Strategies for sustainability: citizens and responsible environmental behaviour

Transcription

1 Area (2003) 35.3, Blackwell Publishing Ltd Strategies for sustainability: citizens and responsible environmental behaviour Stewart Barr Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ Revised manuscript received 31 March 2003 Policymakers are becoming increasingly interested in the means by which individuals can be encouraged to engage in environmental actions around the home. This paper uses evidence from existing empirical research and a large questionnaire survey undertaken by the author to argue that environmental action is open to a range of influences, focusing especially on environmental values, situational characteristics and psychological variables. Accordingly, the paper asserts that strategies for promoting environmentally responsible behaviours (such as energy saving, water conservation and waste recycling) should take account of these factors. The implications for the study of environmental behaviour are considered. Key words: Exeter, environmental policy, environmental values, situation, psychology Introduction Since the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 (UNCED 1992), the emphasis placed on encouraging action by individual citizens for sustainability has proliferated. In the UK, subsequent governmental strategies for sustainable development (DoE 1994; DETR 1999) have emphasized the significance of active engagement by all citizens in the environmental debate. This shift in attitudes towards citizen participation has been characterized as a rejection of the topdown policymaking approach: Sustainable development cannot be imposed from above. It will not take root unless people across the country are actively engaged. (DEFRA 2002, 7) The process of engagement is commonly seen in governmental circles as a problem of awareness: individual people simply do not appreciate environmental problems for what they are. The solution to this problem is often seen to lie in the provision of information and knowledge dissemination. Thus, for example, Waste strategy 2000 (DETR 2000) identified that education about waste issues and raising public awareness concerning the need to recycle was a core priority. As such, shifts in attitudes and behaviours would be the result of increased awareness of the waste problem. Such an approach has been partially adopted by the Are you doing your bit? campaign (DEFRA 2002), using a range of media to disseminate environmental information. The focus is placed on five environmental behaviours (water conservation, energy saving, sustainable transport use, waste management and noise reduction). Citizens are urged to find out the facts and increase their awareness by appreciating the various savings that can be made by, for example, switching off lights or using a water butt. Actions are recommended and sources of further information are provided. The campaign helpfully recognizes the significance of the need for incentives and the necessity for environmental action to be seen as normative behaviour alongside awareness raising. This is encouraging, since a definitively information action approach is unlikely to be effective. However, ISSN Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2003

2 228 Barr considerable academic research suggests that environmental action is influenced by a range of factors that are as yet not fully appreciated by policymakers. This paper outlines these factors using an approach that draws upon established work from North America where social scientists, in particular psychologists, have researched environmental behaviour for several decades. Using what might broadly be termed a social psychological approach, a range of frameworks and models have been utilized to examine the impact of both theoretically and empirically derived variables on a range of environmental actions. The remainder of this paper therefore focuses on demonstrating the range of factors influencing environmental action and provides empirical evidence from a study of waste management behaviour in Exeter to demonstrate the role of such variables and the theoretical approach adopted. Knowledge and environmental action At the heart of government policymaking is the notion that appropriate knowledge will have some tangible effect on behaviour. Geographers and other social scientists have been far from absent in the debates surrounding the role of knowledge and environmental action. This work has been focused around several related themes that have examined the so-called linear model of information dissemination, the subjectivity of scientific knowledge, the significance of the rhetorical situation and the local contextualization of environmental issues. Focusing on the rational framework of information dissemination, Eden has criticized the predominant linear model of policy influence which assumes a one-way flow of information from science to policy and society (1998, 426). What MacNaghten and Jacobs (1997) have termed the objective model of behavioural change is predicated on the assumption that inaction is determined by people s ignorance of the facts (MacNaghten and Urry 1998, 212). Accordingly, Burgess et al. have argued that: sustainability is predicated on the belief that individuals and institutions can be persuaded to accept responsibility for the production of environmental problems and change their everyday practices to alleviate future impacts. (Burgess et al. 1998, 1446) These authors and others within and beyond geography have argued that environmental problems are constructed in such a way that behaviour is dependent on a greater range of influences than merely a linear process of information to action, which seeks to fill the value action gap in a system that has been described as A-I-D-A (Awareness Information Decision Action). Specifically, focus has centred on the discourses of environmentalism and the individual s response to these arguments. At the beginning of the policy process, Eden ( ) has argued that the scientization and politicization of environmental issues has meant that individuals have become disenfranchised by the nature of scientific information regarding environmental problems, such that individuals may rely on their own sensory organs to construct opinions on environmental change, rather than objective science. This form of scientization inevitably leads to forms of politicization, whereby science is no longer aloof from the policymaking process. Consequently, individuals may seek other forms of knowledge based on locally contextual understandings. However, even where supposedly scientific information is rejected, Myers and MacNaghten (1998) have demonstrated that knowledge obtained from non-governmental or non-scientific sources is also interpreted in terms of an individual s previous experiences, which depends on how people link them to their everyday lives and their relations to organisations and others (1998, 351). What Myers and MacNaghten have termed the rhetorical situation is therefore crucial in determining the interpretation of environmental information. Finally, the relation of information pertaining to global environmental issues (Bulkely 2001 and Hinchliffe 1996 provide useful examples of global warming) provides further barriers to information dissemination. Hajer (1995) has cogently argued that individual environmental discourse is rooted in local and contextual discourse narratives that frame environmental issues in everyday life. This notion is also emphasized by Burningham and O Brien when they argue that:... frameworks for environmental understanding and action cannot be imposed from outside such contexts. (Burningham and O Brien 1994, 929) This being the case, it would seem unlikely that information campaigns aimed at highlighting global, or even national, concerns will have a significant impact on behaviour, given the embedded nature of local environmental discourse, the alternative rhetorical situations that individuals encounter, along with a rejection of objective scientific knowledge from government sources.

3 Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour 229 Geographers and other social scientists have therefore revealed a great deal concerning the relationship between knowledge, its providers and those who receive it. However, research from social psychologists in North America has pointed to a range of factors that also influence environmental action, quite apart from awareness of environmental problems. Geographers have also studied several of these influences, although from an alternative methodological perspective. Although the majority of the literature reviewed in the following section is from a psychological perspective, the implications for geographers researching environmental action are evident. The insight that social psychologists can offer to the study of environmental action could complement a great deal of the work already undertaken in the discipline to date. Environmental action: values, situation and psychology Drawing on research from North America, Australasia and Europe, there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that a wide variety of factors influence environmental action. These can be characterized as environmental and social values, situational factors and psychological variables. Social and environmental values Until recently, equivocal evidence surrounded the role of environmental values in shaping environmental action. A considerable amount of confusion was generated by the apparently interchangeable use of terms that appeared to measure the same construct. Environmental concern, attitudes and values have all been operationalized to measure what should arguably be termed environmental values, since these are the basic criteria people use to select and justify actions and to evaluate people (including the self) and events (Schwartz 1992, 1). Taking this as a basic definition, empirical research has demonstrated that there are essentially three continua of values that are of relevance to environmental behaviour. First, Stern et al. (1995) and Corraliza and Berenguer (2000) have demonstrated the utility of the two value dimensions identified by Schwartz and Blisky (1987) and Schwartz (1992). They argued that individuals could be placed on value continua ranging from egoistic to altruistic and from conservative to open to change. The evidence provided by Stern et al. (1995) and Corraliza and Berenguer (2000) showed that across a range of environmental actions, those individuals who were altruistic and who were open to change were more likely to take part in environmental behaviour. Such evidence provides a basis for a social value dimension to environmental action. Second, there is what might be termed a relational value continuum. This incorporates the work of Schwartz (1992), Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) and Dunlap et al. (2000). This continuum places biocentrism at one end and anthropocentrism at the other. Briefly, biocentrism conceptualizes the human relationship with nature as egalitarian and promotes a belief that nature has intrinsic value, whereas anthropocentrism can be characterized as the dominance of humans over nature, with nature being explicitly for human use and thus containing no intrinsic value. A large number of researchers have found that biocentrists tend to be more proenvironmental, a good example being Steel s (1996) study of environmental activism in Canada. Third, there are what can be termed belief driven values. O Riordan (1985) gives a good example of how such values can be conceptualized. Ecocentrists, on the one hand, see the solution to environmental problems as lying in a working relationship with nature to resolve conflicts between society and nature. Technocentrists, on the other hand, argue that environmental problems are intrinsically the result of a lack of technological development and that modernization will resolve environmental dilemmas. Evidence for the effect of such values can be seen from Thompson and Barton s (1994) study of environmental attitudes and values. Practically, there is little doubt that environmental values do play a role in influencing environment action. The question remains, though, as to what role, either directly or otherwise, they play in shaping environmental behaviour. Situational factors A second group of variables that have been linked to environmental behaviour can be characterized as situational factors. These pertain to an individual s access to given services, their socio-demographic make-up and their knowledge and experience of the relevant behaviours. The effect of a given service evidently differs according to the behaviour in question, but in general research has predictably shown that those who have greater access to services, such as recycling schemes, local bus services or the opportunity to purchase greener

4 230 Barr produce, are more likely to be pro-environmental (Guagnano et al. 1995; Derksen and Gartell 1993). A second set of variables relates to socio-demographics. A wide range of social variables have been linked to environmental action, such as age, gender, education, income and family type. Stereotypically, research has provided evidence for higher levels of pro-environmental behaviour amongst younger, female, well-educated, wealthy individuals in nuclear families (Hines et al. 1987). However, the research and methods used to analyse such data have been called into question by a number of workers, such as De Oliver (1999), who examined water conservation in San Antonio and found almost all of the trends listed above to be the inverse. Accordingly, although evidence exists for a demographic basis of environmental action, it can only be described as equivocal at best. Thirdly, as the principal basis for governmental campaigns, environmental knowledge may seem at first hand a self-evident factor influencing behaviour. However, research into environmental action has demonstrated that there are both different types of knowledge and alternative processes by which such knowledge is accessed and processed (Simmons and Widmar ). From a geographical perspective, this can be related to the debates pertaining to scientization, rhetorical situations and local contextualization outlined above. From a social psychological perspective, Schahn and Holzer (1990) have distinguished two types of knowledge when examining environmental action: abstract and concrete. The former relates to knowledge concerning environmental issues: problems, causes, solutions and so on. The latter relates to behavioural knowledge that can be utilized and acted upon. Hines et al. (1987) argued that abstract knowledge was the most significant type when predicting environmental action, yet Schahn and Holzer s evidence conflicts with this. Despite these differences, Stern (1992) has argued that the source of knowledge, quite apart from its content, may be of great significance, relating to its frame of reference and how such knowledge is conveyed (see also MacNaghten and Urry 1998). As such, Costanzo et al. (1986) have emphasized the stages of knowledge gathering, from information perception, favourable evaluation, understanding and remembering, which all have to be attained before a behavioural response can be undertaken. Without doubt, knowledge plays a key role in activating environmental action, but this may pertain as much to how such information is perceived as well as its content. Psychological variables There are a variety of variables that researchers have linked to environmental action which at first glance seem ad hoc in nature, but which provide a valuable insight into the personality and perceptual bases of environmental behaviour. Hopper and Nielsen (1991) and Van Liere and Dunlap (1978) have argued that environmental action can be conceptualized partly as altruistic behaviour (Schwartz 1977). In their study of recycling behaviour, Hopper and Nielsen demonstrated that those individuals who perceived what they termed an environmental need (or problem) and who felt morally obliged to act without any incentive or penalty were far more likely to recycle waste regularly than those who assigned the problem to other individuals. Acting for the benefit of others with no definitive personal benefit appears to be significant in influencing environmental action. In a series of articles, De Young ( ; De Young and Kaplan ) has argued that intrinsic motivation plays a crucial role in motivating reduced consumption behaviour. Those individuals who gain satisfaction from environmental action, such as being frugal or recycling bottles, were more likely to maintain their behaviour after an initial start. Later work by De Young (1996) has provided a fascinating insight into the structure of intrinsic motivation, which focuses around the satisfaction individuals gain from environmental action such as a sense of well-being and self-worth. These satisfactions appear to heavily influence the continued behavioural commitment of the individual. Further significant factors that have been outlined by psychologists are subjective norms, highlighted by authors such as Chan ( ) and Tucker (1999). The influence of others behaviour and, in particular social pressure, has been shown to affect a number of environmental behaviours. Most notably, kerbside recycling, as a readily visible behaviour, has been shown to exert significant social pressure on non-participants to put their bin out (Oskamp et al. 1991). These normative social pressures can also be seen in regard to other environmental actions, such as the reduction in the profligate use of water sprinklers in the garden. Evidently, these normative processes are contingent upon an awareness of a social pressure to change behaviour, which may not be the case in regard to more habitual action (e.g. switching off lights in unused rooms). Baldassare and Katz (1992) and Segun et al. (1998) have argued that the threat posed by environmental problems, such as air pollution or global warming,

5 Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour 231 can have a significant impact on the degree to which individuals are motivated to change behavioural practices so as to attempt to alleviate the problem. As such, this relates to the degree to which individuals perceive that a given behavioural response will have the desired effect. Higher levels of such response efficacy are likely to yield higher levels of action on behalf of citizens. This has been shown by authors such as Eden (1993) and Hinchliffe (1996) who have demonstrated that a lack of response efficacy can be extremely detrimental:... the scope for individual householders to make significant or even slight changes to their lifestyles... was regarded as extremely limited. (Hinchliffe 1996, 59) A large number of environmental behaviours are also affected by self-efficacy and the extent to which individuals perceive that they have the time and resources to act. Vining and Ebreo (1990) found that recycling behaviour was significantly affected by perceptions of the time allocated to recycling and the convenience of recycling facilities. This finding raises questions regarding the prioritization of environmental issues amongst individuals and their willingness to place environmental issues above other concerns. Finally, Selman ( ) has argued that environmental citizenship also exerts a powerful influence on environmental behaviour. The facets of environmental citizenship constitute strong environmental rights along with personally ascribed responsibilities. Environmental citizenship is grounded in cohesive local communities where decisions on the environment are taken locally and by democratic means. This has been a theme that psychologists have not engaged with and here geographers have made significant contributions, pertaining to the lack of collectivism (Harrison et al. 1996) perceived by British individuals. This has been strongly related to response efficacy, whereby individuals appear willing to accept responsibility only for issues over which they have direct influence (MacNaghten and Jacobs 1997; MacNaghten and Urry 1998). As can be appreciated from this review, the influences on environmental action are varied and include factors that are both familiar in geographical research, as well as those highlighted by those within psychology. The approach adopted in this paper is to examine these varying influences within a social psychological framework in order to demonstrate some of the benefits such an approach can have. The Exeter study: household waste management To demonstrate the approach taken, data from a recent research project in Exeter, Devon, will be used to provide further evidence for the impact of all three sets of variables to different degrees in alternative behavioural settings. The results are displayed using the conceptual framework of environmental behaviour developed during the research (see Barr et al. 2001) which examined the relationship between environmental values, situational factors and psychological variables and a stated intention to act as compared to various waste management behaviours (Figure 1). Waste management in Exeter: setting, data, methods and analysis Exeter, a city of inhabitants in south-west England, has operated a kerbside recycling scheme for a number of years, using a twin bin system whereby residents separate recyclable material from other refuse into a green and grey bin, respectively. The system currently covers half of the city. In addition, the local authority publicizes ways of both reducing and reusing waste in the home. The city has, in relation to the rest of England and Wales, an enviable recycling rate of 23 per cent (Exeter City Council 2002) and has recently opened a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) to cope with extra demand. The study comprised a questionnaire survey of 981 randomly selected households from the Electoral Figure 1 Conceptual framework of the research

6 232 Barr Register. The contact and collect method was used to administer the survey from September to December The questionnaire, following the structure outlined in Figure 1, comprised 12 pages asking respondents questions regarding their current recycling, reuse and waste minimization behaviour (the three elements of household waste management as set out in Waste strategy 2000 and by the local authority see Figure 2 for item detail). Items also measured behavioural intention (operationalized as a willingness to act), as well as the range of environmental values, situational factors and psychological variables described in the literature review above. Although reported behaviour was measured in the research, the bias caused by over-reporting was reduced by placing the items at the beginning of the survey so as to elicit a more honest response. Items were scored using frequency and agreement scales or yes/no items. The response rate was 69 per cent, with 673 responses received. The data were analysed using the MINITAB Release 12 statistics package and utilized a series of factor and multiple regression analyses in order to examine which variables influenced a given set of statistically defined behaviours. The first stage in the analysis process was to examine the extent to which the behavioural variables (i.e. the 20 waste minimization, reuse and recycling items) comprised a single or multi-dimensional empirical element. Using a principal components factor analysis with orthogonal rotation, three behavioural factors emerged, conforming well to waste minimization (five items), reuse (five items) and recycling (ten items). Using the same technique on the other variables, a set of empirically defined and numerically suitable scales were formed for use in regression analysis. Using stepwise regression, the best set of predictors for each empirically defined behaviour were determined. Finally, a normal regression analysis was run to determine the impact of each variable on the given behaviour. For the purposes of this paper, emphasis is placed on a comparison between waste recycling and minimization behaviour in order to demonstrate the wide variations in both respondent behaviour and influencing variables. The net result of these analyses was the ability to examine the effect of each constituent element of the conceptual framework (Figure 1) on behaviour, in this case waste reduction, reuse and recycling activities. Results Figure 2 shows the reported behaviour of the sample. As stated above, the focus of this section will be on waste minimization (or reduction) behaviour and recycling. The entire behavioural element of the questionnaire is included for comprehensiveness. The major point to draw from the behavioural data is that recycling behaviour was well defined, since there were only a minority of individuals who occasionally recycled (rarely, sometimes or usually). Most individuals always or never recycled. In contrast, minimization behaviour was both more infrequent in general and had greater variation. Very few individuals attempted, for example, to always reduce packaging, look for re-usable containers or used their own bag when shopping on a regular basis. Nonetheless, over half the sample did sometimes or usually undertake these activities. The central assumption of governmental policymaking is that awareness is the key to increasing environmental action. The results from this study challenge this assumption in two ways. In the first instance, they demonstrate the efficacy of other variables in influencing environmental action. However, they also demonstrate that even within one behavioural realm (e.g. waste management) there are radically alternative factors that influence different sub-types of behaviour. Figure 3 shows a path diagram demonstrating the influence of the measured factors on recycling behaviour. The diagram is set out according to the conceptual framework (Figure 1) used in the research (see Barr et al for a justification of this approach). The central elements pertain to the difference between stated intention ( willingness to act ) and behaviour. Environmental values, situational factors and psychological variables influence this core relationship. The path diagram (Figure 3) has boxed variables that relate to the items in the questionnaire, which are either single factors (such as the situational variables) or aggregated scales derived from the factor analyses (environmental value and psychological items). Accordingly, the labels provided relate to factorially derived variables and not necessarily those described in the literature review above, but are nonetheless self evident. In the first instance, it is evident that a range of factors influence recycling behaviour, quite apart from those deriving from awareness or education campaigns. Indeed, the diagram shows that alternative factors influence behavioural intention and behaviour (see Barr et al for a discussion of the theoretical aspects of the framework). It is apparent that recycling behaviour is predicted by relatively few variables. These focus around

7 Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour 233 Figure 2 Reported waste minimization, reuse and recycling behaviour

8 234 Barr Figure 3 Path diagram of recycling behaviour showing the principal factors that predict recycling behaviour Note: arrows increase with size according to their predictive power and a dashed line indicates a negative relationship. e is the error not explained by the path coefficients and is derived from the square root of 1 R 2. Coefficients adjacent to variable names in italics and underlined indicate the overall effect of that variable on recycling behaviour

9 Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour 235 situational and psychological factors. There is very little influence exerted by environmental values. Taking situational factors first, three variables are of significance. In the first instance, the size of house (building) indicates that those who live in larger homes are more likely to recycle more of their waste. This is likely to relate to further situational characteristics, such as the dominance of the kerbside recycling scheme amongst larger homes and the ability of individuals to store material therein. Thus, housing stock poses problems for local authorities implementing kerbside schemes, over which they and the residents have little power. Second, local waste knowledge is evidently of great significance. In this study, this referred to the extent to which individuals were aware of what could be recycled in either their wheeled bin or at civic amenity sites (concrete knowledge). Evidently, greater knowledge of this enhances the ability to participate, yet it is of note that other measures of abstract knowledge, such as global environmental knowledge or awareness of the waste problem in Britain, did not have any impact on recycling behaviour. Finally, access to kerbside recycling was of crucial importance. In the case of Exeter s residents, access to a recycling service which was convenient was one of the most crucial factors eliciting participation. In regard to psychological variables, it is evident that awareness and acceptance of the norm to recycle was a further significant variable increasing recycling rates. Further analysis showed that access to kerbside recycling was a very strong predictor of the awareness of a norm to recycle. The process by which such awareness and norm acceptance is activated is probably through the public nature of kerbside recycling, where wheeled bins are left at the bottom of driveways for collection on a specified day. There is effectively social pressure exerted to elicit participation. Indeed, there is a further dimension to the kerbside recycling phenomenon, namely that the perception of convenience and the reduction in effort required is significant. Finally, quite apart from these findings, it is apparent that those who were concerned about waste issues and who felt obliged to recycle their waste ( active concern ) were more willing to recycle. Such a finding does imply a small impact of moral obligation, but as Figure 2 shows, the direct effect on behaviour is somewhat reduced. Overall, the analysis of recycling behaviour demonstrates that recycling rates in the Exeter sample were dominated by one structural factor (kerbside recycling) that in turn affected psychological variables, such as subjective norms and perceptions of convenience and simplicity. Although knowledge had a significant role, this was behavioural (concrete) knowledge. Thus, in the case of recycling, service availability and the psychological perception thereof appeared to be the major determinant of behaviour. Although such data provide good evidence for the influence of situational and psychological factors in guiding environmental behaviour, further evidence from the Exeter case study provides not only more data to challenge the assumption that awarenessraising is the solution to environmental problems, but also shows the alternative determinants of environmental action within one behavioural realm. Figure 4 demonstrates the divergence between the influences on recycling on the one hand and waste minimization on the other. The structure of waste minimization behaviour is different to recycling in regard both to the number and type of variables. There is a greater role for environmental values, along with a larger number of socio-demographic variables. Firstly, in terms of environmental values, the study operationalized a series of environmental value items drawn from previous research as described above. Two factors emerged which appeared to conform to biocentric anthropocentric ( importance of nature ) and ecocentric technocentric ( human priority ) continua. Those who believed in the intrinsic importance of nature were more likely to reduce their waste, as were those who saw some human priority in decisionmaking on the environment. These two are not in conflict necessarily, since both factors emphasized environmental protection, but with alternative emphasis. Nonetheless, it is evident that those who saw value in the environment, for whatever rationale, were more likely to reduce their waste. Secondly, in regard to situational factors, a range of variables were significant, not least the impact of kerbside recycling, which had a negative impact on waste reduction intentions. The reason for this may be a process of behavioural resistance. Those who had a kerbside recycling facility evidently did their bit by sorting their recyclable materials and to this extent may have perceived that this constituted a waste minimization process in itself. To this extent, waste minimizers might be seen as a fairly small sector of the community. However, Figure 4 also reveals that those with previous experience of recycling before they received their kerbside recycling bin were more likely to be willing to minimize their waste. This implies that a significant sub-group of kerbside recyclers was actually

10 236 Barr Figure 4 Path diagram of minimization behaviour showing the principal factors that predict minimization behaviour Note: arrows increase with size according to their predictive power and a dashed line indicates a negative relationship. e is the error not explained by the path coefficients and is derived from the square root of 1 R 2. Coefficients adjacent to variable names in italics and underlined indicate the overall effect of that variable on minimization behaviour

11 Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour 237 willing to reduce waste. Thus, although not shown in Figure 4, there may be significant behavioural feedback mechanisms that have a positive impact on other actions, such as waste minimization and reuse. Of the other predictors of waste reduction behaviour, two socio-demographic variables are of note. Females and older people were more likely to reduce their waste, implying a greater demographic basis for waste reduction, as opposed to recycling behaviour. Evidently the reasons for these trends are speculative, but it might be suggested that in regard to the tendency for females to reduce waste more than males, the reason lies in current household allocations of chores such as shopping, whereby females may have more opportunity to make choices pertaining to waste minimization. In regard to age, this pattern may relate to a more widely gauged phenomenon pertaining to what can be termed the war generation. Hallin (1995) demonstrated how those in their mid to late twenties during the Great Depression or Second World War were far more likely to lead a frugal lifestyle and make significant efforts to reduce their waste. Finally, waste reduction was significantly greater amongst those individuals who were aware of current policy debates and used a variety of sources to obtain information regarding waste reduction. Again, it is significant that neither general environmental knowledge nor knowledge of the waste problem (both abstract knowledge concepts at the heart of current campaigns) were significant. However, it appears that those who understood policy developments such as sustainable development and Local Agenda 21 and who used a range of media to obtain information about the environment were more likely to reduce their waste. Again, such evidence points to a more sophisticated approach by individuals in how they access and utilize knowledge. In regard to psychological factors, attitudes towards reducing waste were (as with recycling) affected by concern over the waste problem, but also the perception that waste was a threat to their personal welfare. Thus, individuals who appreciated the waste problem as a serious threat evidently saw the means by which to alleviate this threat as reducing the waste that they produced. However, in a wider context, the influence of citizenship factors must also be noted. The belief that individuals have a right to a clean environment and are personally responsible for that environment influenced attitudes to waste minimization significantly. Indeed, such factors were significant in predicting behaviour as well, with those who felt there was a good sense of community and local democracy more likely to reduce their waste. Overall then, waste minimization can be characterized as fundamentally different to recycling behaviour (Figure 2). Its antecedents are also evidently different (Figures 3 and 4). They incorporate environmental values, behavioural experiences, socio-demographics and notions of environmental citizenship. As such, minimization behaviour, by the fact that it is less frequent and more distributed in nature, is marginal (as opposed to normative) behaviour, undertaken by significant but distributed groups of individuals who have specific environmental concerns or who have minimized due to previous experiences. Discussion The research presented in this paper provides further evidence that there are a great many factors to consider when promoting environmental action and that these variables will vary according to the behaviour in question. The assumption that basic knowledge dissemination will have more than a minor indirect effect on behaviour is naïve. Environmental behaviour has a range of determinants situational, psychological and value-based factors that combine to provide a complex behavioural response by citizens. These findings should be seen as complimentary and additional to those of geographers such as Burgess et al. (1998), rather than in conflict with their conclusions regarding the interpretation of environmental knowledge. In regard to the Exeter research, the findings indicate that waste minimization and recycling behaviours have widely differing antecedents. In terms of recycling, high levels of behaviour were achieved when convenience was maximized, effort minimized and subjective norms activated. In all three cases, this had been undertaken by the introduction of kerbside recycling. This simple (although expensive) policy choice has enabled the city to greatly increase its recycling rate and, through good knowledge of what and where to recycle, has ensured the system is used effectively. From the recycling viewpoint, individuals appear to be well aware of the need to recycle and will generally do so if given the means. Conversely, those without kerbside recycling, despite being enthusiastic about such behaviour, were unlikely to recycle material. Thus, the data show that recycling is well accepted

12 238 Barr by citizens as an activity that is worth undertaking, so long as the means exist. In contrast, waste minimization behaviour is far more infrequent than recycling and appears to be dependent on various value-based and demographic criteria. In addition, those individuals who perceived a threat from growing amounts of waste and believed that they personally had a responsibility to reduce the waste problem were more likely to minimize waste. All of these facts suggest that waste minimization is far from normative, accepted behaviour, but rather the realm of a minority of concerned and socially responsible individuals who believe in the intrinsic value of nature and, most crucially, who do not on the whole recycle. As such, general awareness campaigns would seem to be inadequate in this respect, since different sectors of the community are active, whilst others are not. The evidence presented therefore points to three flaws in assuming that increasing awareness of environmental problems can change behaviour. In the first instance, behaviour is contingent upon at least three alternative sets of factors: personal situation, psychological perceptions and personality characteristics, and finally environmental values. The second flaw relates to the first in that alternative behaviours, even within the same behavioural realm (such as waste management), have divergent antecedents. The third flaw relates to the implementation of policy, in particular awareness campaigns that take little account of the demographic trends in environmental behaviour. As such, any notion of targeting key sectors is lost. In broader theoretical terms, the research cited and presented here provides some key insights into environmental action. Recycling behaviour appears on the whole to be accepted behaviour. Through a process of good service provision and effective communication of local facilities, recycling could become what is already the case within certain localities, that is normative behaviour. By its very nature, recycling is normative in the localities in which kerbside collections are used. Since collections are undertaken regularly and on a specified day, there is an instant awareness of a norm to recycle on the behalf of residents. This awareness evidently needs to be transformed into an acceptance of the norm before action is extant (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Acceptance is likely to be gained due to social pressure that, especially within a suburban context, is constructed around accepted social practices which are violated at the expense of one s social position in the neighbourhood, a similar process to owning a car that looks out of place. Thus, recycling in some areas has probably become a further measure of social normality. Conversely, waste reduction or minimization behaviour is not normative. This is the case for two related reasons. In the first instance, reducing waste is not a structured behaviour with repetitive behavioural practices that are socially visible to a given population. Accordingly, the social acceptance of individuals based on waste reduction is more complex as there are a great number of other contingent factors apart from placing a recycling bin by the kerbside. That stated, there are processes that can be assessed socially, but not necessarily within localized contexts, such as the use of shopping bags, purchase of packaging and so on. Thus, minimization behaviour as it stands in the UK at present is less simply measured by individuals who can easily ascribe others behaviour as normative or not. Nonetheless, there is the nagging question regarding the extent to which such a situation is due to the diversity of possible responses that have thus far led to a proliferation of waste minimization actions that have cumulatively constructed somewhat contested meanings of waste minimization. Such a process may have stunted progress towards a social acceptance measure of waste reduction, which in any case might be covered by recycling behaviour. The evidence from this research supports the notion that waste reduction behaviour is marginal, for whatever reason. Waste minimization appears to be linked to age cohorts, gender-based household consumption practices, environmental values and an acceptance by individuals that they are responsible for environmental protection. Most interestingly, however, is the finding that kerbside recyclers are not generally waste minimizers. Such a result implies that recycling may be seen by individuals as the solution to the waste problem. The results of the Exeter study and from environmental behaviour research in general imply that there are a plethora of determinants of a variety of behaviours that are themselves at varying stages of normative development. Specifically, waste management behaviour has three alternative behavioural dimensions (recycling, minimization and reuse) that have significantly different determinants. Accordingly, waste policy should seek to go further beyond generalized environmental awareness campaigns and should instead focus on grounding policy in social scientifically derived research.

13 Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour 239 In terms of further research, this paper has demonstrated an alternative, but not necessarily conflicting, approach to that adopted by most geographers. The challenge for researchers now lies in examining environmental behaviour so that the significant findings of both research agendas can be utilized to assist in policy formulation and implementation. At the most basic level, this will focus around the use of alternative methodologies, but it will also involve crossing disciplinary boundaries, which is perhaps the greatest challenge in the current RAE climate. References Baldassare M and Katz C 1992 The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices Environment and Behavior Barr S, Gilg A W and Ford N J 2001 A conceptual framework for understanding and analysing attitudes towards household waste management Environment and Planning A Bulkely H 2001 Governing climate change: the politics of risk society Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (New Series) Burgess J, Harrison C M and Filius P 1998 Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship Environment and Planning A Burningham K and O Brien M 1994 Global environmental values and local contexts of action Sociology Chan R Y K 1998 Mass communication and proenvironmental behaviour: waste recycling in Hong Kong Journal of Environmental Management Chan R Y K 2001 Determinants of Chinese consumers green purchasing behaviour Psychology and Marketing Corraliza J A and Berenguer J 2000 Environmental values beliefs and actions: a situational approach Environment and Behavior Costanzo M, Archer D, Aronson E and Pettigrew T 1986 Energy conservation behavior: the difficult path from information to action American Psychologist Department of the Environment (DoE) 1994 Sustainable development: the UK strategy HMSO, London Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2002 Achieving a better quality of life: review of progress towards sustainable development DEFRA, London Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR) 1999 A better quality of life: a strategy for sustainable development for the UK The Stationary Office, London DETR 2000 Waste strategy 2000 The Stationary Office, London De Oliver M 1999 Attitudes and action: a case study of the manifest demographics of water conservation Environment and Behavior Derksen I and Gartell J 1993 The social context of recycling American Sociological Review De Young R Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: the role of intrinsic motivation Journal of Environmental Systems De Young R 1986 Some psychological aspects of recycling: the structure of conservation satisfactions Environment and Behavior De Young R 1996 Some psychological aspects of reduced consumption behavior: the role of intrinsic motivation and competence motivation Environment and Behavior De Young R and Kaplan S Conservation behavior and the structure of satisfactions Journal of Environmental Systems Dunlap R E and Van Liere K D 1978 The New Environmental Paradigm Journal of Environmental Education Dunlap R E, Van Liere K D, Mertig A G and Jones R E 2000 Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale Journal of Social Issues Eden S 1993 Individual environmental responsibility and its role in public environmentalism Environment and Planning A Eden S 1996 Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions Public Understanding of Science Eden S 1998 Environmental issues: knowledge, uncertainty and the environment Progress in Human Geography Exeter City Council 2002 Recycling matters ( Accessed 30 August Fishbein M and Ajzen I 1975 Belief attitude intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research Addison- Wesley, Reading MA Guagnano G A, Stern P C and Dietz T 1995 Influences on attitude behavior relationships: a natural experiment with kerbside recycling Environment and Behavior Hajer M 1995 The politics of environmental discourse Oxford University Press, Oxford Hallin P O 1995 Environmental concern and environmental behaviour in Foley a small town in Minnesota Environment and Behaviour Harrison C M, Burgess J and Filius P 1996 Rationalizing environmental responsibilities: a comparison of lay publics in the UK and the Netherlands Global Environmental Change Hinchliffe S 1996 Helping the earth begins at home: the social construction of socio-environmental responsibilities Global Environmental Change Hines J M, Hungerford H R and Tomera A N 1987 Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: a meta analysis Journal of Environmental Education Hopper J R and Nielsen J M 1991 Recycling as altruistic behavior: normative and behavioural strategies to explain participation in a community recycling program Environment and Behavior

14 240 Barr MacNaghten P and Jacobs M 1997 Public identification with sustainable development: investigating cultural barriers to participation Global Environmental Change MacNaghten P and Urry J 1998 Contested natures Sage, London Myers G and MacNaghten P 1998 Rhetorics of environmental sustainability: commonplaces and places Environment and Planning A O Riordan T 1985 Future directions in environmental policy Environment and Planning A Oskamp S, Harrington M J, Edwards T C, Sherwood D L, Okuda S M and Swanson D C 1991 Factors influencing household recycling behavior Environment and Behavior Schahn J and Holzer E 1990 Studies of environmental concern: the role of knowledge gender and background variables Environment and Behavior Schwartz S H 1977 Normative influences on altruism in Berkowitz L ed Advances in experimental social psychology vol 10 Academic Press, New York Schwartz S H 1992 Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical test in 20 countries Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Schwartz S H and Blisky W 1987 Toward a psychological structure of human values Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Segun C, Pelletier L G and Hunsley J 1998 Toward a model of environmental activism Environment and Behavior Selman P 1996 Local sustainability: planning and managing ecologically sound places Paul Chapman Publishing, London Selman P 1998 Local Agenda 21: substance or spin? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Simmons D A and Widmar R Participation in household solid waste reduction activities: the need for public education Journal of Environmental Systems Steel B S 1996 Thinking globally acting locally? Environmental attitudes behavior and activism Journal of Environmental Management Stern P 1992 What psychology knows about energy conservation American Psychologist Stern P C, Dietz T and Guagnano G A 1995 The new ecological paradigm in social psychological context Environment and Behavior Thompson S C G and Barton M A 1994 Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes towards the environment Journal of Environmental Psychology Tucker P 1999 Normative influences in household recycling Journal of Environmental Planning and Management United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) 1992 Agenda 21: action plan for the next century United Nations, Rio de Janeiro Van Liere K D and Dunlap R E 1978 Moral norms and environmental behaviour: an application of Schwartz s norm-activation model to yard burning Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vining J and Ebreo A 1990 What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers Environment and Behavior