Bachelor of Science Thesis, Environmental Science Programme, 2020
Alexandra Lindström and Sandra Karlsson
Is knowledge enough?
A qualitative study investigating the
knowledge-action gap of environmental
Rapporttyp Report category Licentiatavhandling Examensarbete AB-uppsats C-uppsats D-uppsats Övrig rapport Språk Language Svenska/Swedish Engelska/English Titel
Är kunskap tillräckligt? – En kvalitativ studie som undersöker the knowledge-action gap hos miljövetarstudenter.
Title
Is knowledge enough? - A qualitative study investigating the knowledge-action gap of environmental science students.
Författare
Author
Alexandra Lindström and Sandra Karlsson
Sammanfattning
För att kunna bromsa, om inte stoppa, klimatförändringarna behöver vi alla bidra till att minska våra växthusgasutsläpp. Denna vetskap har funnits med oss länge, men trots det har inte utsläppen minskat utan snarare ökat. För att förstå orsaken till varför vi inte agerar i linje med vad vi vet behöver vi studera beteenden. I denna uppsats fokuserar vi på beteenden på individnivå. Det gap som finns mellan vad vi vet och vad vi gör har många namn (e.g. value-action gap, attitude-behavior gap) där man studerar det utifrån olika perspektiv. Att förstå vad som skapar detta gap är mycket komplext. Det finns därmed inte ett rätt svar på denna fråga utan det behövs många olika kompletterande teorier och modeller. Majoriteten av de studier som gjorts undersöker uppfattningar om gapet hos personer utan högre utbildning inom miljövetenskap. Vilket har bidragit till att bristande kunskap i många fall setts som en av de största bidragande faktorerna till overksamhet. Vi vill därmed i vår studie bidra med ett perspektiv på gapet utifrån personer som redan har en högre utbildning inom miljövetenskap, och kallar således gapet för knowledge-action gap. Vi genomförde en kvalitativ studie med tre fokusgruppsintervjuer med miljövetarstudenter från Linköpings universitet. Resultatet visar på att det, trots en högre utbildning och kunskap, finns många olika, individuella, strukturella och ansvarsrelaterade, faktorer som gör att en individ inte agerar miljövänligt. Genomgående i analysen för dessa är att den situationella aspekten spelar in samt att kunskapen om miljö- och klimatfrågans komplexitet i många fall kan bidra till overksamhet.
Abstract
In order to slow down, if not stop, climate change, we all need to contribute to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. This knowledge has been with us for a long time, but nevertheless emissions have not decreased, but rather increased. To understand the reason why we don't act in line with what we know, we need to study behaviors. In this paper we focus on behaviors at the individual level. The gap that exists between what we know and what we do has many names where it is studied from different perspectives, and to understand what creates this gap is very complex. There is therefore not just one answer to this question and many different complementary theories and models are needed. The majority of the studies carried out on the subject examine perceptions of the gap among people without higher education in environmental science, which has contributed to knowledge being, in many cases, seen as one of the main contributing factors to inaction. In our study, we want to contribute with a perspective on the gap in people who already have a higher education in environmental science. We conducted a qualitative study with three focus group interviews with environmental science students at Linköping University. The results show that, despite higher education and knowledge, there are various individual, structural and responsibility factors that hinder individuals from acting environmentally friendly. Throughout the analysis the situational aspect comes into play and that knowledge of the complexity of environmental and climate issues can in many cases contribute to inaction. ISBN _____________________________________________________ ISRN LIU-TEMA/MV-C—20/16--SE _________________________________________________________________ ISSN _________________________________________________________________ Serietitel och serienummer
Title of series, numbering
Handledare Tutor Per Gyberg
Nyckelord
Knowledge-action gap, attitude-behavior gap, beteendevetenskap, klimatförändringar, klimatpsykologi, miljöpsykologi, miljövetenskap, miljöutbildning.
2020-06-08
URL för elektronisk version
http://www.ep.liu.se/index.sv.html
Tema Miljöförändring, Miljövetarprogrammet
Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental change Environmental Science Programme
1. Preface
First of all, we would like to thank our informants that participated in our focus group study for letting us borrow some of your valuable time. Without you, we would not have been able to go through with this thesis. We also want to thank our mentor, Per Gyberg, for being patient with us throughout the entire process, never hesitating to take his time to help us and for pushing us to constantly improve our thesis so that we would be proud of the result. Sandra Karlsson and Alexandra Lindström
2. Sammanfattning
För att kunna bromsa, om inte stoppa, klimatförändringarna behöver vi alla bidra till att minska våra växthusgasutsläpp. Denna vetskap har funnits med oss länge, men trots det har inte utsläppen minskat utan snarare ökat. För att förstå orsaken till varför vi inte agerar i linje med vad vi vet behöver vi studera beteenden. I denna uppsats fokuserar vi på beteenden på individnivå. Det gap som finns mellan vad vi vet och vad vi gör har många namn (e.g. value-action gap, attitude-behavior gap) där man studerar det utifrån olika perspektiv. Att förstå vad som skapar detta gap är mycket komplext. Det finns därmed inte ett rätt svar på denna fråga utan det behövs många olika kompletterande teorier och modeller. Majoriteten av de studier som gjorts undersöker uppfattningar om gapet hos personer utan högre utbildning inom miljövetenskap. Vilket har bidragit till att bristande kunskap i många fall setts som en av de största bidragande faktorerna till overksamhet. Vi vill därmed i vår studie bidra med ett perspektiv på gapet utifrån personer som redan har en högre utbildning inom miljövetenskap, och kallar således gapet för knowledge-action gap. Vi genomförde en kvalitativ studie med tre fokusgruppsintervjuer med miljövetarstudenter från Linköpings universitet. Resultatet visar på att det, trots en högre utbildning och kunskap, finns många olika, individuella, strukturella och ansvarsrelaterade, faktorer som gör att en individ inte agerar miljövänligt. Genomgående i analysen för dessa är att den situationella aspekten spelar in samt att kunskapen om miljö- och klimatfrågans komplexitet i många fall kan bidra till overksamhet.
3. Abstract
In order to slow down, if not stop, climate change, we all need to contribute to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. This knowledge has been with us for a long time, but nevertheless emissions have not decreased, but rather increased. To understand the reason why we don't act in line with what we know, we need to study behaviors. In this paper we focus on
behaviors at the individual level. The gap that exists between what we know and what we do has many names where it is studied from different perspectives, and to understand what creates this gap is very complex. There is therefore not just one answer to this question and many different complementary theories and models are needed. The majority of the studies carried out on the subject examine perceptions of the gap among people without higher education in environmental science, which has contributed to knowledge being, in many cases, seen as one of the main contributing factors to inaction. In our study, we want to contribute with a perspective on the gap in people who already have a higher education in environmental science. We conducted a qualitative study with three focus group interviews with environmental science students at Linköping University. The results show that, despite higher education and knowledge, there are various individual, structural and responsibility factors that hinder individuals from acting environmentally friendly. Throughout the analysis the situational aspect comes into play and that knowledge of the complexity of environmental and climate issues can in many cases contribute to inaction.
4. Keywords
Knowledge-action gap, attitude-behavior gap, behavioral change, climate change, climate psychology, environmental psychology, environmental science, environmental education.
Index 1. Preface ... 1 2. Sammanfattning... 2 3. Abstract ... 3 4. Keywords... 3 5. Introduction ... 6 6. Aim ... 8 6.1 Research questions ... 8 7. Background ... 9 7.1 Previous research ... 9 7.2 Our research ... 11 8. Theory ... 12
8.1 Knowledge and education ... 12
8.2 Our definition of the gap, knowledge-action gap ... 13
8.3 Information deficit model ... 13
8.4 Theory of planned behavior ... 14
8.5 Theory of interpersonal behavior ... 15
8.6 Value- belief- norm theory ... 16
9. Method... 17
9.1 Planning of study ... 17
9.2 Qualitative versus quantitative method ... 17
9.3 Choice of method for collection of data ... 17
9.4 Reliability and validity ... 18
9.5 The role of moderator ... 18
9.6 Size of focus group ... 19
9.7 Number of groups ... 19
9.8 Recruitment of participants ... 19
9.9 Ethics ... 20
9.10 Interview guide and conduct of interviews ... 21
9.11 Transcription and thematization ... 22
9.12 Method of analysis ... 22
9.13 Framing of pro-environmental behavior ... 23
10. Analysis ... 24
10.1 Knowledge and information ... 24
10.2 Individual preferences... 26
10.2.1 Laziness, pleasure and comfort ... 26
10.2.2 Priorities and justification... 27
10.2.3 Negative feelings ... 27
10.2.4 Values ... 28
10.2.5 Habits ... 29
10.3 Responsibility ... 30
10.3.1 Why me? /sacrifice ... 30
10.3.2 Political versus individual responsibility... 30
10.4 Structural obstacles ... 31
10.4.2 Economic factors ... 32 10.4.3 Social norms ... 33 11. Discussion ... 35 11.1 Situational factors ... 35 11.2 Knowledge ... 37 11.3 Fatalism ... 38 11.4 Responsibility ... 39 12. Conclusion ... 40 13. References ... 41 14. Appendix ... 44
5. Introduction
Climate change is one of the greatest threats humanity faces today. How we act in the coming years will determine how life on earth will appear. Already at 1.5 °C global warming, the consequences will be palpable with more extreme weather, rising water levels and reduced sea ice in the Arctic. If emissions continue as they do now, we will most likely reach a 1.5-degree temperature rise between 2030 and 2052 (IPCC,2018). In order to decelerate or hinder this development, greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically reduced. The concept of sustainable development was coined after the United Nations released its Brundtland Report in 1987. A few years passed and at the 1992 World Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the concept of sustainable development began to become more familiar to the public. Moser (2016) means that both awareness regarding climate change and the research field have increased in recent years. Since then, education has been highlighted as an important aspect when it comes to environmental and climate issues (Bart et al 2012; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). In recent years, focus and responsibility has increasingly been placed on the individual level, where behavioural change is central (Bauman, 2001; Dahl, 2014; Gyberg & Palm, 2009).
Nevertheless, people do not seem to change their behaviour to the extent necessary. Studying perceptions of behaviors to understand why we humans act or do not act environmentally friendly will thus be crucial for creating change (Bauman, 2001)
What creates environmentally friendly behaviors or prevents us from acting is a complex issue to which there is no simple answer (Agyeman & Kollmuss, 2002). People are affected differently by the knowledge of the problems and have different possibilities to make a
change. In many cases, it can also be about how we choose to deal with it and whether it leads to action or not (Ojala, 2007). There are various theoretical frameworks for understanding behaviors as well as studies that try to explain the gap that exists between what we think is right and what we believe that we do. In other words, what creates inaction. Nevertheless, there is no definitive answer to that question (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
The gap has many different names such as the, value-action gap, attitude-behavior gap, knowledge-attitude-practice gap (KAP-gap) etc. There are some differences in how one chooses to study the gap. Some look at the relationship between environmental concern and action while others look at the relationship between people's beliefs and behavior. However, ultimately, they all seek to understand why people's values and attitude do not correlate with their behavior (Blake, 1999). This could, for example, be the value that climate change is an important issue or a positive attitude towards eating less meat for the sake of the climate and at the same time not acting or committing to reduce one’s emissions (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
For a long time, various societal actors have attempted to close this gap. The method for doing this has often been based on theories and models that claim that humans make rational choices according to the information available to them. An example of such a theory is Ajzen and Fishbein's theory of planned behavior. The theory is basically that a person's beliefs control behaviors. Policy makers among others have thus tried to change people's beliefs
through providing information to close the gap. The relationship between attitudes and
behaviors, especially more general environmental ones, is much more complex. This has been shown through many unsuccessful campaigns with the aim to change people’s attitudes through information alone. A basic knowledge of a subject is necessary, but the knowledge itself does not have to lead to direct action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Van Koppen & Spaargarden, 2019).
On these grounds, we have chosen to call the gap the knowledge-action gap in our study. We study the gap from a perspective where one has higher education on environmental and climate issues and what their perceptions and experiences regarding acting or not acting environmentally friendly. To be able to do that, we have interviewed environmental science students at Linköping University, through focus groups.
6. Aim
The aim of this study is to investigate how people with a higher education and an interest in environmental and climate issues talk about the knowledge-action gap and what their expressed experiences are.
6.1 Research questions
- How do people with higher education on environmental and climate issues express thoughts and experiences concerning the knowledge-action gap?
- What factors do these people express as barriers in their actions to reduce their impact on the environment and climate?
7. Background
Why do many studies, including ours, focus on the behaviors of individuals? Over the last decade, a historical shift has occurred in the way society looks at who is responsible for hindering climate change. Gyberg and Palm (2009) present this as the process of individualization. The process of individualization has reduced the importance of the collective actions and increased the individual's responsibility (Bauman, 2001; Dahl, 2014). How the media promotes environment and climate change has changed and the focus is now more on behavior and lifestyle than social responsibility. Since society is dominated by both consumption and individual responsibility to act it becomes difficult to deal with collective problems such as climate change. This is something that sociologist Bauman agrees with since he argues that the individual has limited opportunities to create change (Bauman, 2001; Dahl, 2014).
When responsibility falls on an individual level, Gyberg and Palm, (2009) state that knowledge becomes more important, the more responsibility falls on the individual. As responsibility is placed on the individual level, it suddenly becomes important that the individual has more information to be able to make more climate-smart choices in everyday life. Everyday choices will either be considered good or bad for the climate and the individual is faced with constant choices.
7.1 Previous research
One study that has investigated the individual's responsibility and households’ main reasons why they choose not to act environmentally friendly is Gyberg and Rundgren’s book Tio Skäl Att Strunta i Miljön [Ten Common Reasons Not to Care about the Environment] (2013). This book is a collection of various research projects where the common factor is to examine people's knowledge as well as their own perceptions of responsibility when it comes to the environment and energy issues. The studies have been conducted with the help of interviews, observations and text analysis.
This study highlights 10 different reasons why people sometimes choose not to act as climate friendly as they might like or think. Reasons such as: ‘I do not have time to get involved’, ‘why should I do something when no one else is?’ or ‘I already do so much’, are some examples of headlines. Two more examples from the book are sacrifice and prioritization. The thought that I have to sacrifice my own needs for the sake of others and that prioritization is about putting environmentally friendly behaviors against each other and prioritizing some over others.
Another study that investigated the gap was Barth et al’s (2012) article Tackling the Knowledge-Action Gap in Sustainable Consumption: Insights from a Participatory School
'culture of consumption'. This study examines the knowledge-action gap between the fact that there is a broad agreement that today's consumption has a negative effect on the environment and that there still is a trend to continuously consume. Bath et al (2012) wanted to explore the potential of using a transdisciplinary educational approach. The team of researchers involved sociologists, environmental psychologists and educational researchers. The study was
conducted at two secondary schools and two vocational schools in Germany where classes were engaged at different levels. The focus of this project was on creating a new school plan for how to involve and teach sustainability to young people and later examine the potential effects
A questionnaire was conducted to examine students' perceptions of how well they felt they could do something about the problem and their own consumer behaviour. The students were divided into three groups. The first group was students who participated in the program, the second group was students who were aware of the program and participated in some activity but not in the whole program and the last group were the students who were not involved in the program. The students in the first group who participated in the program showed higher scores. They could both see themselves make a bigger difference and they had changed their behaviour. The study also showed that the students in group two had changed parts of their sustainability-oriented consumer behaviour but not as much as the first group. The last group had only changed their behavior to a small extent or not all.
The study's conclusions are that an interdisciplinary approach and active participation is important for closing the gap between knowledge and action. The author emphasizes the importance of active participation by the students. By working with real problems, students get a better understanding and engagement in a certain topic. However, they highlight that many other factors can play a role and that things outside the school can also influence
students' behaviour. There are clear similarities between this study and our own. However, the difference is that our respondents' study at a university level where they have chosen to study environmental science as opposed to the high school students studied in Barth et al. (2012). A third study was done by Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) where they present some of the most influential analytical frameworks for understanding pro-environmental behavior in their research paper. They then analyse these factors that have an impact, positive or negative, on pro-environmental behavior. The aim with their study is to shine light on the complexity of the field and build their own model to do so. They mention loads of different factors in their analysis whereas here we will only mention a few. For example, they analyse the perception people have of their ability to make a change in climate and environmental issues, called locus of control. There are two types of locus of control, internal and external. Internal locus of control reflects that a person has a belief in his or her ability to make a change. On the contrary, external locus of control refers to a person’s disbelief in his or her ability to make a change. When someone has an external locus of control, a common thing to do is to prescribe the responsibility to other powerful actors such as e.g. politicians to solve the issues
Another factor is the different negative responses one could experience to environmental degradation and the coping-strategies one uses to handle them. They argue that negative emotions such as fear, anger and guilt, can cause one to react in different ways, but that any of these feelings mixed together with a sense of external locus of control will not lead to action (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). A common response to these feelings is to go into different defence mechanisms to protect oneself from these unpleasant emotions. These responses can be e.g. apathy, rational distancing or denial. A person that uses rational
distancing is very much aware of the problem but does not invest in it emotionally. Apathy is
often based on many different negative feelings while at the same time believing that it is impossible to change the situation. Therefore, a person might stop listening to and take in information about environmental issues, which further impedes action. Denial is when a person filters the information one gets to fit the reality that one wants to believe (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
Kollmuss and Agyeman also analyse how values play a part in environmental behavior. They state that values are very important in shaping people’s internal motivation to perform or not perform certain behaviors. What shapes our values, however, are several factors. The most influential ones are e.g. family, neighbours, other peer-groups (the microsystem). The other factors that do not influence our values as much, but are just as important, are factors such as the media or political organizations (the exosystem) and cultural contexts of a person’s life (macrosystem). Economic factors also play a very important part in people’s behaviors and decision-making processes, according to Kollmuss and Agyeman. However, exactly how and what role these factors play is very difficult to know. When looking at behaviors, one needs to remember that economic factors are intertwined with other social, infrastructural and
psychological factors. This means that economic incentives and fees work differently on different people. This type of reasoning can be both in favour of and against the environment depending on where the economic incentives lie (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
As the above-mentioned studies show, the main focus is on lay people (households, communities), what knowledge they have and what barriers and drivers they experience towards pro-environmental behaviors. These studies are all very interesting and add important aspects to this complex issue. However, we chose to have another approach in our study for investigating the gap that we think can provide a different perspective to the research field.
7.2 Our research
In our research, we have focused on people with higher education regarding climate issues and from what we can assume a major interest in, environmental issues through focus group interviews. Thus, we study the gap between knowledge and perceptions of behavior. We believe that by only looking at how we can close the gap, through providing information, we tend to miss many important aspects of the problem.
8. Theory
Various theoretical frameworks have been developed to explain the gap between what one thinks is right and how one acts. Even though plenty of studies have been conducted, there is still no definitive explanation and there are various perspectives when it comes to what factors affect the gap (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). The aim of this section is to show that there is a wide variety of models within this research field. By working from an abductive approach there is a possibility to look at previous theories and reconnect these in the discussion while we bring about our own perspective through our emperical material. Below, we will describe a few of the most influential and widely used analytical frameworks for understanding pro-environmental behavior. We will also present the concept of knowledge and our definition of the gap. The theories that will be presented below are; the information deficit model, theory of planned behavior, value-action gap, theory of interpersonal behavior and value-belief-norm theory.
8.1 Knowledge and education
There are different outlooks on the role of knowledge regarding getting someone to act more environmentally friendly. Norgaard (2011) means that the lack of information about climate change is one leading explanation why everyday people do not act in the way that is needed. She means that people need to have a better understanding of the complexity of the issue and a more multidisciplinary view. Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002), on the other hand, say that basic knowledge of a subject is necessary, but the knowledge itself does not have to lead to direct action. Research also shows that even when people are informed about a topic, there can still be differences in what people do and what they feel is right (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Whitmarsh, Seyfang & O ́Neill, 2011).
Different models can be used when it comes to analysing information and communication. Two models that Fiske (2007) cite are the process theory, also called transmission model, and the interactions model. The first model is about transmitting information from one person to another where no dialogue is exchanged. The second model is based on dialogue between two or more partners. This model is more about communication rather than information
transmission (Fiske, 2007). Communicating the climate issue can be done in many ways. Nicholson-Cole´s (2009) study shows that when it comes to climate communication, the fear-inducing approach can draw attention to the issue, but it is a rather an ineffective tool for creating personal commitment and motivation. Some research even says it can be
counterproductive. Furthermore, he says that climate communication that connects to more everyday solutions usually leads to more commitment.
When it comes to education of climate and environmental issues in school Barth et al. (2012) highlights that in interdisciplinary approach and active participation is important for closing the gap between knowledge and expressed thoughts about action. On the contrary, Stern´s (2000) study show that educational approaches by itself have a generally low affect and can
be hard to measure. However, combining educational approaches with, for example, social and institutional factors are by far the most effective way to make a behavioural change (Stern, 2000).
8.2 Our definition of the gap, knowledge-action gap
The focus of our study will be to investigate the gap of people who have higher education which we refer to as the knowledge-action gap. This means that there is a gap between the knowledge one possesses and their perceptions and experiences regarding the action one takes. We look at it from the perspective that there is a gap despite the fact that people have knowledge on the severity of environmental and climate issues. However, knowledge has a relative meaning. It can be received in different ways and at many different levels. The statement that our focus group participants have knowledge about environmental and climate issues is based on their educational background which will be further elaborated on in the methodology section.
8.3 Information deficit model
The information-deficit model is one of the oldest and simplest models for pro-environmental behavior. A linear model which indicates that environmental knowledge leads directly to an environmental attitude which in turn creates pro-environmental behavior. In other words, as long as a person is educated on environmental issues it will lead to pro-environmental behavior. Thus, if a person is not acting environmentally there is simply a lack of knowledge (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
This model is commonly used by NGO’s and governments in order to try and bridge the gap (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
8.4 Theory of planned behavior
Another famous and commonly used theory is Ajzen & Fishbein’s theory of planned behavior (Van Koppen & Spaargarden, 2019). Ajzen and Fishbein try to address the gap between attitude and behavior in their theory of planned behavior. The theory is based on the
assumption that people make rational, strategic behavioral choices based on the information given to them. In line with this assumption, this theory has the perception that a person's intentions directly determine whether or not they act (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
But what creates our intentions? According to the theory of planned behavior, three overarching factors come into play; personal attitude, subjective norm and perceived
behavioral control, which in turn are based on our beliefs. Our beliefs are influenced by
external factors such as personal characteristics (introvert, extrovert or authoritarianism), demographic variables (gender, age and social class) and other variables such as intelligence, status or social role (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Van Koppen & Spaargarden, 2019). Ajzen and Fishbein indicate that information and knowledge about environmental issues and how to adopt pro-environmental behavior are key in creating an environmental intention and behavior.
8.5 Theory of interpersonal behavior
Harry Triandis’ theory of interpersonal behavior shows that there is more to the gap than rational thinking. According to Triandis, why one does not perform a certain
pro-environmental behavior or act non-pro-environmentally is because of one’s intentions, habitual behavior and facilitating factors (situational constraints and conditions). One’s intentions are in turn influenced by social, normative and affective factors which are influenced by rational deliberations. Triandis is one of the few theorists to include emotional responses in a model for pro-environmental behavior. Some researchers believe that unconscious inputs to decision making, such as affective dimensions and habits, may be even more important than our conscious deliberations in decision making (Jackson, 2005).
In summary, there are many aspects taken into account in this model which shows that interpersonal behavior is complex. Accordingly, one is neither fully deliberative nor fully automatic, self-governing nor social. One is influenced by moral beliefs in decision making but to what degree is moderated by emotions and cognitive constraints (Jackson, 2005).
8.6 Value- belief- norm theory
Value-belief-norm theory (VBN) is based on a causal chain between different values, beliefs and personal norms that lead up to behavior change. Stern (2000) explains that the VBN theory is furthermore based on three different values that create a person's individual ecological worldview. These values are altruistic, egoistic and biospheric.
The altruistic and egoistic values are based on an anthropocentric view, where the altruistic value includes a larger group of people and the egoistic value is more focused on oneself. For example, if there is a polluted lake in one’s hometown one could either care about all the people living there being affected (altruistic) or only that oneself is being affected (egoistic). A person is more likely to act pro-environmentally if there is a personal threat or if acting is beneficial to the person. The last one, biospheric value-orientation, is about a view that nature itself has a value. When it comes to the example of a polluting industry, these values are about the effect on nature and animals and not just how us as humans become affected. (Black et. al., 1985; Stern et al., 1993; Stern, 2000).
Stern (2000) explains that there is a difference between beliefs and awareness and that the VBN theory focuses on beliefs. When talking about climate change, a person can have a belief that the consequences of climate change will be massive even if not yet seeing them with their own eyes. It is the belief that negative consequences will occur if we do not lower the carbon dioxide emissions. A belief can cause a person to act today for something that may happen in the future without experiencing it oneself. The last step in the causal chain that leads to a behavior change is personal norms. Personal norms are created through beliefs that things can have harmful consequences along with a sense of responsibility to take action to reduce these harmful consequences (Steg et al., 2005; Stern, 2000).
In summary, the Information deficit model shows a relatively simple picture of the
relationship between knowledge and behavior while the latter theories show that the issue of environmentally friendly behavior is much more complex. The similarity between the information deficit model and the theory of planned behavior is that knowledge has a significant role in both foundations. Both models state that more knowledge leads to more pro-environmental behavior. On the other hand, the theory of interpersonal behavior do not place knowledge in the center as a direct link to more action. It focuses more on other aspects such as values, habits and that specific situations can affect one's actions. This leads us to our final theory presented, the Value- belief- norm theory. In this theory, Stern (2000) states that there is a casual chain of different things that lead up to a behavior. This view of beliefs is what differentiates him from the others. As you can see there are plenty of theories trying to explain pro-environmental behavior and there are plenty more that we did not include here. As previously mentioned, our definition of the gap is the knowledge-action gap.
9. Method
9.1 Planning of study
Extensive planning was carried out for this study which, according to Wibeck (2010), is important in a successful study as it permeates the entire work. We based the planning of the study on Wibeck's (2010) recommendations. First and foremost, this meant looking at the area we were interested in studying, which we quickly came to know was environmental
psychology. This decision was made based on our previous study during the second year of our candidate which was about how students are affected emotionally by learning about climate change. We wanted to continue in the same research area, but from another
perspective. The more the discussion continued, the interest in the concept of the gap grew and this became our focus. Based on that focus, two overall research questions and aim were formulated. We were careful not to specify the aim and the questions too early to avoid steering the discussions in our interviews and thus missing aspects that would have been interesting to include, something that Wibeck (2010, p. 56) points out as a common mistake.
9.2 Qualitative versus quantitative method
As in all methods, there are pros and cons. A qualitative study’s focus is about in-depth investigation of a smaller group of people's views and attitudes in a question (Justesen, Mik-Meyer; Wibeck, 2010). Thus, it is not intended to create a statistical generalization over a larger group of people. Then a quantitative study with, for example, surveys would have been better. Trost (2010) also states that by using a qualitative method more depth can be achieved rather than a quantitative method which will result in more superficial answers.
9.3 Choice of method for collection of data
When choosing a method for the collection of our empirical material, we first debated whether we should perform individual interviews or focus group interviews. The main difference between individual interviews and a focus group interview is that the purpose of individual interviews is to analyze and go in depth on the individual's response while in focus group interviews the focus is on the dialogue and the integration in the group (Justesen, Mik-Meyer, 2011). Furthermore, the main goal of focus group interviews is to study participants' experiences and expressed values on a particular topic (Trost, 2010; Wibeck, 2010). The latter felt more in line with what we wanted to achieve. We believed that we would find a greater depth and a broader empirical material by conducting focus group interviews as participants
Another reason for choosing focus group interviews as our method was because we then were able to analyze group interactions as well as analyzing the differences in opinions and
experiences among the participants, which Justesen and Mik-Meyer, (2011) highlights. With the help of focus group interviews, we were able to gather a lot of information in a short period of time with many different perspectives (Wibeck, 2010). This efficiency was important for us since the time frame for our study was limited.
9.4 Reliability and validity
Reliability and validity are important aspects when it comes to choosing a method. When it comes to these requirements, qualitative methods are often criticized (Ryen, 2004). Since we carried out a rather small study where only a few individuals’ statements and experiences of the knowledge-action gap were looked into, the reliability may be weakened. In an attempt to strengthen the reliability of our study, all data was analyzed separately and then compared, which reduced the risk of misconceptions. We also compared our study to similar studies such as e.g. Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002), Gyberg and Rundgren (2013) and Barth et al. (2012), which are frequently referenced to in the thesis. By doing this comparison, we could see that many similarities exist. This is why we argue that our study gives a fair overview of the gap many people experience in relation to pro-environmental behavior.
The validity of a study is determined by whether the study actually responds to the research question(s) it intends to answer. In order to strengthen our validity, we have chosen a method that according to several methodology literature seems to be compatable with our aim and research questions. We also knew from previous experience, when we conducted a study within a similar research area, that focus group interviews work well to get the in-depth analysis that we strive for. According to Bergström and Boreus (2012), the validity is also about being aware, as a researcher, of how one's social and historical preunderstanding affects the analysis and the conclusions drawn. We have been aware of this during the process and have explained in the paper how, among other things, the individualization process and Kollmuss and Agyeman’s (2002) definition of environmentally friendly behaviors have affected our analysis. We have also been critical of our analysis and have been cautious in determining the background to the respondents' statements as we only examine the
respondents' perceptions of the gap and not their actual behaviors.
9.5 The role of moderator
When interviews are used as a method for collecting data, it is important to consider the role of the moderator. This applies not only to focus groups but to almost all different interview methods. This was something that we talked about before the interviews themselves. The moderator should not be too involved in the conversation during the interview (Wibeck, 2010). Therefore, we chose to have semi-structured interviews where we as moderators asked questions and follow-up questions. Since the aim of this thesis is to investigate how people with a higher education on environmental and climate issues talk about the knowledge-action gap and what their experiences are, we thought it was important that we as moderators had a subtle role where we did not interfere in the discussions too much. Rather we asked follow-up
format, where the students discuss, in groups, around a specific topic or question and where the moderator is there mainly as support is something that we knew that all students were familiar with, since group discussions are a big part of the education on the Environmental science program. Therefore, we knew from experience that if we would have taken a bigger role in the interviews, we would only have hindered different perspectives and ‘outside of the box-thinking'. This also allows the students to ask each other questions throughout the
interviews.
9.6 Size of focus group
There are various theories about how many people should be included in a focus group. Wibeck (2010) mentions Dunbar (1997) as one of those who believes that the upper limit for the number of group members should be drawn by four people. Svedberg (2016) validates this by saying that even very small groups, such as dyads (two persons) and triads (three persons), can function well. He describes that the feeling of membership and the possibility of influence is facilitated in a dyad or triad because each member gets more space to dispose of, while these factors decrease in line with the group's increase in size. Other advantages of smaller groups are that it is easier to get feedback and that time is sufficient for all group members to express their opinions and experiences. The latter is further weakened in larger groups as they often do not have the same strong structure for its cohesion. This leads to uneven speech distribution and makes it harder for everyone to have their voice heard (Svedberg, 2016).
However, others believe that the minimum number of focus group participants should preferably be four people. This is because triads can create tension in the group where
members can end up mediating or trying to play each other out (Wibeck, 2010). This shows a complexity in choosing the number of participants which we were aware of when choosing the size of the groups. With this risk in mind, we decided to have triads as focus groups. Our aim is to examine the thoughts and experiences of individuals, which makes it extremely important that everyone comes to speak on each question.
9.7 Number of groups
As the time frame for our study is limited, it can be valued to be a smaller focus group project (Morgan, 1998). We therefore based our choices on Morgan (1998) recommendations to conduct interviews with between two to four groups. Morgan also believes that the group members recruited should be easy to get a hold of, which is something we had in mind during the recruitment process.
In line with our aim, we recruited environmental science students at Linköping University, campus Norrköping. These students are a good representation of what we want to study, i.e. people with higher education on environmental issues, and since they were easily accessible to us both in time and space. We define these people as more knowledgeable on
environmental issues than the average person due to the fact that they study environmental science at a university level. The program of environmental science is a three-year bachelor on 180 credits at Linköpings University, campus Norrköping. The Environmental Science program gives a broad fundamental foundation within the environmental issue. It highlights how the environmental problems arise and how to deal with them (Linköpings universitet, A, n.d.). On the program's webpage, they stress the importance of educating critical thinking (Linköpings universitet, B, n.d.). They also highlight the importance of a holistic view of the environmental issues and that this is one of the reasons why the program is interdisciplinary (Linköpings universitet, B, n.d; Linköpings universitet, A, n.d.).
We decided beforehand that we wanted one group from each grade with three participants in each, i.e. three groups in total. Then a post was published in groups on Facebook where we could most easily reach environmental science students. In this post, we explicitly sought participants from all three grades for our focus group interviews. When we put together our groups, we chose to look at various homogeneous and heterogeneous factors. According to Wibeck (2010) and Knodel (1993) this is helpful to get the most out of a focus group.
Homogeneous factors may create a relaxed atmosphere and facilitate the exchange of personal information, while heterogeneous factors such as background, age and origin etc., enable an analysis of how their views and experiences are compared to other perspectives (Kitzinger, 1994).
A common factor for all participants is that they are environmental science students at Linköping University. Then, a closer homogeneous division was made into the three focus groups by dividing them by what year they are in at university. This division created the underlying motivation that they would feel relaxed and safe in the group. We chose to interview students from different years since it gives us a broader representation of
environmental science students. However, we did not necessarily focus on similarities and differences between the years. Factors that differ among the group members (heterogeneous) are, for example, age, gender and background. These factors allowed us to obtain different experiences and opinions from the participants, which is our aim of the study. Considering the limited time and word range of a bachelor thesis, a limited number of students were
interviewed and our ability to check how well these external factors differed amongst them was compromised. Since our focus is on the individual, we did not place any weight on the selection regarding gender. That being said, we are aware of that gender may affect the result, however, it is not our intention to make a comparison between the sexes.
It is important to consider ethical aspects when working with interviews as a research method. It is also crucial to consider that the ethical issues need to be taken into consideration
throughout the whole process (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014). They believe that the ethical principle of "doing good" should be a foundation in the study. The benefits of our study should be greater than the negative consequences, for the participants and other people affected. The ethical aspect was something that was with us from the beginning when we chose our aim and research questions. We hope that this study will contribute with a nuanced picture of the role of knowledge when it comes to the climate issue and behavioural change. When working with interview studies, an ethical dilemma can arise. The researcher wants to achieve a deep and thorough analysis, while there may be a risk that the person being
interviewed may feel offended by what has been written. On the other hand, there is a risk that the researcher does not go in depth in the analysis when he or she must take into consideration to not offend the participant (Kvale & Brinkmann,2014). This was an aspect that we constantly equipoised. How much can we analyze the exact words that they express and how much can we read through body language and between the lines? We hope to present the participants with a respectful tone and to show different nuances and express views in our report.
A consent paper was distributed with information to the interviewees before the interview started. Kvale & Brinkmann (2014) believe that the participants should receive information concerning what the study is about and that participants know that participation is voluntary, and they can withdraw at any time. We were also clear about the confidentiality terms and that their names would be removed and replaced by fictitious names. This was something that Kvale & Brinkmann (2014) also brought up in their book. Private data that could identify the participants was exchanged during the transcriptions part.
9.10 Interview guide and conduct of interviews
When designing the interview guide, we followed Wibeck's (2010, p. 73) recommendations that include opening questions, introductory questions, key questions and concluding
questions. In addition to the questions, we also used stimulus material in terms of pictures of models. This was because we wanted to help the participants get the discussions going and to motivate them to think outside of the box. The models that we chose were collected from Kollmuss and Agyeman’s (2002) article (the information-deficit model and model of ecological behavior), which showed both a simple linear model and a more complex one of behaviors. We chose these particular models because they were very different and opened up for depth in the discussions. Thus, the focus was not on the respondents' position on whether the models are wrong or not, but as a source of inspiration. The interview guide and stimulus material are included as appendix 1 in the end of the report.
one hour long. Each participant signed a paper of consent before the interviews started and thereafter everything was recorded on electronic devices. The interviews were conducted in Swedish and it is important to point out that the quotes are translated to English and that some differences can occur.
9.11 Transcription and thematization
The names in the study are fictitious. We have named the students from year one with letters starting with an A, the students from year two with letters starting with a B and the students from year three with letters starting with a C.
Groups Year one Year two Year three
Name Anna Benjamin Camilla
Alva Beata Cornelia
Alma Beatrice Calle
Fig. 3. Fictitious names of focus group participants.
A thorough transcription of the interviews was carried out. The methods we used for our analysis was theme identification and comparison method. Gery et al. (2003) illustrates that theme identification is a good method for extracting information from a qualitative analysis where themes give the opportunity to structure up the collected material. Gery et al. (2003) also states that if a concept is recurring in the material, it is a theme. Therefore, we chose to work with theme identification and the comparison method when analyzing our material. All three transcripts were then analyzed individually by both of the authors. Themes were not determined prior to thematization because we wanted to be able to see all possible outcomes. The next step was to carry out the thematization together to investigate which themes and sub-themes each person came up with to decide together which themes to use in the thesis. In combination with theme identification, the comparison method was also used. We considered it important to use both methods as we wanted to explore the larger themes that came up while also highlighting individual opinions and comparing them to each other. After that, we analysed the material further by together structuring the themes and deciding what aspects were important to include in the final thesis. All the themes are listed in appendix 2.
Our thesis is based on an abductive approach. We use previous theories to describe the research field of the gap but at the same time we wanted to bring a different perspective through our empirical material. Alvesson & Sköldberg (1994, s.55-56) believe that by
choosing an abductive method, one can alternate between previous theories within the subject as well as adding one’s own collected empirics which creates a dynamic process.
9.13 Framing of pro-environmental behavior
There may be different opinions about what an environmentally friendly behavior is exactly. There are always different aspects to take into account when talking about environmentally friendly behaviors, something that is bad for the climate in one way can benefit the
environment in another, etc. The definition that we have proceeded from is Kollmuss and Agyeman’s (2002), which is “a behavior that consciously seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural and built world”. We are aware that this has shaped the way that we have interpreted the empirical material and how it is presented in the analysis.
10.
Analysis
In this section, factors that were expressed during the interviews will be listed. Eleven factors have been coded into three different categories, which are named individual preferences, responsibility and structural obstacles, these are shown below in figure 2. Knowledge and informations is not included in these categories. It is important to point out that it is common for these factors to overlap and that none of them strictly belong to only one of the categories.
Individual preferences
Responsibility Structural obstacles
Knowledge and information Laziness, pleasure and comfort Why me? /sacrifice Locus of control Priorities and justification Political versus individual responsibility Economic factors
Negative feelings Social norms
Values
Habits
fig 3. Identified factors as a part of our participants’ knowledge-action gap.
10.1 Knowledge and information
During the interviews, we could see different perspectives on the role of knowledge when it comes to environmentally friendly behaviors and closing the gap. The majority put a lot of weight on the importance of knowledge in creating commitment, while at the same time many emphasized that knowledge on its own does not directly lead to action. In one of the
interviews, the group concludes that knowledge has not made them more environmentally friendly in their behaviors. If anything, all the knowledge has made them feel emotions such
as fear and hopelessness, which has resulted in apathy and denial. In that interview, the students discuss how after three years at university learning about the complexity of
environmental and climatic problems, they now care less and do less for the environment. "Over these three years, I've become less and less inclined to do things that are environmentally friendly because I have become so resigned. This is a little sad, maybe. (...) It's hard to motivate myself to make good choices, because what's a good choice even? All choices are bad. Some may be better than others but in the end it's just like… " - Cornelia
“So, we got worse when we got more information? Worse at making the environmentally friendly choice because we got more information on how big the problems are" - Calle
"It sounds awful when you say that... but yes" - Camilla
However, an interesting aspect that we noticed in our analysis is that even though these students have experienced information and knowledge as the opposite of creating change, they still seem to have faith in knowledge to close the gap. This is shown through one of the student’s statements about how he thinks they can make a change through future jobs and politics, which includes providing information to others. Another interesting finding is that the same students list a lack of knowledge as a barrier to some environmental behaviors. This is contradictory to their earlier statements in which they concluded that their attitudes are to blame for inaction.
From another perspective, other students talked about how they believe that knowledge and information is the most important contributor to behavioral change since it has helped them change their own behaviors. However, looking further into the discussions amongst the participants, we can see that the knowledge they have been given has not led them to change in all aspects and that information can be a constraint in itself, or rather the mistrust that different types of information create.
“(...) it feels like today, that there is so much information [out there] that you do not know what is good and what is bad, and that is what makes it so difficult. Sometimes it also feels like it makes it harder than it is.” - Alma
"yes, or that science is so polarized. How can a scientist, or has he then been paid to say this and then say that it is research that supports that carnivorous eating is much better than eating vegan.” - Anna
The quotes above indicate that there is a certain mistrust among some of the students towards science and public information. This is acknowledged as a barrier since it seems to create confusion on what is the right thing to do, resulting in them refraining from performing a
10.2 Individual preferences
This category includes individual preferences expressed in the interviews. These are; laziness, pleasure and comfort, priorities and justification, negative feelings, values, habits.
10.2.1 Laziness, pleasure and comfort
For some of our focus group participants, their perception was that laziness, pleasure and comfort were crucial influencers in their decisions. In the interviews, one student talked about how she wants to do everything 100% right when it comes to environmentally friendly
behaviors. However, sometimes other psychological instincts take over where she falls back into old patterns because of laziness. By seeking comfort, the laziness of fighting one’s instincts to go back to old habits takes over, which makes it hard to change one’s behavior completely to more sustainable ones.
" (...) it's so heavy to fight your instincts. Some can do it better than others. I handle it pretty badly, it feels like. But yes, it definitely feels like it has fallen out in that you go back to these comfortable choices in your everyday life again. At least I think so for me." - Camilla
In other cases, laziness does not have as much influence. This is when other external factors come into play that makes the pro-environmental behavior less comfortable. Then, it is easier to focus on and prioritize one’s own comfort over the benefit of performing the
environmentally friendly behavior. An example of this behavior is brought up by Alma. "I can ride my bike to work, but it's raining. I can put on a rain jacket and ride my bike but I can also take the car. What should I do? In such situations, it becomes easier to go against what you stand for even if you have the knowledge." - Alma
Cravings and urges to eat a specific food as a treat once in a while come most likely from a lifetime of eating these foods and creating an emotional relationship to them. The participants talk about how they love certain animal products that have a negative impact on the
environment, which they have a hard time letting go of due to the affective relationship connected to them.
"I love cheese! I really love cheese and sour milk. That's what I live for, it feels like! No, I'm kidding, but I think it's so damn good. Maybe I don't eat it every day, but I can indulge in it, treat myself. Like candy on a Saturday, though I might eat cheese
instead, or sour milk for breakfast sometimes. " - Beata
The emotional relationship to, in this case animal foods such as cheese, is very clearly shown in how these particular students talk about why they have not managed to refrain from it. The taste, the comfort and the luxurious image created around these products is expressed as hard
to find in vegan substitutes. Furthermore, one student explains that there are a lot of memories connected to certain foods which makes it hard for her to make another, more
environmentally friendly choice.
"For me, there are two things: it's the pleasure effect. I'm thinking it's a greater enjoyment of eating a Marabou chocolate bar. It still has more value to me and that's because there are so many memories in those products.” - Anna
10.2.2 Priorities and justification
Cognitive dissonance is something the respondents say they experience at times. For example, if a person ends up in a situation where they know that the behavior is not the most
environmentally friendly, wants to act accordingly and still chooses perform that non-environmental behavior they said that it makes them feel guilty or bad.
To handle situations with cognitive dissonance, they developed different strategies, such as priorities and justification. An example that was raised was that they weigh environmentally friendly behaviors against each other and that it is difficult to do everything right. One participant had made an observation that people prioritise differently on the environmental science program. Some think it is enough to eat mostly plant-based food while others think you should eat solely plant-based food. Some think that you should limit the amount of flights you take while others think that you should not fly at all to reduce the carbon footprint. In all three interviews there was at least one person who justified sometimes buying fast fashion since they most of time buy secondhand clothing. In contrast to prioritizing things against each other, Camilla stated that she does not make major priorities between different things but that she tries to make little differences in all aspects of her life. Here we can see differences between the participants in how they choose to prioritize different behaviors which tells us that they have different views on what behaviors are of most importance.
10.2.3 Negative feelings
While discussing barriers to pro-environmental behaviors, some of the participants expressed that they feel negative emotions connected to the climate crisis. Feelings such as fear,
hopelessness and anxiety were brought up which they explained transcend into their everyday behaviors. The participants that expressed these feelings were the same students that
acknowledged they do not believe that they can make a change. Thus, we could see a
connection between an external locus of control and negative feelings as a hindering factor to action, the connection being that you as an individual have no control over the current crisis and therefore e.g. get scared or feel hopelessness.
feelings. Apathy and denial were two prominent coping-strategies that could be identified in the interviews. They use denial as a way of protecting themselves from fear and anxiety. According to these participants, a trigger for going into denial is to constantly be exposed to ‘bad news’.
"I feel very human when I see things on the news because I also walk away. I just think ‘I can't take it, I can't take it.’ I feel like a bad environmental science student, I definitely do. But I'm still human in the end and I like to be
comfortable and unproblematic" - Cornelia
“I'm terrified. Climate anxiety is up here” - Cornelia
“Yeah, then it's easier to just duck away from it” - Camilla
Going into denial can also be, as mentioned in the top quote, a way of pushing away one’s responsibility to change one’s behaviors or because, as another student mentioned, it is tough to fight one’s instincts to act non-environmentally. By walking away from the problem and refusing to acknowledge it (in this case by walking away from the news on tv), it is easier to go back to one’s old comfortable habits and live as if there is no need for change. Apathy is another identified coping strategy that the students use to cope with their hard feelings. One student expressed feeling cynical towards environmental problems while another brings up acceptance. In this context, acceptance is used for justifying their non-environmental behaviors which makes it easier for them to dodge, for example, guilt and shame.
" I just think it's a bit scary as you (Cornelia) said that you come to a conclusion that ‘well I guess I'm a bad person then’ and then…" - Camilla
"And then it's fine" - Cornelia
"Yep, but if I forget what I know and have learned, [then] I’m not [a bad person] anymore because then I don't know (…) [about the problem]. Then I can only be.” - Camilla
10.2.4 Values
One profound factor that came up as a reason for inaction was the different set of values which lay the base of our behavior. A few students talked about how they do not have the strong values necessary to act in an environmentally friendly way. From a meta-analytical perspective, this may be because the person in question has not grown up in the norm and environment that has led her to create environmentally friendly values and that it is then more difficult to change it as an adult.
"If we go back to values, there's not much that can make me kill someone or hit someone, I have that deep in my values. I don't do that. I will not hurt another person. It might as well be just as deep in me that ‘I don't hurt the environment’ (...) But the environmentally friendly value base is not nearly as deeply rooted" - Camilla
Relationships with loved ones, such as family, were something that we could see was especially important for the students in one of the interviews. These people value a good dynamic within the family without friction, higher than eating climate friendly. The fact that these internal dilemmas arise is perhaps mainly due to the fact that the students have grown up in a family with a clear norm of eating meat, where the step to a vegan diet is both alien and distant. This makes it an internal conflict for the people in question, where they are forced to prioritize and make a compromise in their values. This then indicates that these students value a harmonized family dynamic more than trying to reduce the climate impact of their eating habits, which leads to values themselves becoming a barrier to acting environmentally friendly.
"When I started the process of eating vegetarian, I lived at home and my parents thought; ‘fine that you do it’. But when I tried to bring in other vegan products, like replacing the milk, it resulted in a bit of a protest. I felt that I had to meet them somewhere. (…) They've still taken one step, so I can meet them halfway. If they choose to exclude meat, I may sometimes have to eat dairy products." - Alva
These are some of the clearest examples where values are made known in our material. However, values and attitudes form the basis of large parts of the interviews.
10.2.5 Habits
The matter of habit was something that came up on a few occasions during the interviews, without there being much discussion around it. Nonetheless, we believe that it is a factor that is very important to take into account when it comes to looking at why people do not act based on the knowledge they have. One of the students explains, among other things, that she thinks it is important to reduce her consumption of plastic bags when shopping. Despite that, she is sometimes 'forced' to buy bags anyway because she has the habit of going to the store without bringing her own bag.
Another type of habit that was mentioned was how one of the students grew up and the habits that were created through her childhood. Camilla expressed that when it comes to food her family had always based their meals on animal protein such as meat, pork or chicken.
10.3
Responsibility
In this category, we have placed a set of factors which reflect people's views on responsibility in solving the environmental and climate issues. These factors are: why me?/sacrifice and political versus individual responsibility.
10.3.1 Why me? /sacrifice
When asking the students what pro-environmental behaviors they currently perform in their lives, they mentioned a list of things such as no longer eating meat, buying secondhand clothing, recycling etc. We cannot actually say that they carry out these behaviors in practice, we can only analyze what they claim to do. These different pro-environmental behaviors were stated with a sense of pride and to some extent as a given. However, two students in particular expressed a feeling of frustration, a frustration that they ‘need to’ sacrifice some of life’s glories when no one else is doing the same. One of these examples was about giving up flying. Beatrice stated that she feels that it is unfair that everyone else can fly somewhere for the weekend when she ‘cannot’. The reason why she feels that she has to give up flying could be due to a sense of responsibility. A responsibility partially towards herself since she cares for the environment but also towards the social group that she identifies herself with, which is e.g. environmental science students.
Something else that came up through our analysis is the frustration that the participant’s pro-environmental behaviors benefit others who do not demonstrate the same behavior. Some participants start to question why they should act in environmentally friendly ways that benefit others if other people do nothing themselves for a healthier planet. These feelings can also be seen as a psychological constraint to action.
“Yes, and sometimes there is a frustration in me. That ‘I can't do this and that, but everyone else who just doesn't give a shit about this planet, they can do it’ (…) what gives them greater right to go to Asia, we live on the same planet.”- Alva
10.3.2 Political versus individual responsibility
The interviews revealed different views on who has the responsibility and who has the power to make a difference when it comes to climate change. One approach was the individual power where they believed that the individual's actions could make a big difference.
The second approach that emerged was about social responsibility and how the government and politicians have the leading role of combating climate change. These people expressed
more confidence in politics and the larger systems than in individuals’ choices. The persons who are new to the program expressed a more individual approach to the issue while those who soon will graduate had a more societal and system theoretical approach to how to slow down climate change. The people who expressed that they believed more in the
responsibilities of society also expressed that they did less things in their everyday lives. Some even stated that they do less climate friendly actions now than when they started the program. The people who believed in individual responsibility did more things in their own everyday lives. Examples of things they did were shopping second hand, eating more plant based foods, recycling and not flying.
Those who have a more social perspective believe that there is more influence through politics or in the workplace than in their own individual choices. They believe that through these channels they can create a more long-term and sustainable commitment that makes a bigger difference than their individual choices. Finding a context and belonging to a larger group is highlighted as valuable for engaging.
10.4 Structural obstacles
In addition to having individual preferences and responsibility there can also be structural obstacles. These are locus of control, economic factors and social norms.
10.4.1 Locus of control
In the interviews, some of the participants expressed that they do not believe in the ability of individuals to make a difference in environmental issues. These beliefs are rooted in their views of the climate crisis itself. They talked about how they, during the last couple of years, have realized more and more just how big and complex environmental and climate issues actually are. Furthermore, they expressed that as part of that complexity lies societal systems. System theory was a theme that permeated a big part of one of the interviews, where views about ‘being stuck in a system’ were dominating. Here are two quotes by Cornelia.
“Yes, I feel more cynical after these three years. You get into a lot of things like, ‘I'm going to eliminate plastic in my everyday life, I'm going to start eating vegan. I'm going to do everything I can to change.’ But then you realize, it's still the same system, you live in the same economic system. The
conditions for real change [are bad], it became too big in the end (…)”. - Cornelia
