Literature Review...
Introduction
Environmental behaviour and activism have been shown to differ from stated values and environmental attitudes, but limited research has been conducted to determine the explanation for this gap (Huddart-Kennedy, 2009).
Literature in environmental ethics and the rhetoric of environmentalists and their opponents since the 1970s connects environmental concern to three classes of valued objects: other people, nonhuman objects, and the self (Stern and Dietz, 1994). Similar terminology has been used to identify underlying values which may be used as predictors of environmental attitudes, Stern, Dietz and Kalof (1993) identify social-altruistic, biospheric, and egoistic as the three terms, while Merchant (1992) termed the dimensions egocentric, anthropocentric, and eco-centric respectively (Schultz and Zelezny, 1999). Schultz and Zelezny (1998, 1999) and Aoyagi-Usui et al. (2003) found that although individuals may have expressed commitment toward environmentally friendly values, there was a difference between participation in environmentally-supportive behaviour and the strength of this stated commitment (Huddart-Kennedy, 2009). Increasing interest in the relationship between environmental values and behaviours led to the development of a concept known as the environmental and behaviour gap (EVB) (Huddart-Kennedy, 2009). Huddart-Kennedy et al. (2009) attempted to determine the rationale behind the EVB, they and find that a lack of knowledge or information is a significant hurdle for individuals in their attempt to practice Environmentally-Supportive Behaviours (ESB).
Understanding the linkages between environmental values and behaviour could be important to Institutions desiring participation of its members in environmentally sustainable practices. The University of Alberta’s “sustainability commitment
and guiding principles” states that the “University of Alberta is committed to a continuous effort to instill sustainability into the many aspects of university life”, on their campuses, in their institutions, and in the larger community (Office of Sustainability, 2009). As such, the University might find information regarding environmental values and knowledge useful in trying to promote environmental behaviour. Research is limited into the understanding of North-American post-secondary student environmental values and behaviours. A study conducted on secondary students in Hong Kong indicated that there was a strong correlation coefficient between environmental concern and comprehensive behavioural intention (Chan, 1996). This result may be contradictory to other research findings, which conclude that there is a large gap between environmental attitudes and actual behaviour (Schulz and Zelezny 1998, 1999; and Aoyagi-Usui et al. 2003).
Constraints on Behaviour (Fairfield)
Value Orientations
According to de Groot and Steg three primary value orientations relevant to environmental beliefs and intentions exist: egoistic, altruistic and biospheric (2008), where value is defined as “a desirable trans-situational goal varying in importance, which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a person or social entity (Schwartz, 1992). An egoistic value orientation is individually based and takes personal costs and benefits of environmental behaviour into consideration (de Groot & Steg, 2008). An altruistic value ethic is socially based and will take into account the costs and benefits for other people, while a biospheric orientation focuses on the intrinsic value of nature and will base decisions on impact on the ecosystem or biosphere as a whole (de Groot & Steg, 2008).
Schwartz’s universal value system was developed by performing individual-based analysis of a general classification of 56 values. This resulted in 10 motivational types of values that can be divided two dimensionally into four clusters (1992, 1994). The first dimension is comprised of openness to change versus conservatism, which separates values of independence from those emphasizing tradition and conformity. The second dimension differentiates between self-transcendent values such as compassion and universalism from self-enhancement values, such as power and achievement. This second dimension in particular plays a role in different beliefs and environmental behaviours (Stern, 2000).
è Different value items in application to fitting into suitable value orientation
To a similar effect, Grob proposed a model to determine the extent to which personal belief systems affect environmental behaviour (1995). It comprises of five main components: environmental awareness, emotional, personal-philosophical, perceived control, and behaviour. The environmental awareness component identifies the role of factual knowledge about the environment and recognition of environmental problems, the emotional component is based on the intensity of feelings placed on aspects of the environment, the personal-philosophical component involves the influence of post-materialistic beliefs and openness to change and adoption of new attitudes, perceived control includes beliefs about the efficacy of science and technology and causes of the state of the environment, and lastly the behaviour component analyzes direct actions that impact the environment (Grob, 1995). In general, results indicated that a greater recognition of environmental problems led to more effective actions, the more open to new ideas resulted in a diminished belief in technical or scientific solutions to environmental problems, which overall led to improved environmental behaviours. Notably, factual knowledge and domain-specific perceived control did not significantly affect environmental behaviours in this study (Grob, 1995).
Public Environmentally Supportive Behaviour (ESB)
Our discussion of Environmentally Supportive Behaviour describes behaviour, which consciously limits an individual’s negative impact on the environment in everyday life (recycling, purchasing products with less packaging, reducing energy consumption by turning off lights, etc.) (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). McFarlane and Boxall (2003) developed a cognitive hierarchy model, which determined that value orientation is a better predictor of attitudes than social structural or socialization variables. They further determined that attitudes toward forest management were associated with activism, yet found that belonging to an environmental organization was a better predictor of behaviour than social psychological or social structural variables (McFarlane and Boxall, 2003). Grob (1995) determined that factual knowledge of environmental issues had a less significant impact on behaviour than “personal--‐philosophical values and emotions”. These findings have implications for institutions trying to engage participants in activist or ESB. For the University of Alberta, education of environmental issues may not be the most effective way in promoting ESB.
It should be noted that there is a significant relationship between level of education and expressed environmental attitudes and concern (Ewert and Baker, 2001). Therefore, specific knowledge surrounding environmental issues may not be as great a predictor of attitudes and behaviour as level of education.
Student Environmental Supportive Behaviours
There is a limited account of the development of environmental behaviours as a function of education in post-secondary students compared the public. This lack of understanding is pronounced in North America. A study conducted on Taiwanese college students provides opposing insight into the more popular belief that knowledge of environmental issues has limited impact on environmental behaviour relative to other factors (Shih-Jang, 2004). That study focused on an environmental course, which emphasized issue investigating-evaluation and action training (Shih-Jang, 2004). Students enrolled in the course developed “responsible environmental behavior, locus of control, environmental responsibility, intention to act, perceived knowledge of environmental issues, and perceived knowledge of and skills in using environmental action strategies” (Shih-Jang, 2004). A 1983 study also promotes the idea that educational experience impacts environmental behaviour (Wysor, 1983). The study evaluated the different attitudes and behaviours between business students and environmental studies students, analysis determined that environmental students consider environmental concerns in their everyday lives whereas business students do not (Wysor, 1983). However, this paper does not discuss basic values or specific attitudes as factors in choosing educational programs and the subsequent effects of the educational program itself on behaviour.
Student Values and Attitudes (Alyssa)
Shetzer, Stackman, and Moore (1991) identified business students as being pro-environmental, contrary to their predictions. Hodgkinson and Innes (2001) found that “sociology, biology, and environmental studies students consistently displayed stronger positive beliefs and attitudes toward the environment than students from other disciplines, implying interdisciplinary discrepancies in belief and attitude patterns.” This predetermined value set is another indication that direct education is not necessarily an effective manner of promoting environmentally supportive behaviour.
Survey Methods (Fairfield)
Further Research
Trade-off Analysis and Meta-analysis
Policy Implications
New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) (Alyssa)
Works Cited
Aoyagi-Usui, M., H. Vinken, and A. Kuribayashi. 2003. Pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours: An international comparison. Human Ecology Review 10, 1, 23-31.
Chan, K.K.W. (1996). ‘Environmental attitudes and behaviour of secondary school students in Hong Kong’, The Environmentalist, 16, 4, 297–306.
de Groot, J.M and L. Steg. 2008. Value Orientation to explain beliefs related to Environmental Significant Behaviour: How to measure Egoistic, Altrustric, and Biospheric value orientations. Environment & Behaviour. Vol 40(3): 330-354
Ewert, A., & Baker, D. (2001). Standing up for where you sit. An exploratory analysis of the relationship between academic major and environmental beliefs. Environment and Behavior, 33(5), 687-707.
Grob, A. 1995. A Structural Model of Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol 15(3): 201-220
Hodgkinson, Shari.P. and Innes, Michael.J. 2001. The Attitudinal Influence of Career
Orientation in 1st-Year University Students: Environmental Attitudes as a Function of Degree Choice. Journal of Environmental Education. Vol. 32 No. 3 37–40.
Huddart-Kennedy, Emily et al. 2009. Why we don’t “walk the talk”: understanding the Environmental Values/behaviour gap in Canada. Research in Human Ecology. Vol 16: 151-160.
Kollmuss, A. and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally
and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?
Environmental Education Research 8, 3, 239-260.
McFarlane, Bonita L. and Boxall, Peter C. 2003. The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: an example in the forest sector. Journals of Environmental Psychology. Vol 23: 79-87.
Merchant, C. 1992. Radical Ecology. NewYork: Routledge.
Schultz, P.W. and L. Zelezny. 1998. Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29, 540-558.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. 1999. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255–265.
Shetzer, L., Stackman, R. W., & Moore, L. F. (1991). Business-environment attitudes and the new environmental paradigm. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(4), 14–21.
Shih-Jang, H. 2004. The Effects of an Environmental Education Program on Responsible Environmental Behaviour and Associated Environmental Literacy Variables in Tawainese College Students. Journal of Environmental Education. Vol 35(2):37-48
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65-84.
Stern, Paul C.; Dietz, Thomas; Kalof, Linda. Environment & Behavior, May1993, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p322
http://www.sustainability.ualberta.ca/nav01.cfm?nav01=84146 the sustainability commitment and guiding principles
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.1-65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45.
Wysor, M.S. 1983. Comparing College Students Environmental Perceptions and Attitudes: A Methodological Investigation. Environment & Behaviour. Vol 15(5): 615