Numerous hypotheses have been proposed to discover why there exists a huge gap between the possession of environmental knowledge and the exhibition of pro-environmental behavior. Despite the existence of numerous studies, no exact explanation has been developed.
One needs to evaluate some of the reasons which cause people to either have a positive or negative attitude towards a pro-environmental behavior. These factors may include demography, social, cultural and internal factors such as values. Despite the existence of the knowledge about the risks associated with environmental pollution, most people have failed to conserve the environment. Also, even though the digital media has the ability to provide information which can make a huge impact, less is being done to improve the attitude and literacy of people (Kollmuss " Agyeman, 2002).
While ecological studies have shown that richer nation a greater negative environmental impact than poor countries, most third world countries still struggle when it comes to environmental conservation. This means that more affluence doesn’t contribute to a pro-environmental behavior (Robelia " Murphy, 2012). In fact, a countries economic behavior is dictated by either political or economic reasons.
Through the use of various analytical frameworks, this paper will aim to investigate and expound on reasons why people fail to act environmentally. Additionally, by examining preexisting models such as altruism and sociological models, this paper will mention some of their impacts and importance. As such, one question arises. What really shape a pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss " Agyeman, 2002).
Why People Fail to Act Environmentally
The use and retail of shale gas in the USA is an example of why rich nations fail to acknowledge the environmental risks and focus only on making profits. As such, there need to be communication strategies which will aim to prompt positive changes that streamline environmental conservation. However, about 50% of these initiatives end up failing. This attribute may be due to poor understanding of exactly what drives public attitudes and opinion towards conservation (Robelia " Murphy, 2012).
Despite environmental warnings from scientists such as possibilities of hurricanes and global warming, most people tend to look the other way. Kollmuss explains that this factor may be due to people thinking that they have more important things to worry about. The fact that there is always news about crime, diseases and the economy causes people to major more current affairs and neglect the future (Kollmuss " Agyeman, 2002).
Mary Pipher asks people in one of her book on what they think about climate change. The only lady responded by stating that “Climate change is a mid-level worry.” As such, most people are likely to worry about finance and disease more than the environment. Neuroscientists have explained that the human brain is programmed to scan for danger with a preference on problems which have to be acted on immediately (Robelia " Murphy, 2012).
Recent studies have shown that people are disconnected from the environment. It is estimated that majority of Americans spend almost 90% of their days inside (Kollmuss " Agyeman, 2002). Therefore, most people are affected by the “alternate reality” causing a huge separation from the environment. It has been said that most people are living in a “trance” an aspect which makes them deny their true nature. The feelings of inadequacy and unworthiness have been said to cause neglect of the environment. The modern culture has been coined to make people believe they need more; that is, more cars, more money, more houses etc. As a result, this overconsumption causes a short-term fix but a long-term destruction of the environment.
The existence of a knowledge deficit is also believed to be among the causes of why most people fail to act pro-environmentally. It is said that most people are aware that they need to conserve the environment but don’t know to do it. Despite the fact that scientists have tried educating people the existing environmental chaos, less is being done to conserve the environment. A report from 2011shows that 25% of Americans don’t believe in global climate change. This is due to the fact that the effects of this change have not been significant (Robelia " Murphy, 2012).
Another reason that makes people fail to act pro-environmentally may be faulty thinking. Most individuals are dismissive of the impact they cause if they conserve the environment. In fact, the majority of Americans don’t believe they have the ability to make a difference. For instance, many motorists are aware of the effects of greenhouse gases that emanate from their vehicles (Kollmuss " Agyeman, 2002). However, they fail to take conservative measures such as the use of public transport.
A barrier to pro-ecological behavior may be based on one’s ipsative constraints. This theory is based on internal factors that lead to prevention of a certain behavior. As such, an action can only be performed if an individual remembers (Kollmuss " Agyeman, 2002). In other words, people will act if the action is close to the cognitive actions. This rationalization is valid because people may feel not obliged to conserve the environment and as a result forget to take care of it. The process and mechanisms involved are not conscious. They are as a result of an unconscious activation from one’s individual goals and achievements. Also, someone’s character can prompt them to adopt a certain behavior which in this case can be environmental conservation. In order to fill this gap, a technical view of psychological analysis is proposed. Also, interaction between situational characteristics that may promote or prevent pro-environmental behavior are investigated.
The American educational curriculum can also be termed to in lack of vital educational and proactive measures that should guide and educate children from a tender age on the importance of pro-ecological behavior. Such approach has the effect of adjusting the cultural and behavioral values in future generations. It can be said without reasonable doubt that today’s generation lacks the appropriate knowledge to secure the environment (Kollmuss " Agyeman, 2002).
Numerous issues over climate change have resulted in the low rate of pro-ecological behavior. For instance, there has been uncertainty over the issue of global warming. As result, there has emerged a wave of mistrust between people and the government over the message of climate change. Additionally, social comparison is a behavior where people tend to associate what other do and define it as “proper” course of action. A study conducted in 18 countries showed that many people believe there will be an ecological change over the next 25 years. However, few individuals conserve the environment ("Contents of Environmental Values Volume 16, Number 2", 2007). This factor is because most people think that ecological change is the problem of the future.
The fact that many people are employed in jobs that destroy the environment. However, the global community has for a very long time been putting economic needs ahead of environmental responsibility. It is perceived that if these industries were to be closed, most people would lose their income and the global economy would fall apart drastically. Consequently, a lot of people feel they are too busy to engage in environmental conservation projects ("Contents of Environmental Values Volume 16, Number 2", 2007). Most individuals just want to make ends meet.
The adoption of a pro-environmental behavior has been a huge challenge. For instance, most companies fail to honor the corporate responsibility. Some conduct activities that cause adverse effects to the environment like channeling spillages to rivers. Global warming has become a serious issue ("Contents of Environmental Values Volume 16, Number 2", 2007).
Conclusion
The environment is always changing. As such, there is a need for everyone to become increasingly aware of the possible problems and consequences if the issues are not dealt with. With an increasing number of natural disasters, people ought to be aware of which ecological problems the planet is facing. As days pass by, the planet is moved closer to the brink environmental crisis. Thus, we are in a state of emergency. Unless we address these issues prudently, the future generations are indeed doomed to utmost disaster. As such, these current environmental problems require imperative attention. Air, water and soil pollution can easily be prevented if industries take a firm stand to become pro-environmental. Most of the pollution is caused by heavy metals and gases ("Chapter 10. Issues for Environmental Education", 2003). The emission of greenhouse gases is what causes global warming. Consequently, temperatures rise causing the melting of polar ice which results in floods and other catastrophes.
It is up to all of us to preserve our environment. As such, interventions aimed at the development of pro-ecological behavior need to decrease their chances of failure. Apart from considering the right strategies and facilities, we also need to determine the barriers to conserving our environment. Also, most of the environmental education programs are still biased and therefore need to approach this sensitive issue surgically by solving the pre-existing inconsistency between attitude and knowledge ("Chapter 10. Issues for Environmental Education", 2003).
References
Chapter 10. Issues for Environmental Education. (2003). Journal Of Philosophy Of Education, 37(4), 691-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-8249.2003.00356.x
Contents of Environmental Values Volume 16, Number 2. (2007). Environmental Values, 16(2), 1-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.3197/096327107780474582
Kollmuss, A., " Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Robelia, B., " Murphy, T. (2012). What do people know about key environmental issues? A review of environmental knowledge surveys. Environmental Education Research, 18(3), 299-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.618288
