Bratt 1999
Bratt 1999
Bratt / CONSUMERS’
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BEHAVIOR / January
BEHAVIOR
1999
CONSUMERS’
ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR
Generalized, Sector-Based, or Compensatory?
AUTHOR’S NOTE: This study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council. An
earlier version of this article was presented at the conference “Society, Environment,
and Sustainability—The Nordic Perspective,” in Oslo, Norway, August 25-27, 1997. I
wish to thank the participants of the session “Public Opinion and Sustainability” at
the conference and two anonymous referees for Environment and Behavior for valu-
able comments on earlier drafts.
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 31 No. 1, January 1999 28-44
© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
28
instance, increased recycling of waste might generate the attitude that limit-
ing total consumption becomes less important. Consumers may regard recy-
cling as a compensation for producing an increasing total amount of waste.
We should also ask how recycling correlates with behavioral changes in other
sectors. Could recycling legitimize less environmentally friendly behavior
elsewhere? Or, is improved recycling rather accompanied by an increase in
consumers’ general environmental concern? Three alternative hypotheses
may be formulated regarding the relation between different environmental
behaviors:
We can name the three possible behavioral tendencies: (a) generalized be-
havior, (b) sector-based behavior, and (c) compensatory behavior. Which of
these three terms coincides with consumers’ environmental behavior will
have implications for environmental politics.
Apparently, most studies on environmental behavior concentrate on one
type of behavior; a remarkable number focus on recycling. The choice to
scrutinize recycling rather than other behaviors may seem reasonable: Overt
recycling behavior is more easily tested, and households’waste treatment can
be modified simply by improving the convenience of recycling (Derksen &
Gartrell, 1993; Huffman, Grossnickle, Cope, & Huffman, 1995; Porter,
Leeming, & Dwyer, 1995).
Recycling is also regarded as a major object in developing sustainable
consumption. However, although increased recycling may be easy to bring
about, its contribution to sustainable consumption may be partially ambiguous.
For instance, the overall environmental effect can be questionable if the in-
troduction of recycled material (such as paper) into the manufacturing of new
products creates a greater need for transport than in traditional production.
Still, the recycling of waste will be one of several important aims in promot-
ing long-term environmental protection.
We might even hope that the introduction of recycling bins and invitations
to recycle will contribute to the development of a general environmental con-
cern among consumers. Improved recycling could lead to a modification of
attitudes, as attitudes often follow behavior (Aronson, 1992). If such new atti-
tudes also include general environmentally friendly attitudes, we might even
METHOD
QUESTIONS ASKED
should expect to find differences between the cities in regard to other behav-
iors if the modification of recycling behavior has effects on these other
behaviors. Still, the lack of longitudinal data should be acknowledged as a
limitation of the study.
PARTICIPANTS
RESULTS
TABLE 1
Expressed Attitudes Toward Compensatory Behavior
Attitude Toward Compensatory Behavior
Recycling Not Not Driving
Compensates Driving Car Car Compensates
for Driving Compensates for for Using Airplane
Car Not Recycling for Holidays
TABLE 2
Regression of Attitude Toward Recycling as
Compensatory Behavior, B and β Coefficients
Variable B β
TABLE 3
Annual Waste per Inhabitant (in kilograms,
including recycled waste) and Percentage Recycled in the Four Cities
Trondheim Fredrikstad Stavanger Kristiansand
Total Growth Recycled Total Growth Recycled Total Growth Recycled Total Growth Recycled
Kg % % Kg % % Kg i% % Kg % %
TABLE 4
Correlations Between Self-Reported Behaviors
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015
Importance
Placed on
Use of Use of Attention to Environmental Limiting
Car to Work Car in Environmental Quality of Cleaning Limiting Use of
or School Spare Time Information Products Heating Warm Water
DISCUSSION
TABLE 5
Correlations Between Different Recycling Behaviors
APPENDIX
Questions in the Survey That Are Analyzed in This Article
RECYCLING
“Where is the nearest place you can deliver household garbage for recycling?”
(Separate answers were given for paper, cartons, glass, and food.) Possible answers
were: (a) the sanitation department has put out a container for sorted waste paper next
to my regular garbage can; (b) it can be put out at the street, where it is collected at
regular intervals; (c) container exists nearby (for instance, at the grocery shop); (d) no
possibility nearby; I have to travel for a considerable distance; (e) no possibility in our
city or municipality; (f) don’t know. (The answer “The sanitation department . . . ” was
reclassified as “Having curbside recycling”; all others were reclassified as “Not hav-
ing curbside recycling”.)
“When you throw away household waste, how much of the following materials do
you sort out from other waste and place in/deliver to separate containers for recy-
cling?” (Separate answers were given for newspapers, paper used in food packaging,
cartons, glass, and food.) Answers were measured on a 5-point scale: all, most of it,
some, a little, nothing. “Not relevant” was an additional possibility; this answer was
reclassified as “missing.”
PURCHASING
“How important are the following issues to you when you buy cleaning products?”
Answers to the question on “the environmental friendliness” of cleaning products are
reported (7-point scale, from very important to very unimportant).
“When you buy everyday items, how often do you look for information on the en-
vironmental impact of the products?” (never, seldom, sometimes, often, always).
TRANSPORT BEHAVIOR
“How often during a ‘normal’ week do you use your car to travel to work or
school?”
“How often do you use car for leisure traveling (trips to visit family or friends,
health club, walking tour, hobbies, etc.)?” (never or more seldom than once a month,
once or twice a month, about once a week, several times a week, about every day).
“How often did you travel by airplane for holidays (including weekend trips) in
1995?”
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
“Do you try to conserve heat in your home? (no, only a little, some, a lot).
“Do you try to conserve warm water in your home? (no, only a little, some, a lot).
“If I deliver paper and glass to recycling bins instead of throwing them out along
with other garbage, I’m already doing something for the environment. Then it doesn’t
matter that much if I use my car to some extent.” (7-point scale, from agree completely
to disagree completely.)
“If I do not drive a car, I’m already doing something for the environment. Then it
doesn’t matter that much if I throw out glass and paper in the ordinary garbage.” (7-
point scale).
“If one doesn’t drive a car to work, one is already doing something for the environ-
ment. Then it doesn’t matter that much if one travels by airplane on holiday, even
though the airplane uses a lot of fuel and possibly harms the environment.” (7-point
scale).
EDUCATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE
NOTE
1. The minor correlation found between recycling and residential heating applies only to
those respondents who had residential curbside recycling of paper (see Table 4). There was,
however, no difference in reported heating between these two groups (Ms = 2.69 and 2.64 on a
scale from 1 to 4, with 4 being limiting heating a lot; p = .27).
REFERENCES
Aronson, E. (1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory makes a comeback. Psycho-
logical Inquiry, 3, 303-311.
Derksen, L., & Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. American Sociological Re-
view, 58, 434-442.
Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (1992). Persönliches Umweltverhalten. Diskrepanzen
zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit [Ecology in everyday life—Inconsistencies between
environmental attitudes and behavior]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsy-
chologie, 44, 226-251.
Edelman, M. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Huffman, K. T., Grossnickle, W. F., Cope, J. G., & Huffman, K. P. (1995). Litter reduction. A re-
view and integration of the literature. Environment and Behavior, 27, 153-183.
Lee, Y.-J., de Young, R., & Marans, R. W. (1995). Factors influencing individual recycling be-
havior in office settings. A study of office workers in Taiwan. Environment and Behavior, 27,
380-403.
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying:
The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 137, 189-204.
Manfredo, M. J., & Shelby, B. (1988). The effect of using self-report measures in tests of
attitude-behavior relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 731-743.
Oskamp, S., Harrington, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Sherwood, D. L., Okuda, S. M., & Swanson, D.
C. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior,
23, 494-519.
Pickett, G. M., Kangun, N., & Grove, S. J. (1993). Is there a general conserving consumer—A
public-policy concern. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12, 234-243.
Porter, B. E., Leeming, F. C., & Dwyer, W. O. (1995). Solid waste recovery. A review of behav-
ioral programs to increase recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 122-152.
Reams, M. A., Geaghan, J. P., & Gendron, R. C. (1996). The link between recycling and lit-
ter—A field study. Environment and Behavior, 28, 92-110.
Schultz, P. W., & Oskamp, S. (1996). Effort as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship:
General environmental concern and recycling. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 375-383.
Scott, D., & Willits, F. K. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior. A Pennsylvania survey.
Environment and Behavior, 26, 239-260.
Tracy, A. P., & Oskamp, S. (1983-1984). Relationships among ecologically responsible behav-
iors. Journal of Environmental Systems, 13, 115-126.