0% found this document useful (0 votes)
25 views17 pages

Bratt 1999

Uploaded by

Thảo Lê
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
25 views17 pages

Bratt 1999

Uploaded by

Thảo Lê
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 17

ENVIRONMENT

Bratt / CONSUMERS’
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BEHAVIOR / January
BEHAVIOR
1999
CONSUMERS’
ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR
Generalized, Sector-Based, or Compensatory?

CHRISTOPHER BRATT (Ph.D., 1992, University of Oslo, Norway) is a re-


searcher at the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research. His current re-
sarch interests focus on attitudes and behavior.

ABSTRACT: The means applied to promote environmentally friendly behavior need


to be evaluated. This study investigates the possibility that actions meant to improve
recycling may have unintended consequences in fields other than the target behavior.
The relation between self-reported environmental behaviors in several sectors is stud-
ied, with particular attention given to the question of whether increased recycling may
develop into a compensatory behavior for less environmentally friendly behavior
elsewhere. Results from a survey, including approximately 1,500 Norwegian con-
sumers, are presented. No tendencies toward compensatory behavior are detected.
Furthermore, the survey does not indicate that the introduction of measures meant to
increase recycling brings increased attitudinal support for compensatory behavior. At
the same time, the survey supports the view that there is no “general” environmental
behavior among consumers. On the other hand, the correlations between different be-
haviors increase when the behaviors in question become more similar.

Various actions are taken to promote consumers’ contribution to environ-


mental protection, hoping to advance “sustainable consumption.” The differ-
ent means applied need to be evaluated to determine which are suited to
promote environmentally friendly behavior.
An issue to consider when evaluating means will be whether they have any
impact on environmental behaviors other than the target behavior. For

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

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


Bratt / CONSUMERS’ ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR 29

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:

Hypothesis 1: Environmentally friendly behavior has a tendency to be general-


ized. The development of environmentally friendly behavior in one area has a
positive effect on other behaviors with environmental impact.
Hypothesis 2: There is no correlation between environmental behavior in different
sectors; different behaviors with environmental impact are kept in isolation.
Hypothesis 3: Environmentally friendly behavior in one field is used to compen-
sate for less environmentally friendly behavior elsewhere.

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

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


30 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 1999

hope that they will contribute to environmentally friendly behavior in


general.
Research seems not to support such optimism. For instance, a study that
investigated whether a recycling program would have any effects on the dis-
posal of nonrecyclable litter found no carryover effects (Reams, Geaghan, &
Gendron, 1996). Furthermore, different types of pro-environmental behav-
iors do not appear to be based on a generalized environmental concern, and
different environmental behaviors have shown only minor correlations
(Diekmann & Preisendörfer, 1992; Lee, de Young, & Marans, 1995; Oskamp
et al., 1991; Pickett, Kangun, & Grove, 1993; Tracy & Oskamp, 1983-1984).
Consequently, there is no evidence of the “general” environmentally friendly
consumer; environmental behavior, rather, seems to be sector based. This
also implies that researchers cannot consider recycling behavior to be repre-
sentative of people’s environmental behavior in general.
On the other hand, we should take the possibility into account that a nega-
tive relation between environmental behaviors may develop. Political
authorities might apply measures for recycling as “symbolic politics” (Edel-
man, 1964), rather than as instrumental policies to maintain environmental
protection. Actions taken to increase recycling could then be a substitute for
even more important, although more costly, measures. The same might apply
to the individual consumer: If recycling becomes more convenient, the con-
sumer might concentrate his or her environmentally friendly behavior on
recycling.
Making recycling a convenient behavior probably will motivate more
people to recycle. When recycling requires little effort, it is less dependent on
an individual’s attitudes toward recycling (Schultz & Oskamp, 1996). On the
other hand, people seem to have a tendency to act in line with their environ-
mental concern in situations that demand few sacrifices, rather than situa-
tions that involve major inconvenience (Diekmann & Preisendörfer, 1992).
Diekmann and Preisendörfer argued that people may use their environmen-
tally friendly behavior in “low-cost” situations as an “alibi” for their environ-
mental concern.
Because several studies conclude that there is an inconsistency between
environmental attitudes and behavior (e.g., Mainieri, Barnett, Valdero, Uni-
pan, & Oskamp, 1997; Scott & Willits, 1994), we might expect that people
develop cognitive dissonance in regard to their environmental behavior. If a
conflict between environmental attitudes and behavior actually does lead to a
perceived dissonance, a strategy to reduce this dissonance could be to canal-
ize environmental concern to a specific behavior requiring few or no sacri-
fices—thereby creating an alibi for one’s own environmental friendliness.
For instance, “I’ve started to recycle and so I already act in an environmentally

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


Bratt / CONSUMERS’ ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR 31

friendly manner. Therefore, it is less important for me as an individual to


limit the use of my car.”
We also should consider other mechanisms possibly leading to losses
along with gains achieved by improved recycling. The introduction of resi-
dential curbside recycling of a specific material may have negative conse-
quences on the recycling of other materials if different materials previously
were delivered collectively to a drop-off container. When paper recycling can
be performed using a curbside recycling bin, the utility of delivering the other
materials to the more distant drop-off location might be perceived as too low
in relation to its costs.
Therefore, the concern of this study is, What happens to other environ-
mental behaviors if the behavior in one field is modified? Can measures
meant to increase recycling have unintended and unwanted consequences for
other behaviors?

METHOD

QUESTIONS ASKED

This study was concerned with four types of environmental behavior:


recycling, the use of cars, energy consumption, and the choice of everyday
items. Data on individual behavior rely on self-reports. The questions
referred to in this article are included in the appendix.
Recycling of household garbage was operationalized as questions about
the degree of recycling of different materials: newspapers, paper used in food
packaging, beverage cartons, glass, and food. On the basis of the answers to
these questions, an index variable of recycling was constructed, simply by
adding the values of the different recycling behaviors. Several questions in
the survey investigated transport behavior. In this article, I concentrate on
how many days during a normal week the respondents used their cars to travel
to work or school and the extent to which they used their cars in their spare
time.
Energy consumption was measured by asking to what degree the respon-
dents tried to limit residential heating and residential consumption of warm
water. Choice of everyday items was covered by a question concerning every-
day products in general and a question on choice of cleaning products.
One table in this article also refers to the use of airplanes; the respondents
were asked how often they had taken an airplane to go on holiday or weekend
trips during the previous year.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


32 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 1999

Obviously, the questions on behavior have limitations. It seems reason-


able to assume that the questions on the use of cars (and airplanes), and there-
after the questions on recycling, are more reliable than the other questions as
sources of data representing actual behavior. Generally speaking, self-
reports of behavior have bounded validity compared with observation of
overt behavior (Manfredo & Shelby, 1988). It also should be noted that the
use of single indicators for both attitudes and behaviors implies limitations;
single items will to some degree weaken data through measurement errors.
For example, the recycling of newspapers is measured by only one question.
In this case, however, a question on the recycling of paper used in food pack-
aging was included to give additional information on paper recycling. News-
paper recycling may be convenient, whereas the recycling of paper and other
materials used in food packaging may be somewhat less so.
The study also applied official statistics on recycling and total waste pro-
duction. These figures, provided by the Norwegian National Bureau of Sta-
tistics, were collected from each of the four cities included in the survey.
These four cities were chosen after consultation with the Norwegian Pollu-
tion Control Authority and are meant to represent both municipalities that are
regarded as pioneers in recycling as well as municipalities more reluctant in
this area. In the city practicing the most advanced measures (Kristiansand),
each household had residential curbside recycling of paper, cartons, and
organic waste. In another city (Stavanger), all households had residential
curbside recycling of paper and cartons; 9% of the households also had resi-
dential curbside recycling of organic waste. In the other two cities (Fredrik-
stad and Trondheim), very few households had residential curbside
recycling. Households without residential curbside recycling could use drop-
off bins, located either nearby or farther away. In addition, many households
had the possibility to have paper picked up from the roadside on a regular
basis.
Testing the relation between the respondents’ self-reported behaviors was
fairly simple, by the use of correlation and factor analysis. In addition to
behavior, we considered attitudes toward compensatory behavior: The ques-
tions included one on using recycling as compensatory for traveling by car
and two concerning less motoring as compensatory for either not recycling or
traveling by airplane when going on holiday. Two tables also refer to “general
environmental attitude”; this variable is a factor, extracted by a factor analy-
sis of six general questions on environmental protection.
The study is based on one survey. Therefore, we cannot evaluate the devel-
opment within the cities (except in regard to aggregated waste production and
aggregated recycling, where we use official figures). However, because
measures taken to improve recycling had been effective for several years, we

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


Bratt / CONSUMERS’ ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR 33

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

The questions referred to in this article were included in an extensive ques-


tionnaire sent to 3,000 people in four Norwegian cities. The respondents had
been randomly selected in each city, using the national register of each city’s
inhabitants. The two larger cities (Stavanger and Trondheim, with 104,000
and 140,000 inhabitants, respectively) each were represented by 1,000
selected people; the two smaller cities (Fredrikstad and Kristiansand, with
65,000 and 69,000 inhabitants, respectively) each were represented by 500
selected people. Because of Norwegian regulations, I could send only one
follow-up letter (with the questionnaire added). To improve the response rate,
I included all who filled out the rather long questionnaire in a lottery for three
gift tokens (each worth 5,000 Norwegian kroner, a little more than US$700).
Of the 3,000 selected people, 52% responded.

RESULTS

ATTITUDES TOWARD COMPENSATORY BEHAVIOR

Compensatory behavior received only minor attitudinal support (see


Table 1). Analysis of variance detected no significant difference between the
four cities in regard to these questions.
The attitude that not driving a car compensates for taking an airplane
received the highest support (17.1%). However, this attitude revealed no dis-
tinct correlation with reported behaviors. The two other attitudes toward
compensatory behavior showed only minor correlations with how often the
respondents used a car to go to work or school.
There was also a minor negative correlation (r = –.10) between general
recycling behavior and the attitude that not driving a car compensates for not
recycling. However, the attitude toward recycling as a compensatory behav-
ior for using a car showed no relation with reported recycling. Equally, when
the existence of residential curbside recycling of paper, cartons, food, and
glass was entered as independent variables in a linear regression, we found no
effect on the attitude toward recycling as a compensatory behavior (R2 = .01).

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


34 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 1999

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

Agree 13.2% 3.5% 17.1%


Neither/nor 18.9% 13.0% 30.2%
Disagree 68.0% 83.4% 52.7%
Correlations with:
Recycling behavior .00 –.10** –.03
Use of car .15** .12** –.06*
Use of airplane for holidays .02 .03 .04
Age .11** .00 –.05
Gender (male = 0; female = 1) –.08** –.07** .04
Education –.19** –.07* –.05
General environmental attitude –.32** –.31** –.14**
Analysis of variance:
Differences between cities p = .67 p = .34 p = .57
NOTE: Answers are aggregated from a seven-point scale. Attitudes toward compensatory behavior
are correlated with specific behaviors, sociodemographic variables, and the general environmental
attitude. Analyses of variance of the differences between the cities were in expressed attitudes to-
ward compensatory behavior.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

In Table 1, the impact of age, gender, and education on attitudes toward


compensatory behavior appears to be low, yet there is some correlation
between higher education and less acceptance of recycling as compensatory
behavior (r = –.19). Also, general environmental attitude reveals signifi-
cant negative correlations with acceptance of compensatory behavior,
both in regard to using recycling as a compensatory behavior for driving a car
(r = –.32) and in regard to not using a car as compensatory for not recycling
(r = –.31).
Table 2 presents the results of a linear regression with recycling, the use of
cars, age (including age × age to test for a possible nonlinear effect of age),
gender, education, and the respondents’ general environmental attitude as
independent variables, using the attitude toward recycling as compensatory
for driving a car as the dependent variable. The explanatory power of the gen-
eral environmental attitude was maintained (β = –.27), and the other variables
lost explanatory power. The total explanation provided by this regression is
limited, however (R2 = .11).

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


Bratt / CONSUMERS’ ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR 35

TABLE 2
Regression of Attitude Toward Recycling as
Compensatory Behavior, B and β Coefficients
Variable B β

Recycling .05 .05


Use of car .06** .09**
Age .00 .03
Age × Age .00 .01
Gender –.09 –.03
Education –.12* –.08*
General attitude –.38** –.27**
R2 .11 .11
2
Adjusted R .10 .10
*p < .05. **p < .01.

INCREASED WASTE PRODUCTION BY RECYCLING?

Table 3 refers to official statistics on recycling and total waste production


(the figures on the latter include waste delivered for recycling), thereby test-
ing whether increased recycling by households seems to lead to higher waste
production. (According to the Norwegian National Bureau of Statistics [A.
Falnes, personal communication, August 26, 1997], the figures for 1993 and
1994 are inferior. They therefore are omitted in the table.) We found no ten-
dency toward increased waste production following improved recycling.
Table 3 shows what clearly differs between the cities, in line with what we
should expect as a consequence of the measures taken by the local authori-
ties. Self-reported behaviors in the survey gave similar results. On the other
hand, the respondents’ self-reported behaviors revealed no significant vari-
ance between the cities in regard to the following behaviors: (a) attention
given to environmental information on everyday items, p = .83; (b) impor-
tance placed on the environmental qualities of cleaning products, p = .13; and
(c) residential use of warm water, p = .42. Differences in limiting residential
heating were very low, but still statistically significant, p = .08, possibly a
result of the variance in the average temperatures of the four cities. This inter-
pretation is supported by the similarity in residential consumption of warm
water. There is also a variance in reported use of cars, p = .00, but this variance
seems not to be related to the other environmental behaviors (it may be due to
the differences in public transport provided in the cities). Thus, when com-
paring the cities, we found no indication that the modification of recycling
behavior is accompanied by changes in other behaviors.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


36
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015

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 % %

1992 231 2 266 7 290 16 270 18


1995 293 26.8 13 321 20.7 13 325 12.1 23 291 7.8 50
1996 322 9.9 19 316 –1.6 18 302 –7.1 26 280 –3.8 56
Bratt / CONSUMERS’ ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR 37

THE RELATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT BEHAVIORS

Table 4 compares self-reports on behavior given by the respondents.


Seven self-reported behaviors are included in the table: (a) an index variable
of recycling, (b) how often a car is used during a week to travel to work or
school, (c) use of a car in spare time, (d) attention given to environmental
information on everyday items, (e) importance placed on the environmental
qualities of cleaning products, (f) limiting residential heating, and (g) limit-
ing residential use of warm water. (If we consider the total number of days
traveled to work or school in a week, the results derived for the use of cars are
similar to those presented in Table 4.)
There were no negative correlations between any of the environmentally
friendly behaviors; there were, on the other hand, several significant positive
correlations. The two questions on the use of cars correlated significantly (r =
.40). This correlation, however, was reduced to .13 when we regarded only
those who reported having their own car. (If married or in a common-law
relationship, the respondent had to report that his or her household had more
than one car to be included in this group.) Similarly, we found correlations
between home-related behaviors. Self-reports on behaviors that are very
similar revealed major correlations—for example, limiting residential heat-
ing and limiting residential use of warm water (r = .52), and attention given to
environmental information on everyday items and the choice of cleaning
products (r = .51). But even reports on rather distinct behaviors such as
energy consumption and attention given to environmental information on
everyday items revealed some correlation (r = .17; r = .24) .1
An exploratory factor analysis of the reported behaviors gave us three fac-
tors (see Table 4): one for recycling behavior and information-based behav-
ior, one for residential energy consumption, and one for transport behavior.
Although we received three distinct factors here, we also saw that the correla-
tions between reported behaviors increase as the behaviors become more
comparable, as demonstrated by Figure 1.
In Table 5, we found that different recycling behaviors correlated signifi-
cantly if the respondents had no residential curbside recycling of waste.
Where curbside recycling of paper had been introduced, the correlations
between the recycling behaviors dropped. The weakened relation between
the recycling of newspapers and both food and glass was expected (increased
recycling of paper is not followed by increased recycling of other materials).
However, the recycling of food and glass was lower among those who had
residential curbside recycling of paper. Thus, we have an indication that the
recycling of other materials may decrease when residential curbside recy-
cling of paper is introduced. At the same time, the correlation between the

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


38

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

Recycling, without curbside


recycling of paper (N = 836) .09* .02 .18** .19** .03 .13**
Recycling, with curbside
recycling of paper (N = 680) .01 –.05 .22** .15** .14** .15**
Use of car to work or school .40** –.02 .00 .00 .01
Use of car in spare time –.07* –.06* .00 –.06*
Attention to environmental
information .51** .17** .24**
Importance of environmental
quality of cleaning products .13** .21**
Limiting residential heating .52**
Factor loadings (using Varimax) Recycling
Factor 1 .52 –.05 .04 –.81 .82 –.01 –.18
Factor 2 .05 .03 –.03 .17 –.14 .88 .85
Factor 3 –.17 .82 .83 –.10 .09 .02 –.02
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Bratt / CONSUMERS’ ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR 39

Figure 1: Correlations Between Selected Behaviors From Table 4, Depending


on the Similarity of the Behaviors

recycling of newspapers and paper used in food packaging is reduced for


those having residential curbside recycling of paper (from .62 to .29). Possi-
bly, this phenomenon may be related to the convenience of the recycling of
newspapers versus the recycling of paper used in food packaging. When resi-
dential curbside recycling of paper is introduced, the recycling of newspapers
becomes a convenient behavior, whereas the recycling of food packaging
may require greater effort. Somewhat surprisingly, however, we saw that the
correlation between food and glass recycling also dropped when respondents
had residential curbside recycling of paper (from .24 to a statistically insig-
nificant .09).

DISCUSSION

There were no negative correlations between any of the environmental


behaviors tested. However, such negative correlations on the individual level
may seem unlikely. If there actually were negative correlations between dif-
ferent behaviors, they might be neutralized on the aggregated level (i.e., dif-
ferent individuals may use different behaviors as compensatory behavior).
Probably more important than the correlations on the individual level is the
fact that when reported behaviors were aggregated to represent each of the
four cities, we found no indication that the modification of recycling behav-
ior was followed by changes in other behaviors. We also saw that the total
waste production did not increase along with improved recycling. Therefore,

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


40 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 1999

TABLE 5
Correlations Between Different Recycling Behaviors

Residents Without Residential Curbside Use of Recycling


Recycling of
Food
Packaging
(paper) Food Glass
M SD M SD M SD

1.49 1.62 0.43 1.13 2.26 1.67


Correlation with recycling of:
Newspapers .62** .15** .40**
Food packaging (paper) .32** .39**
Food .24**

Respondents With Residential Curbside Recycling of Paper


Recycling of
Food
Packaging
(paper) Food Glass
M SD M SD M SD

2.78 1.35 0.25 0.85 2.07 1.65


Analysis of variance p.= .00 p.= .03 p.= .07
Correlation with recycling of:
Newspapers .29** -.05 .16**
Food packaging (paper) .08 .14*
Food .09
NOTE: Correlations are related to whether the respondents reported having residential curbside re-
cycling. Respondents who reported having residential curbside recycling of either glass or food are
not included in the table. People having compost in their own garden are excluded from the data re-
garding food recycling. Differences in means of recycling behaviors are tested with analyses of vari-
ance. All means and standard deviations are on a scale of 0–4.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

the survey does not indicate that environmental protection is challenged by


compensatory behavior among consumers.
On the other hand, we found minor tendencies toward less recycling of
materials other than the target material where residential curbside recycling
of paper had been introduced. The explanation may be that when households
do not have residential curbside recycling of paper, paper is delivered along

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


Bratt / CONSUMERS’ ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR 41

with other materials to a drop-off container nearby. When paper is picked up


for recycling at one’s own home, the utility of transporting recyclable waste
to a drop-off container will be reduced.
We may conclude that this study has given further support to the use of
measures to increase the recycling of household waste. Except for the minor
decrease in the recycling of other materials, we found no evidence for nega-
tive effects imposed by residential curbside recycling. Still, the possibility
that a more substantial compensatory behavior may develop should be con-
sidered in future research.
Two weaknesses of this study are apparent: It used self-reports on behav-
ior, and it was based on one survey only. In self-reported behavior, people
may express higher consistency than observation of overt behavior may
reveal, and this study is not able to evaluate any development within the cities
(except in the case of aggregated recycling behavior). We also should
acknowledge the limitation imposed by using only single indicators of atti-
tudes and behaviors.
Although a hypothesis of compensatory behavior gains little or no support,
it is not equally obvious whether environmental behavior should be regarded
as sector based. On one hand, the results from this Norwegian study lend sup-
port to the conclusion drawn by several other authors: We found no general
environmental concern underlying different environmental behaviors. Cor-
relations between different behaviors—if present—were not impressive.
There were, however, correlations between behaviors that are worth con-
sideration. We found correlations between environmental behaviors as long
as we stayed within a distinct behavioral field. Such correlations may partly
be due to the nature of the questionnaire—behaviors are self-reported, and
answers to questions on behavior may easily have been influenced by a wish
to demonstrate consistency. Still, the answers given by the respondents are
interesting because they indicate that regarding environmental behavior as
sector based may be only half the truth: Rather than concluding that environ-
mental behavior is sector based, we may say that the more distant two behav-
ioral fields are from each other, the lower their correlation appears to be. Still,
the general conclusion is that the correlations between environmental behav-
iors investigated are low.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


42 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 1999

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).

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


Bratt / CONSUMERS’ ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR 43

ATTITUDE TOWARD COMPENSATORY BEHAVIOR

“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

Education is measured on a 4-point scale, with university education as the highest


value.

ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDE

The variable “general environmental attitude” is a latent variable, as shown by a


factor analysis of six questions on general environmental attitudes.

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

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015


44 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 1999

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.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 26, 2015

You might also like