasons

-.202** .004 -.037

Choosing to save or re-use water for environmental reasons -.160** -.049 -.073*

Avoiding buying certain products for environmental reasons -.231** -.084** -.102**

Personal sphere environmental behaviour index -.325** -.118** -.176**

** p < 0.01; * p< 0.05.

a. Q: ‘Generally speaking, how concerned are you about environmental issues?’, answers from 1 – ‘not at all concerned’ to 5 – ‘very much

concerned’;

b. Q: ‘How much do you feel you know about the causes of environmental problems?’, answers from 1 – ‘nothing’ to 5 – ‘very much’;

c. Q: ‘How much do you feel you know about the solutions of environmental problems?’, answers from 1 – ‘nothing’ to 5 – ‘very much’.