HOUSEHOLD PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR DEVELOPMENTS IN LATVIA: BEHAVIORAL PRACTICE AND VALUES ORIENTATION

Transcription

1 HOUSEHOLD PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR DEVELOPMENTS IN LATVIA: BEHAVIORAL PRACTICE AND VALUES ORIENTATION Janis Brizga 1, Dr.geogr., Janis Ikstens 2, Dr.sc.pol.; Kristine Gaugere 1, MScPol.; Raimonds Ernsteins 1, Dr.hab.paed. 1 Department of Environmental Science, University of Latvia; 2 Department of Political Science, University of Latvia Abstract. There is a consensus among environmental scientists, that existing household behavior patterns cause a wide range of environmental impacts. This study is based on the data acquired through the nation-wide public opinion survey carried out in Latvia in March 2016 (n 1009), covering pro-environmental behavior practice and personal value orientations. The initial findings reveal that people are concerned about the environmental problems and at least half of them are willing to reduce their environmental impact. However, as it is clear from the majority of related studies during the past decades, these concerns and good intentions rarely lead to real pro-environmental behavior. This paper investigates the link between values, current household behavior patterns, environmental impact and willingness to act pro environmentally. The key conclusion is that values have a slight positive correlation with current (carbon footprint) as well as intended (Willingness to Act Index) pro-environment behavior and it brings us closer to the understanding of underlying motivations behind household behavior; however, results from the regression analysis clearly indicate that values explain only small part of our pro-environmental behaviors. It will help us to shape the most appropriate and selectively targeted interventions as for next steps towards sustainable development goals. Key words: pro-environmental behavior, value-orientations, carbon footprint, willingness to act. JEL code: D10 Introduction The research-based evidence clearly indicates that improvement of environmental quality depends on the knowledge, attitudes, values and behavior of people (Schultz et al., 1995). Therefore, household behavior patterns that have led to the majority of current environmental problems (Brizga et al., 2017, Giljum et al., 2013, Barrett et al., 2013, Tukker et al., 2006, Tukker, 2014) must be changed, in order to ensure progress towards environmentally friendly and sustainable society (Lozano, 2007). Pro-environmental behavior is becoming more and more popular all over the world and also in Latvia. People s interest in environmental and health aspects of consumption is increasing. A bit less than 15 % respondents identify themselves as certainly green thinking and 50 % of all households identify themselves as rather environmentally friendly. It seems that green is becoming the new black! However, the question remains: how much of this thinking and talking is resulting in a real pro-environmental behavior that in turn would lead to decreased environmental impact? This paper is based on the value action impact approach. Therefore, we consider essential exploring value orientation in general and examining links between values and environment related behavior. Being fully aware that values are not the only predictor of pro environmental behavior, we assume that they have a role to play. Even more, it has been theoretically reasoned and empirically validated that values play a significant role in explaining specific beliefs and behavior and can, therefore, be used as predictors for various variables such as attitudes and behavioral intentions (Stern, 2000, Stern and Dietz, 1994, Howell, 2013). We investigate the link between environmental behavior, values, and environmental impacts, by exploring the following questions: is proenvironmental behavior more driven by value orientation or socioeconomic factors or infrastructure? Which values more than others support pro-environmental behavior? And finally, - how can we encourage and stimulate proenvironmental behavior? In this paper, we do not touch upon issues related to infrastructure, normative and legal framework. We also do not measure cognitive factors like knowledge and understanding related to pro-environmental behavior. 1 Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 281

2 Literature overview Impressive amount of research papers has been written on issues related to proenvironmental behavior. Research findings are univocal that pro-environmental behavior is strongly linked to a variety of factors some underline the importance of cognitive factors (knowledge, skills), some emphasize affective factors, some focus on values, attitudes and norms, and the value-action gap is widely acknowledged. Schwartz s theory of Values In this paper, we will focus on value orientation and links between values, environment related behavior and pro environmental intentions. The term value is used in this paper following Schwartz (1992) as a desirable trans-situational goal varying in importance, which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a person or other social entity and basic Human values theory, developed by Schwartz, is a key component of the theoretical framework of this paper. The theory specifies a comprehensive set of 10 motivationally distinct value constructs. Set of values within the framework of this theory is organized in a circular structure that portrays the total pattern of relations of conflict and congruity among values postulated by the theory (Schwartz, 1992). The circular structure of values provides an opportunity for further grouping of values. Several bipolar dimensions, summarizing oppositions between competing values can be traced. In this paper, we focus on contracts between self-enhancement and selftranscendence values. This dimension captures the conflict between values that emphasize concern for the welfare and interests of others (universalism, benevolence) and values that emphasize the pursuit of one's own interests and relative success and dominance over others (power, achievement). Values and pro-environmental behavior According to Schwartz, values underlie our attitudes; they are the basis for our evaluations. We evaluate people, behaviors, events, etc. positively if they promote or protect attainment of the goals we value (Schwartz, 2012). Three decades ago ( ) Hines and the research team after conducting a large-scale meta-analysis on pro environmental behavior discovered a significant correlation between proenvironmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior (r.38,) and between pro-environmental behavioral intention and pro-environmental behavior (r.49) (Hines et al., 1987). Valuebelief-norm theory (Stern, 2000, Stern et al., 1999) suggests that values are the first link in a causal chain influencing worldviews, awareness of negative consequences of behavior, and ascription of personal responsibility for those consequences (Howell, 2013). Some values, more than others tend to explain predisposition for pro-environmental behavior. Defining the goal of universalism (that together with benevolence forms selftranscendence value orientation), according to Schwartz is appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. People who rank universalism high in their value system may realize that failure to protect the natural environment will lead to the destruction of the resources on which life depends (Schwartz, 2012). Several studies have shown that people who give priority to collective, or self-transcendent, values are more willing to engage in different forms of altruistic, cooperative, or proenvironmental behavior than people who give priority to individual or self-enhancement values (Nordlund and Garvill, 2002). Recent research carried out in Lithuania suggests that people who are attributed with self-enhancement and are guided by more hedonistic goals do not tend to behave in a manner that contributes to saving environmental resources. However, a positive 1 Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 282

3 and statistically significant correlation was observed between self-enhancement values and pro behavior practices (Liobikienė and Juknys, 2016). The research carried Stern & Diaz empirically tie environmentalism to certain basic human values. They link behavioral indicators of environmentalism to biospheric-altruistic and (inversely) egoistic value orientations. It also indicates little or no effect on traditional values or openness to change (Stern and Dietz, 1994). At the same time research carried out by Karp (1996) indicates the effect of Self/Transcendence/ Openness to Change and Universalism/Biospheric as positive predictors in all types of pro-environmental behavior (Karp, 1996). Nevertheless, we cannot consider that holding certain values will directly lead to pro environmental behavior. The mismatch between values and behavior or value-action gap widely researched phenomenon (Anable et al., 2006, Blake, 1999). For example, as noted by Nordlund and Garvill (2002) the reason why reporting certain values or even self-identification as an environmental activist may not lead to pro-environmental behavior may be that the choice between acting in a pro-environmental way and not doing so often involves a conflict between immediate individual and long-term collective interests. The individual benefits obtained from traveling by car, buying food and other products without consideration of negative environmental impacts, not recycling, and not conserving energy in the household are immediate, whereas the negative environmental effects of such behaviors are often uncertain consequences in the future. Another reason for the value-action gap could be a strong influence of habitual behavior. One possible explanation for the failure to change for more environmentally friendly behavior is offered by Verplanken: many aspects of unwanted lifestyle habits are immediately gratifying (Verplanken, 2006, Verplanken et al., 2005). There is only limited research on proenvironmental behavior, household environmental concerns, values and sustainable consumption patterns carried out in Latvia. They reveal that most of the people in Latvia do not think their behavior has a negative impact on the environment and identify several barriers to sustainable consumption, such as the lack of information, perceived consumer effectiveness, difficulties to change habits, and perception of high costs associated with sustainable consumption exist (Auzane and Elere, 2008, EC, 2011, SKDS, 2008). There is also a clear need for changes in the systems of provision, relevant knowledge, infrastructure and resources to facilitate switching to low carbon lifestyles (Brizga, 2012, Brizga et al., 2017), particularly stressing the role of complementary communication instruments to be applied (Brizga and Ernsteins, 2016). Methodology This paper is elaborated by using data acquired through the nationally representative public opinion survey (n 1009) conducted in Latvia in March Respondents were selected using a random, multi-stage sample design and face to face interviews were performed at their homes. This study is the first part of the project to be complemented with deep comparative interviews with selected regional/local households and further on continued with local municipal surveys and all local main stakeholders interviews. The questionnaire comprised of 67 questions. The aim of this study was to identify, compare and analyze people s behavior patterns, environmental impacts (carbon footprint) and values. The survey was structured around following broad themes: general attitudes towards the pro-environmental behavior and consumption; household environmental behavior patterns; environmental awareness, willingness 1 Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 283

4 to act; individual values; and socio-demographic profile of the respondents. While conducting the initial analysis of the acquired data, we have identified several problems that could impose certain limitations on our further conclusions. The data collected is based on self-identification and self reported behavior of respondents about his/her value orientations and their whole household behaviors. They have to report their own identification level with the portraits of different people, each one describing a person s goals, aspirations, or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a certain value. Thus, we have collected data on household behavior and individual values of respondents. So, as already presumably generally expected, almost half of those who report themselves as certainly green thinking do not recycle. Different discrepancy example of certain mismatch to be kept in mind when interpreting the results is regarding the monthly income of respondents - more than 20 % have stated that the average income per capita in their household is above 1000 euro per month net, but according to official statistics, less than 10 % of Latvia s workforce earn above this amount. It is obvious that pro environmental behavior is an extremely complex issue comprising of a wide range of various behavioral acts. To analyze our data we have computed a Willingness to Act Index. It includes the answer to the question How important is the protection of the environment to you personally? as well as a willingness to perform 14 different behavioral changes that would lead to lower environmental impact. Suggested behavioral changes, e.g. are consuming more organically farmed foods, driving less, recycle, co-operate with friends and neighbors (sharing household tools, carpooling), increase knowledge about environmentally friendly lifestyle. An index is a number ranging from 15 (willing to do all the listed changes and concerned about the environment) to 32 (unwilling to change anything and not concerned about the environment). Carbon footprint was used to indicate household environmental impact. 18 questions from the survey were used to calculate the carbon footprint of consumption activities. They were structured around the three main consumption clusters of housing (including energy, water, and waste), mobility, and food. These clusters were selected as they are responsible for % of all the household consumption environmental impacts (Tukker et al., 2006, Brizga et al., 2017). For the benchmarking, we used the results of the latest multiregional input-output analysis of household consumption carbon footprint in Latvia (Brizga et al. 2017). To identify the value-orientation of respondents, we use the shortened version of Schwartz s Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) describing portraits of 21 different people. Regarding each portrait, respondents answer the question: How much like you is this person?. Six labeled responses range from not like me at all to very much like me. This tool was developed for use with representative national samples in large surveys when time is limited. In order to evaluate determinants of proenvironmental behavior, we used a correlation analysis and regression model including sociodemographic variables (age, education, language, and income) as well as variables of Schwartz value-orientations. The model was estimated using linear (adjusted R 2 ) and logistic (Nagelkerke R 2 ) regression. Research results and discussion As suggested by Stern (2000), there is a complex of interactions of psychological, social and physical factors in the production of behavior, and after the initial analysis of the data collected, we can totally agree with Stern s statement. Even though 81 % of our respondents have indicated that Protection of the environment is 1 Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 284

5 either very important (23 %) or rather important (58 %) to them, their behavior does not match the criteria of being environmentally friendly. Describing their food consumption patterns more than 1/3 of respondents admit, they consume meat every day (37.7 %) or at least 2 3 times a week (48,8 %) % do not recycle, only 15.3 % have their dwelling totally insulated and only 32.9 % drive cars that consume less than 6.5 liters of fuel per 100km. The most common pro-environmental behavior is using reusable shopping bag % of our respondents report using it always and 38 % - using it sometimes. Being green or environmentally friendly means different things to different people. In the survey, we asked people to identify whether their household is environmentally friendly % identified themselves as certainly green thinking; 41.9 % identified themselves as rather environmentally friendly, 26.3 % admitted that they are trying to be environmentally friendly if it does not interfere with their daily routines and undermine comfort and 15.6 % confessed that they do not think about their household in terms of environmental friendliness. If 55 % of respondents admit they are rather environmentally friendly or certainly green thinking, it sounds, like a good news for polar bears, but when we look at the behavior pattern, a totally different picture is revealed. Almost 50 % of those who identify themselves as certainly green thinking do not recycle. Analysis of their driving patterns revealed that 30 % of those certainly green thinking go food shopping by car most of the time. Only 25 % of them do not have a car at all. 20 % of our survey participants drive between km per week. 61 % of those drivers have identified themselves as certainly green thinking or rather environmentally friendly. Exactly the same percentage of certainly green thinking or rather environmentally friendly people is among those who drive km per week. Apparently, certainly green thinking or rather environmentally friendly people are the most frequent flyers too they make up almost 60 % out of all respondents who have been flying last year. The same trend is identified in food consumption pattern % of our respondents consume meet or meet products every day and 59.8 % of them are certainly green thinking or rather environmentally friendly people. 23 % of our respondents consider inexpensive price the key factor in choosing food and 50.8 % of them have identified themselves as certainly green thinking or rather environmentally friendly people. Willingness to Act Index Our respondents scored high in the Willingness to Act Index (WAI). Scores of 27 % of respondents are in the range from 15 to 18, meaning they are ready to change up to 80 % of behavioral acts in order to reduce their environmental impact. 70 % of respondents are ready to start recycling, but only 25 % are willing to cooperate with friends and neighbors % are ready to change their driving pattern, however, 44.4 % are not ready to reduce driving. Correlation analysis demonstrates that highest Willingness to Act Index (WAI) is in the group with income between 351 and 720 EUR a month (Table 1). Woman are more likely to act environmentally friendly than man. WAI also correlates with respondent s education, housing type, and geographical region. Women and people from Latgale (a most underdeveloped region in Latvia) seem to have higher willingness to act environmentally friendly. 1 Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 285

6 Willingness to act WAI and housed income (number of respondents) Below 350 Net per capita income (EUR) Above 1301 WAI (Total) Highly willing to act (15-18) 9.7 % 33.9 % 17.7 % 22.6 % 16.1 % 6 % Moderately willing (19-22) 10.3 % 29.5 % 24.0 % 24.0 % 12.2 % 33 % Not really willing (23-27) 10.7 % 28.5 % 22.9 % 26.4 % 11.5 % 47 % Unwilling to act (28-32) 11.3 % 24.1 % 27.0 % 24.1 % 13.5 % 14 % Income (total) 10.6 % 28.5 % 23.5 % 25.1 % 12.3 % % Source: author s calculations based on the survey data The WAI is also higher among those living in the countryside rather than in the capital Riga or other towns; it is also related to the housing type higher willingness to act is among people living in the single family dwellings and dwellings with few (3-10) apartments, compared to those living in the multi-apartment buildings. Similar results were obtained by the study looking at the people climate awareness (BEF, 2016). Carbon footprint Carbon footprint analysis shows that average per capita footprint in Latvia is around 6 tons of CO 2e per year and man (6.1 t CO 2e ) have slightly higher footprint than women (5.8 t CO 2e ). Results also demonstrate slight carbon footprint differences among age groups (Figure 1). Lowest carbon footprint (5.5 t CO 2e ) is among the Table 1 youngest participants in the survey (age 18-24), but then for the age group it raises by 13 % reaching 6.3 t CO 2e per capita and gradually decreases with the age. 40 % of the carbon footprint is generated by food consumption, 22 % - by the housing sector and consumption of other goods and services and 17 % are transport related emissions. Most significant differences in the carbon footprint can be identified in the transport sector where oldest participants in the survey have less than 50 % of the average transport footprint. At the same time, carbon footprint from housing and other goods is increasing with the age. These changes are very much related to the changes in the income and the number of people in the household. Source: author s calculations based on the survey data Fig. 1. Carbon footprint (kg CO 2) distribution among the age groups Results also prove once again the value-action gap in the society carbon footprint does not have a strong linear correlation with WAI. Those 1 Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 286

7 with the lowest footprint are not the same who score the best in the Willingness to Act index. Value orientation and pro-environmental behavior A full outline of scores calculated from the Schwartz s PVQ is indicated below. Results demonstrate that the dominant value in Latvian society is security (scoring -0.63), followed by benevolence (scoring -0.42) and self-direction (scoring -0.30). The least dominant values are stimulation, conformity, and power, (scoring 0.41, 0.38 and 0.31 respectively) (Figure 2). The circular value structure is also proven to work rather well both when it comes to individual values and when it comes to clusters of values. There is a rather strong inverse correlation between self transcendence and selfenhancement values, as well as between conservation and openness to change. Chronbach s alpha for self-transcendence is.537 and for self-enhancement, it is.449. Pearson's correlation between self transcendence, and self enhancement is and correlation between conservation and openness to change is Source: author s calculations based on the survey data Fig. 2. Value-orientations in Latvia s society (average) according to the Schwartz model. (Centered scale. Low numbers mean higher identification with certain value) Most of the linear correlations between values and WAI are statistically significant but weak. WAI and a carbon footprint have a positive correlation with security as well as selftranscendence values but have a negative correlation with hedonism, power, conformity, and tradition. Consumption of predominantly locally grown food has a slight negative linear correlation with self-transcendence values (r=-.148, p<.05) and very slight positive correlation with self enchantment values (r=.065, p<.01). However, self-transcendence values have also a slight negative linear correlation with income, which could serve as an explanation for food consumption pattern. There is a slight correlation between values and using a car for grocery shopping. Those with self-transcendence values tend not to use it (r=.091, p<.05), in turn, those with selfenchantment values tend to use (r=-.105, p<.05). Pro-environmental behavior and socioeconomic factors Generally, socioeconomic factors do not serve as predictors of pro-environmental behavior in Latvia. At the same time, some linear correlations are statistically significant. For example, income has a slight positive correlation with a preference for locally grown food (r=.151, p<.05), as well as with the use of energy efficient (LED) lights (r=.149, p<.05) at home. Education level correlates with the importance of environmental protection. The higher education, the more important is environmental protection (r=.124, p<.05). In order to test for the impact of values and a range of demographic variables upon changes in consumption over the last two years, linear regression analysis was performed. Results from the linear regression analysis demonstrate that the explanatory power of the model is poor (adjusted R 2 being between 0.02 and 0.08). Consumption of transportation services 1 Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 287

8 constitutes a major exception as values such as benevolence, stimulation, hedonism and achievement all have had a statistically significant effect on the use of transport. Meanwhile, age appears to have a more extensive impact across several areas of consumption. Other aspects of consumption emerge as linked to various values. A choice of a fuel-efficient vehicle is negatively related to conformity and benevolence. The introduction of LED bulbs to the household is negatively associated with security and self-direction while preference for organic food is negatively linked to universalism. The highest explanatory power (R 2 =0.08) of the model is for the use of the reusable shopping bags. The more respondents subscribe to power (β=.19, p<.01), stimulation (β=.18, p<.01), conformity (β=.17, p<.01) values, the higher their use of the reusable shopping bags. Furthermore, the older is a person (age, β=.11, p<.01), lower are per-capita income (β=.16, p<.01), the higher use of the reusable shopping bags. But the Russian language (β=-.11, p<.01) is negatively related to the use of the reusable shopping bags. Results from the logistic regression analysis have much higher explanatory potential (Table 2). Security and Russian language use are statistically significant factors for three resolutions while benevolence, self-direction, stimulation and power hold relevant influence on two resolutions. Respondents who scored high on security values were less into using renewable energy, participation in environmental actions and learning about the environment. We also analyzed the impact of values on a commitment to make respondent s behavior more environmentally friendly. Somewhat surprisingly, use of Russian language in one s household has a negative impact on resolutions about environmentally friendly behavior. As it is indicated in the previous research on sustainable consumption in Latvia (Auzane and Elere, 2008), factors that prevent consumers from consuming sustainably, are the lack of information, perceived consumer effectiveness, difficulties to change habits, the perception of high costs associated with sustainable consumption and the lack of trust in producers. Some of those factors are measured also in our study and most of the findings are similar. 1 Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 288

9 Logistic regression model of the value-orientations and pro-environmental behavior Recycle Use renewable energy for heating Participate in environmental actions Table 2 Learn more about the sustainable lifestyles Security Conformity Tradition Benevolence Universalism Self-Direction Stimulation Hedonism Achievement Power Age Russian language Education Per capita income Nagelkerke R Note: Bold values demonstrate variable with statistically high significance; p <.01. Source: author s calculations based on the survey data Lack of information may still be one of the essential factors undermining good intentions and green self-identification of our respondents. When asked, what are the reasons why people do not behave environmentally friendly, 17 % of our respondents mention the lack of information as a first reason. And indeed a discrepancy between self-identification as an environmentally friendly person and behavior that leads to pollution and degradation of the environment may be caused by simple lack of knowledge regarding environmental impacts of certain behaviors. Use of reusable shopping bags appears to be the most popular pro-environmental behavior in Latvia and most of the respondents are willing to start recycling in future. However, research indicates that changing purchasing behavior generally has greater environmental benefit than reusing or recycling available products and lowering thermostat settings or reducing car use would reduce environmental impact far more than refusing plastic bags in stores (Steg and Vlek, 2009). Information campaigns even those that successfully convey information, subsequently do not necessarily change human behaviors. It means that in order to ensure behavior change a set of complementary instruments tailored to the specific target groups should be used. (Brizga and Ernsteins, 2016). Difficulties to change habits, even though directly not mentioned by our respondents, is widely identified as a significant contributor to a certain type of behavior. Research evidence suggests, that habitual behavior may involve misperceptions and selective attention: people tend to focus on information that confirms their choices, and neglect information that is not in line with their habitual behavior (Steg and Vlek, 2009). When judgments become automatic, people may react on the basis of past experience and be less responsive to small changes in the relevant stimuli. It means that repetition of behavior may continue even when behavior is no longer the most appropriate, effective response (Wood et al., 2002). On the one hand, this is a bad news for promoters of pro environmental behavior. Our results reviled the fact that 3 out of 5 respondents have the bad habit not to recycle and even though most of them have expressed a 1 Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 289

10 good intention to recycle in future, it is not likely that their good intentions will turn into proenvironmental behavior. On the other hand, it could be seen as good news too - when proenvironmental behavior might become habitual, it could be hard to change it. Conclusions The assumption, that self-transcendence value orientation could serve as a predictor of proenvironmental behavior in Latvia, has been proven only to some extent. Self-transcendence values have a slight statistically significant positive correction with WAI and carbon footprint. This fits the general pattern and corresponds to research findings also in a neighboring country, Lithuania, where self-transcendence value orientation influences all environmentally-friendly behavior manifestations (Liobikiene and Juknys, 2016). At the same time, we can see that the carbon footprint is driven by income, which, in turn, is highly dependent on education. And finally, the results from the regression analysis clearly indicates that values explain only small part of our pro-environmental behaviors. Therefore, the idea of promoting self-transcendent value orientation that could lead to pro-environmental behavior as suggested by some researchers (Liobikiene and Juknys, 2016), may not guarantee immediate results in our case. Behavioral scientists agree that effective intervention can change habits, by applying downstream interventions (include education, informational campaigns that identify costs of Bibliography existing behaviors and benefits of new responses etc.) or upstream interventions that focus on the larger structural conditions in which people s behaviors are embedded. Thus, upstream interventions may consist of economic incentives, legislation, or structural changes in the performance environment. These interventions aim to provide contexts and societal structures that promote and sustain desired behavior (Verplanken, 2006). We must admit that even the behavior pattern of the general public cannot be considered as environmentally friendly, most of the people tend to identify themselves as rather environmentally friendly or certainly green thinking, which means that thinking or even being green might be a quite a desirable social identity. It is clear that deeper understanding of factors influencing pro-environmental behavior is crucial for formulating proper interventions towards promoting sustainable development. Therefore, further research should focus on the more detailed analysis of underlying motivations of pro-environmental behavior considering also cognitive behavioral components as well as normative, infrastructure etc. factors mentioned. It is also important to study habits and routines, as well as factors making being green a desirable social identity. Acknowledgements This work has been funded by the Latvia State Research Program SUSTINNO project Environmentally friendly and sustainable resource use. 1. ANABLE, J., LANE, B. & KELAY, T An Evidence Base Review of Public Attitudes to Climate Change and Transport Behaviour, the Department. 2. AUZANE, B. & ELERE, L Sustainable Consumption in Latvia: Barriers and Consumer Attitude. Riga: Rigas school of economics. 3. BARRETT, J., PETERS, G., WIEDMANN, T., SCOTT, K., LENZEN, M., ROELICH, K. & LE QUÉRÉ, C Consumption-based GHG Emission Accounting: a UK Case Study. Climate Policy, BEF Informetība un attieksme pret klimata parmaiņām. Latvijas iedzīvotaju aptaujas rezultati. Riga: BEF. 5. BLAKE, J Overcoming the 'Value--Action Gap' in Environmental Policy: Tensions between National Policy and Local Experience. Local Environment, 4, BRIZGA, J Sustainable Consumption Governance in Latvia: Policy Instruments, Networks and Indicators. Ph.D., University of Latvia. 1 Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 290

11 7. BRIZGA, J., ERNSTEINS, R Sustainable Household Consumption in Latvia: Environmental Behavior and Communication Requirement. In: 3rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference SGEM 2016, Proceedings, Austria, p BRIZGA, J., FENG, K. & HUBACEK, K Household Carbon Footprints in the Baltic States: A global multiregional input output analysis from 1995 to Applied Energy, 189, EC Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment, Eurobarometer #365. European Commission. 10. GILJUM, S., WIELAND, H., BRUCKNER, M., DE SCHUTTER, L. & GIESECKE, K Land Footprint Scenarios. Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI), Vienna, Austria. 11. HINES, J. M., HUNGERFORD, H. R. & TOMERA, A. N Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of environmental education, 18, HOWELL, R. A It's Not (just) the Environment, Stupid! Values, Motivations, and Routes to Engagement of People Adopting Lower-carbon Lifestyles. Global Environmental Change, 23, KARP, D. G Values and their Effect on Pro-environmental Behavior. Environment and behavior, 28, LIOBIKIENE, G. & JUKNYS, R The Role of Values, Environmental Risk Perception, Awareness of Consequences, and Willingness to Assume Responsibility for Environmentally-friendly Behaviour: the Lithuanian Case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, LOZANO, R Collaboration as a Pathway for Sustainability. Sustainable development, 15, NORDLUND, A. M. & GARVILL, J Value Structures behind Pro-environmental Behavior. Environment and behavior, 34, SCHULTZ, P. W., OSKAMP, S. & MAINIERI, T Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors. Journal of environmental Psychology, 15, SCHWARTZ, S. H Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, SCHWARTZ, S. H An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online readings in Psychology and Culture, 2, SKDS Latvijas iedzīvotaju aptauja: Ilgtspejiga attistiba, vertibas un paradumi. Riga: SKDS. 21. STEG, L. & VLEK, C Encouraging Pro-environmental Behaviour: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda. Journal of environmental Psychology, 29, STERN, P. C New Environmental Theories: toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of social issues, 56, STERN, P. C. & DIETZ, T The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. Journal of social issues, 50, STERN, P. C., DIETZ, T., ABEL, T. D., GUAGNANO, G. A. & KALOF, L A Value-belief-norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The case of environmentalism. Human ecology review, 6, TUKKER, A., BULAVSKAYA, T., GILJUM, S., DE KONING, A., LUTTER, S., SIMAS, M., STADLER, K., WOOD, R The Global Resource Footprint of Nations. Carbon, water, land and materials embodied in trade and final consumption calculated with EXIOBASE 2.1. Leiden/Delft/Vienna/Trondheim. 26. TUKKER, A., HUPPES, G., GUINEE, J., HEIJUNGS, R., KONING, A. D., OERS, L. V., SUH, S., GEERKEN, T., HOLDERBEKE, V. M. & JANSEN, B Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) Analysis of the Life Cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU VERPLANKEN, B Beyond Frequency: Habit as Mental Construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, VERPLANKEN, B., MYRBAKK, V. & RUDI, E The Measurement of Habit. The routines of decision making, WOOD, W., QUINN, J. M. & KASHY, D. A Habits in Everyday Life: Thought, Emotion, and Action. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83, Janis Brizga. Tel.: +371 ( ). address: janis.brizga@lu.lv 291