71
Czech Greenpeace Donors and
the Barriers to their Climate-Friendly
Household Behaviour
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík
ABSTRACT In the decades to come, global climate change poses a significant environmental, social,
and economic threat. Among the various strategies that are being implemented to reduce this threat are
those that focus on decreasing greenhouse gas emissions by supporting the climate-friendly behaviour
of the general public. The present study is focused on Czech Greenpeace donors. These donors represent
a segment of the public that, while engaged in supporting systemic policy measures in the area of climate
protection, also has the potential to grow in the area of climate-friendly household behaviour. Our research
is based on a sample of 504 respondents and deals with this group’s climate-relevant household behaviour.
In relation to Community-Based Social Marketing, we examine the potential of Greenpeace donors to
behave in a climate-friendly way, and we identify the barriers that prevent them from getting involved
in a broader spectrum of climate-friendly behaviour. Our analysis is informed by several significant
contemporary theories of pro-environemntal behaviour. We also highlight topic areas on which to focus
when encouraging Greenpeace donors to further improve their climate-friendly behaviour.
KEYWORDS Climate-friendly behaviour, support of pro-environmental behaviour, willingness to
change, motivation, Community-Based Social Marketing, donor, Greenpeace
Introduction
Global climate change is considered to be one of the main environmental threats of our
time (WBGU 2007; Richardson et al. 2009; UN 2009; Bergengren, Waliser and Yung 2011;
Gemenne et al. 2014; IPCC 2014). In this context, most climate scientists are in agreement
that a significant cause of current global climate change is human activity, particularly the
production of greenhouse gases (IPCC 2014).
It is necessary to search for solutions at the macro-level of politics as well as at the
micro-level of individual behaviour (Dietz et al. 2009; Dietz, Leshko and McCright 2013).
The general public can become involved in climate protection through taking part in civic
and political activities as well as through making changes in their household behaviour (Kent
2009, Dietz et al. 2009; Dietz, Stern and Weber 2013). It is the micro-level of household
behaviour that we focus on in this study.
According to representative public opinion surveys, 80% of people living in the Czech
Republic think that global warming is already happening (STEM 2009: definitely yes 33%,
Sociální studia. Department of Sociology FSS MU, 3/2015. S. 71–95. ISSN 1214-813X.
72
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
more likely yes 47 %). Three quarters think that the cause of this warming is more likely
human behaviour than natural processes (ibid.; definitely yes 20%, more likely yes 55 %).
As the survey of the CVVM (2014) shows, 67% believe that global warming is very serious
(31%) or quite serious (36 %). Eurobarometer results (TNS Opinnion & Social 2014)
indicate that in the area of household behaviour, the largest section of the Czech population
has started to reduce waste and recycle (70 %), cut down on consumption of disposal
items (50 %), and give preference to energy-efficient appliances when purchasing new ones
(41 %). A smaller section of the population has now begun to prefer local and seasonal food
(29 %), use environmentally-friendly alternatives to using a private car (22 %), and have their
houses insulated (18 %). Only a tiny section of the population has limited short-haul flights
(10 %), bought fuel-efficient cars (9 %), switched to an energy supplier which offers a greater
share of energy from renewable sources (5 %), and installed equipment at home (like solar
panels, 3%) or bought a low-energy household (1 %).
How to support more climate-friendly behaviour among the Czech population? One way
could be to design a public education campaign targeted at a segment of society that exhibits
certain pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours and at the same time still has an untapped
potential to participate in more pro-climate consumption behaviours. For the purposes of our
research, we have chosen the donors of Greenpeace Czech Republic. They have expressed
their interest in environmental protection by financially contributing to a major environmental
non-governmental organization. They show their support of climate protection through
mediated, macro-level focused activities, such as financial and civic support of Greenpeace
goals. However, their climate-friendly household behaviour has not been investigated, and
the pro-climate potential of such activities may prove to be quite strong. As Greenpeace
donors are expected to be in the forefront of environmental innovations, their potential
change in behavioural should also bring a significant leverage effect. Further, they are on the
Greenpeace mailing list and so constitute a group that can be easily reached when it comes
to providing climate education and encouraging other forms pro-environmental behaviour.
Moreover, this social segment offers a particularly interesting subject for theoretical considerations
of the consistency (or inconsistency) between pro-environmental attitudes and proenvironmental
behaviours, as well as for investigating the barriers that interfere with the proenvironmental
behaviour of the people in this segment.
The Greenpeace branch in Czechoslovakia opened in 1992. At present, Czech branch
campaigns focus primarily on climate protection in relation to coal mining in the Czech
Republic. They also focus on on various global topics such as reducing toxic pollution,
protecting ocean flora and fauna and protecting the world’s rainforests (Greenpeace Česká
republika 2014a). The funding for Greenpeace activities comes predominantly from contributions
by individual donors, and only a tiny fraction of it comes from other sources. According
to the latest available annual report, in the calendar year 2012 Greenpeace Czech Republic
was supported by contributions from 13,977 individual donors (Greenpeace Česká republika,
2014b), which represents the widest support for any environmentally oriented non-governmental
organization in the country.
Greenpeace activities have also been the subject of natural science (Greenpeace
International 2009; University of Exeter 2010) and social research. In the last few years,
73
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
social science studies have been devoted to, for example, the media representation of the
conflict between Greenpeace and the Shell company (Bakir 2005), the type of visual communication
that Greenpeace used regarding climate change and the side effects of such communication
(Doyle 2007), a comparison of how Greenpeace structured their communication
of environmental problems on their websites in China, Japan, and Germany (Heinz, Cheng
and Inuzuka 2007), the reasons why Greenpeace-style activism has not taken hold in Norway
(Strømsnes, Selle and Grendstad 2009), and the framing of the conflict between Greenpeace
and the oil company BP in the media (García 2011).
The present study deals with a topic that has not yet been investigated by either Czech
or foreign researchers. Our primary research question is: What are the barriers to the climate-friendly
household behaviour of the donors of Greenpeace Czech Republic? In relation
to this question, we examine: What is the respondents’ potential for behaving in a more
climate-friendly way? Do the respondents always report the same barriers to different types
of environmentally-friendly behaviour and do these barriers correspond to a particular model
of pro-environmental behaviour (Ajzen 1991; Stern 2000)? How reliable are the respondents’
answers when they identify the various barriers: do the reported barriers indicate a statistically
significant increase or decrease in the respondents’ willingness to change their behaviour?
What topic areas should be highlighted in communicating with this target group about
the various climate-friendly behaviours so that the public education campaign could more
effectively encourage their willingness to change their behaviour?
The barriers to climate-friendly behaviour
In this study we draw on the Community-Based Social Marketing approach (McKenzieMohr
and Smith 1999; McKenzie-Mohr 2011; McKenzie-Mohr, Schultz, Lee and Kotler
2012). This approach describes how to proceed when designing public education campaigns
focused on encouraging pro-environmental behaviour. In the last few years, this approach has
become widely accepted: today it is recommended in textbooks on the subject (Clayton and
Myers 2009: 156–157; Lee and Kotler 2011), and it has been applied in supporting a broad
spectrum of pro-environmental behaviour (McKenzie-Mohr, Schultz, Lee and Kotler 2012;
McKenzie-Mohr and Associates 2014).
According to Community-Based Social Marketing, if our aim is to effectively encourage
the public’s pro-environmental behaviour, it is important to understand what prevents proenvironmental
behaviour (the barriers) and what supports pro-environmental behaviour (the
benefits). It is also necessary to examine the barriers and benefits of specific pro-environmental
behaviours of a specific target group, so that the mapping of these barriers and benefits can
then be used to design a custom-made campaign for the given situation. As this approach suggests,
campaign preparation should follow these five steps: 1. Selection of the behaviour that is
the target of the campaign; 2. Identification of barriers and benefits; 3. Formulation of strategy;
4. Pilot verification of the strategy; 5. Broad-scale implementation and evaluation (McKenzieMohr
and Smith 1999; McKenzie-Mohr 2011; McKenzie-Mohr, Schultz, Lee and Kotler 2012).
In this study we deal with step number 2: identifying the barriers to climate-friendly
behaviour.
74
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
Methods
The survey instrument
As part of preliminary research, two focus groups were formed and one pilot quantitative survey
(N = 448) with Greenpeace donors was conducted. The survey examined the respondents’
climate-relevant household behaviour and the barriers to their climate-friendly behaviour. On
the basis of these preliminary investigations, seven specific climate-relevant behaviours were
identified, and the most frequently occurring barriers were categorized.
In our mapping of barriers to climate-friendly behaviour, we draw on the Community-Based
Social Marketing approach (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999; McKenzie-Mohr 2011; McKenzieMohr,
Schultz, Lee and Kotler 2012). This approach recommends that researchers consult available
scholarly sources, and we looked for insights in several influential theories of pro-environmental
behaviour (Theory of Planned Behaviour – Ajzen 1991; Value-Belief-Norm – Stern 2000;
Responsible Environmental Behaviour – Hungerford and Volk 1990), as well as in meta-analyses
conducted in the area of environmental behaviour (Bamberg and Möser 2007). In addition, the
main phase of our research, that is colleting data from the respondents among Czech Greenpeace
donors, was preceded by conducting research among two focus groups. Before these meetings,
we asked the 14 participants (9 males, 5 females; mean age 34.8 years) in the focus groups to
think about sensible actions to help prevent climate change. The participants identified improvements
in public transport, decrease in meat consumption, the use of natural and energy resources,
and the use of energy-demanding appliances as major mitigating actions. Political activity, such
as participation in demonstrations or writing letters to politicians, was also widely disscussed.
Following the Community-Based Social Marketing approach, we examine what
Greenpeace donors consider to be the barriers to their climate-friendly behaviour (see
Table 1). Further, we complement this approach by analyzing the reliability of the respondents’
answers – whether the barriers that they have identified also indicate a significantly
greater or lesser willingness to participate in more climate-friendly behaviour.
Table 1: The barriers to climate-friendly behaviour examined in this study as situated within the context
of the existing key theories and meta-analyses of pro-environmental behaviour
Factor Description of the factor
I don’t have enough information about
how the behaviour change would
contribute to climate protection
Lack of knowledge or lack of awareness of the behaviour’s
consequences for the climate. Corresponds with awareness of
the consequences of one’s behaviour (compare with Stern 2000;
Klöckner 2013).
time demands Lack of time for the activity, which may be due to the actual
time demands of the activity, due to a general lack of time,
other priorities, or convenience. Part of a more broadly defined
perceived behaviour control (compare with Ajzen 1991;
Bamberg and Möser 2007; Klöckner 2013) which depends
on the perceived difficulty of the behaviour.
financial demands Lack of financial means for the activity, which is due to the expense
of the given activity in comparison to other available activities, or
due to one’s opportunities and personal priorities. An important
factor is also how the cost of the activity is distributed over time.
Part of a more broadly defined perceived behaviour control
(compare with Ajzen 1991; Bamberg and Möser 2007; Klöckner
2013) which depends on the perceived difficulty of the behaviour.
75
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
Factor Description of the factor
expended energy demands
(effort required)
Too much effort is required for the activity, which is influenced
by the difficulty of the activity in comparison with perceived
competencies, by priorities, and by convenience. Part of a more
broadly defined perceived behaviour control (compare with
Ajzen 1991; Bamberg and Möser 2007; Klöckner 2013) which
depends on the perceived difficulty of the behaviour.
low support and understanding from my
significant others
Perceived unfavorable social norm of one’s significant others.
Corresponds with subjective norm (compare with Ajzen 1991),
and social norm (compare with Bamberg and Möser 2007;
Klöckner 2013).
I don’t have enough practical
information about how to implement
the change
Lack of knowledge or skills for participating in the behaviour.
Corresponds with action skills (compare with Hungerford and Volk
1990), influences perceived behaviour control (compare with
Ajzen 1991; Bamberg and Möser 2007; Klöckner 2013)
I don’t consider climate change to
be a sufficient reason to change my
behaviour
Perceived low threat of global climate change, possibly
perceived lack of its relevance in connection to behaviour
change. Corresponds with problem awareness (compare
with Bamberg and Möser 2007) and the New Environmental
Paradigm (compare with Stern 2000; Klöckner 2013).
health reasons Reported health reasons. They influence perceived behaviour
control (compare with Ajzen 1991; Bamberg and Möser 2007;
Klöckner 2013).
loss of satisfaction Negative perception of a hedonistic character, influences
attitude toward behaviour. Corresponds with values (compare
with Stern 2000; Klöckner 2013) and attitude toward behaviour
(compare with Ajzen 1991; Bamberg and Möser 2007).
I think that in this case I’m doing enough
for climate protection
Low willingness to grow further in relation to climate-friendly
behaviour. Corresponds with behavioural intention (compare
with Ajzen 1991; Bamberg and Möser 2007; Klöckner 2013)
and personal norm (compare with Stern 2000).
It’s not possible to further improve
the behaviour in any way (no flying,
recycling of all waste, etc.)
Reported climate-friendly behaviour. Given the use of selfreports,
the risk of social stylization has been lowered by
specifying the maximum degree of climate-friendly behaviour.
The whole questionnaire, of which only the key section dealing with barriers to climatefriendly
behaviour is being analyzed in this study, also incorporates other concepts and sociodemographic
questions.
Sample composition and data collection
Data collection was conducted using the CASI method and the online application
SurveyMonkey during the period of 20 September to 9 October 2011. The questionnaire
was sent out repeatedly to all of the email contacts in the Greenpeace Czech Republic
database, which included both their current and former individual donors. The questionnaire
informed the respondents that the survey was being conducted in order to improve
our theoretical and practical understanding of the issues. No material reward was offered
to encourage participation. From the total number of 9,355 contacts, 650 people started to
fill in the questionnaire (response rate 6.9 %). During the process of checking and cleaning
76
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
the data, the answers of 146 respondents were deleted because they had answered less than
half of the questions in the questionnaire. Therefore, the research results are based on data
from the 504 respondents (response rate 5.4%) who answered all the questions in the section
of the questionnaire dealing with behavioural barriers. Finally, 477 respondents completed
the whole questionnaire. In the survey sample 62 % of respondents are females and
38 % males; 55 % of respondents are current GP donors. The socio-demographic composition
of the sample is summarized in tables 2–5. The data about the Czech population come
from the Czech Statistical Office (2011).
Table 2: Sample Composition
Mean Median Minimum Maximum Czech Rep.
Age (in years) 34 32 16 74 41
Number of children 1.8 2 1 8 1.7
Average size of place of residence
(number of inhabitants)
401,767 32,500 250 1,268,000 /
Average income (CZK) 19,896 17,500 0 81,000 18,824
Table 3: Sample composition per highest level of completed education
Sample Czech Rep.
Primary 2.1% 16.6%
Secondary (trade) 3.1% 35.4%
Secondary (academic) 35.0% 34.2%
College 3.8%
13.7%
Bachelor’s degree 16.4%
Master’s degree 30.6%
Higher academic degree 9.0%
Table 4: Sample composition per marital status
Sample Czech Rep.
Single 51.7% 31.6%
Married 37.5% 56.3%
Divorced 9.5% 9.1%
Widowed 1.3% 2.9%
77
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
Table 5: Sample composition per field of highest completed education
Technical 23.1%
Economic 17.0%
Social Sciences 15.5%
Natural Sciences 12.2%
Other 8.8%
Pedagogic 7.3%
Art 6.7%
Medical 5.0%
Helping professions 2.1%
Other / No answer 2.3%
The collected data were compared to the full socio-demographic profile of the survey population.
For this purpose, we used the comprehensive information in the database of Greenpeace
donors which includes information regarding the duration of support for the organization,
place of residence and the donor’s gender (influential to pro-environmental attitudes as
proven by numerous research; see Mobley 2013). Based on a comparison of this information
with the information reported in the questionnaire, we were able to determine the relative
weight of the individual respondents. Since the differences between the research population
and the sample turned out to be fairly small, the weight for the given data varied between
0.79 and 1.33 (see table 6).
Table 6: Comparison of the composition of the population and the research sample
GP Population GP Sample Relative weight
(% pop./% sample)N Share N Share
Former Donors 3916 42 % 217 45 % 0.92
Current Donors 5439 58 % 260 55 % 1.07
Male 4178 45 % 183 38 % 1.16
Female 5177 55 % 294 62 % 0.90
More than 700,000 inhabitants 3013 32 % 143 30 % 1.07
130,000 – 700,000 inhabitants 1083 12 % 54 11 % 1.02
Fewer than 130,000 inhabitants 5259 56 % 280 59 % 0.96
Not Reported 0 27
Total 9355 504
78
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
Statistical Analyses
Given the pro-environmental profile of the respondents, it could be expected that the data
would not have a parametric distribution. This premise was tested and confirmed for the individual
variables with the use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors Significance
Correction, resulting in p value=0.000. The appropriateness of nonparametric tests for all the
analyses was also supported by the use of graphic visualization of the data.
The research included seven selected climate-relevant household behaviours. In relation
to each of these behaviours, the respondents were asked which of the eleven barriers
prevent them from behaving in a climate-friendly way (these barriers were the same in all
the questions). With each of the seven behaviours, the respondents were allowed to tick as
many of the eleven possible barriers as applied. If the respondents reported that in a particular
case they behave as climate-friendly as possible (for instance, they do not eat meat, or they
do not commute short distances by car), they were not supposed to mark any barriers to their
climate-friendly behaviour for that case. The answers collected from respondents who had
not understood this were deleted in the process of data preparation. In the next question, the
respondents were asked about their level of willingness to change any of the seven selected
behaviours to make it more climate-friendly.
The results are summarized below in tables 7–16. Usually, Community-Based Social
Marketing is based on a simple self-reported identification of barriers by respondents. We
have expanded this approach, and thus, apart from the percentage of the individual barriers
that were reported, the tables also include a comparison of how willing respondents who
reported a given barrier were to change their behaviour with those who did not report the
barrier. With respect to the nonparametric data distribution, the difference between these two
groups was measured with the use of the Mann Whitney U test. Further, the tables include
the Z value of the Mann Whitney U test, and, due to the absence of a directional hypothesis
in the comparison of the groups, also 2-tailed p-values. We regard values at a significance
level of 95% to be significant, that is p values lower than 0.05. The last column in the table
represents the value of the effect which was calculated as Cohen’s D (Cohen 2013). The
effect can be regarded to have high significance if it has reached a value of 0.8, medium significance
if it is somewhere between 0.5 and 0.8, and low significance if at between 0.2 and
0.5 (Lenth 2001).
With a fairly large number of applied statistical tests, it is important to consider the
increase of probability of the first type error. At the 95% significance level we can expect that
in five out of every hundred tests performed the significant p value will be purely accidental.
However, given the explorative character of our study, applying the Bonferonni correction for
multiple tests would radically lower the significance level. Therefore we note this methodological
feature of our research at the start, but we have chosen not to apply the Bonferonni
correction before our interpretation of the results.
79
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
Results
Table 7: Cumulative answers: Are you willing to consider . . .
Mean
Std.
Dev.
1 - No,
not at
all
(%)
2
(%)
3
(%)
4
(%)
5
(%)
6
(%)
7 – I’m
determined
to change
this behaviour
(%)
I’m
already
doing the
maximum
(%)
limiting your
purchases
of tropical fruit
(bananas,
oranges, kiwi,
and other)?
4.30 1.883 7.9 13.1 9.9 10.8 16.0 20.6 9.7 11.9
acquiring more
energy-efficient
household
appliances?
5.09 1.686 3.4 3.3 3.9 6.8 12.8 19.2 12.2 38.4
recycling more
types of waste
than you have
so far?
5.23 1.686 3.1 2.6 3.4 7.1 12.8 15.1 16.6 39.3
keeping the room
temperature in
your household
in winter at 20 °C
or lower?
3.29 1.909 12.6 12.7 8.1 7.2 6.5 6.6 3.6 42.6
minimizing plane
travel in your free
time?
4.03 2.046 4.7 5.5 2.4 5.8 3.0 6.4 4.2 68.0
limiting short-
distance
commuting by car
(up to 15 km)?
4.11 2.049 9.4 5.7 6.4 7.3 8.9 10.1 7.7 44.5
limiting your
consumption
of meat?
3.88 2.060 13.5 13.9 8.5 12.2 9.7 12.0 11.1 19.1
It will become clear from further results that each behaviour, as reported by the respondents,
contains its own particular composition of barriers which prevent the various climate-friendly
behaviours from being adopted. But what general findings can be drawn from a comprehensive
summary of the results?
Most of the donors report that they do not currently travel by plane in their free time
(68 %), they do not use a car for short-distance commuting (44.5 %), and they keep the room
temperature in their household in winter at 20 °C or lower (42.6 %). However, the comprehensive
results indicate that a portion of current and former Greenpeace donors does have
a certain untapped potential for growth in their climate-friendly behaviour.
Which behaviours exhibit the highest potential to become more climate-friendly? When
we put together the respondents’ positive expressions of their willingness to change a particular
behaviour (the percentages at points 5, 6, and 7 of the scale), we can see that most of the
80
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
donors show willingness to limit thier purchasing of tropical fruit (46.4 %), to recycle more
types of waste (44.5 %), and to acquire more energy-efficient household appliances (44.2 %).
On the other hand, efforts to motivate the donors to lower the room temperature in their
household in winter may impact only 19.3% of them.
Table 8: Correlation of the level of willingness to consider changing a behaviour with the activation
of barriers to the seven examined behaviours – summary data
What prevents the respondents from changing their
behaviour to make it more climate-friendly? (Summary
of the barriers to the seven selected behaviours)
Occurrence
(N=292)
Correlation
Coefficient
(Spearman‘s rho)
Sig.
(2-tailed)
loss of satisfaction 26.3 % -0.40 0.00
I think that in this case I’m doing enough for
climate protection
21.2 % 0.03 0.61
I don’t have enough practical information about
how to implement the change
12.7 % 0.14 0.01
time demands 12.5 % -0.24 0.00
I don’t have enough information about how the
behaviour change would contribute to climate
protection
12.2 % -0.12 0.04
financial demands 9.0 % 0.00 0.96
expended energy demands (effort required) 8.0 % -0.19 0.00
low support and understanding from my significant
others
7.4 % 0.03 0.56
health reasons 6.9 % -0.20 0.00
I don’t consider climate change to be a sufficient
reason to change my behaviour
2.6 % -0.29 0.00
Note: In bold are cited significant values – p=0.05.
The correlation between the indicated barriers and the reported willingness to consider
changing one’s behaviour is also worth mentioning. This correlation is important in connection
to public education campaigns that focus generally on climate-friendly behaviour: it is
advisable to look for ways to remove or lower these particular barriers. As Table 8 shows, the
respondents’ willingness to consider changing their behaviour significantly decreases when it
comes to barriers such as loss of satisfaction (Spearman’s rho = -0.40; occurrence = 26.3 %),
the belief that climate change is not a sufficient reason to change one’s behaviour (-0.29;
2.6 %), and time demands (-0.24; 12.5 %). In slight correlation, willingness also decreases
when it comes to health reasons (-0.20; 6.9 %), expended energy demands or effort required
(-0.19; 8.0 %), and lack of information about how the behavioural change would contribute
to climate protection (-0.12; 12.2 %). On the other hand, those who lack practical information
about how to implement the change (0.14; 12.7%) somewhat more frequently consider
changing their behaviour.
Table 9 presents the relative frequencies of the particular barriers to the various behaviours.
If we first look at the barriers in bold, that is those that influenced the respondents’
81
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
willingness to change or improve their behaviour, it becomes clear that these barriers were
often connected to loss of satisfaction, with the respondents’ belief that in this case they are
doing enough for climate protection, and with the opinion that climate change is not a sufficient
reason to change their behaviour.
Table 9: Relative frequencies of the barriers in the seven selected behaviours
What prevents you from . . . (occurrence of „yes“ responses; N=504)
limiting your
purchases of
tropical fruit
(bananas,
oranges, kiwi,
and other)?
limiting your
consumption of
meat?
acquiring
more energy-
efficient
household
appliances?
recycling more
types of waste
than you have
so far?
keeping
the room
temperature in
your household
in winter at 20
°C or lower?
minimizing
plane travel
in your free
time?
limiting short-
distance
commuting by
car (up to 15
km)?
loss of satisfaction 45.1 % 42.2 % 6.3 % / 33.4 % 13.6 % 6.0 %
health reasons 10.3 % 12.9 % / 0.4 % 17.1 % 0.8 % 3.8 %
I don’t consider
climate change
to be a sufficient
reason to change
my behaviour
5.5 % 4.6 % 1.7 % 0.5 % 1.5 % 1.4 % 1.3 %
expended energy
demands (effort
required)
4.5 % 4.5 % 6.1 % 11.8 % 1.3 % 4.2 % 15.4 %
financial demands 7.8 % 5.7 % 37.9 % 0.6 % 1.0 % 4.7 % 4.0 %
time demands 5.8 % 4.7 % 5.7 % 13.4 % 0.9 % 14.8 % 34.0 %
I think that in this
case I’m doing
enough for climate
protection
18.8 % 32.4 % 24.0 % 31.1 % 11.9 % 10.7 % 18.8 %
low support and
understanding
from my significant
others
7.0 % 10.7 % 5.2 % 8.0 % 13.5 % 1.1 % 4.3 %
I don’t have
enough practical
information about
how to implement
the change
29.3 % 11.8 % 11.5 % 25.4 % 7.4 % 1.2 % 3.4 %
I don’t have
enough information
about how the
behaviour change
would contribute to
climate protection
46.7 % 16.0 % 7.3 % 3.2 % 7.4 % 1.3 % 0.6 %
I’m already doing
the maximum
11.9 % 19.1 % 38.4 % 39.3 % 42.6 % 68.0 % 44.5 %
Note: In bold are cited relative frequencies in which the given barrier significantly (p=0.05) influenced the willingness
to change behaviour, with the effect size at least 0.3.
82
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
It is evident that the composition of the identified barriers significantly differs with each
behaviour. For instance, the perceived difficulty (the effort required) of the behaviour significantly
correlates with the willingness to acquire more energy-efficient appliances and to limit
short-distance commuting by car. The respondents are also kept from limiting their short-distance
commuting by car and from recycling more types of waste by their concerns over time demands.
Health reasons play a role when considering lowering room temperature and limiting meat consumption.
The support and understanding of one’s significant others impact the respondents’
willingness to change their eating habits – that is their consumption of meat and tropical fruit.
Limiting Purchases of Tropical Fruit
Table 10: Barriers and the willingness to consider limiting one’s purchases of tropical fruit
Are you willing to consider limiting your purchases of tropical fruit (bananas, oranges, kiwi, and other)?
[1=No, not at all; 7=I’m determined to change this behaviour; Mean=4.30; N=402]
What prevents you from limiting
your purchases of tropical fruit
(bananas, oranges, kiwi, and
other)? [1=Yes; 0=No]
N=504 N=445 Yes No Mann-Whitney U
Share
(Yes)
Share
(Yes) Mean
Std.
Dev. Mean
Std.
Dev. Z
As. Sig.
(2-tailed)
Effect
Size
(d)
I don’t have enough
information about how limiting
my purchases of tropical fruit
would contribute to climate
protection
46.7 % 53.0 % 4.11 1.752 4.52 2.001 -2.827 0.005 -0.22
I like tropical fruit
(loss of satisfaction)
45.1 % 51.2 % 3.73 1.799 4.92 1.779 -6.583 0.000 -0.67
I don’t have enough practical
information about how to
replace tropical fruit in my diet
29.3 % 33.3 % 4.40 1.788 4.25 1.930 -0.209 0.835 0.08
I think that in this case I’m
doing enough for climate
protection
18.8 % 21.3 % 5.26 1.746 4.05 7.839 -5.994 0.000 0.17
health reasons 10.3 % 11.7 % 3.80 2.072 4.36 1.852 -1.743 0.081 -0.30
financial demands 7.8 % 8.9 % 4.12 1.518 4.32 1.918 -1.130 0.259 -0.11
low support and
understanding from my
significant others
7.0 % 8.0 % 5.31 1.436 4.21 1.893 -3.107 0.002 0.59
time demands 5.8 % 6.6 % 4.73 1.588 4.27 1.901 -0.930 0.353 0.24
I don’t consider climate
change to be a sufficient
reason to change my
behaviour
5.5 % 6.2 % 2.51 1.793 4.43 1.825 -4.597 0.000 -1.12
expended energy demands
(effort required)
4.5 % 5.2 % 4.13 1.909 4.31 1.884 -0.393 0.694 -0.10
I don’t purchase any tropical
fruit
11.9 % / / / / / / / /
Note: First two columns represent shares of positive answers when the reported non-participation in the respective
behaviour is included or excluded from the base. In bold are cited significant values – p=0.05.
83
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
On the other hand, the results show that Greenpeace donors do not internally differ
in their willingness to change their behaviour due to perceived behavioural barriers such
as financial demands, lack of practical information, and lack of information about how the
behavioural change would contribute to climate protection. The donors are willing to change,
but non-targeted campains don’t encourage them enough. This finding confirms the common
perception that campaigns which focus only on spreading non-targeted information fail to
effectively motivate changes in behaviour (Bostrom 2013; Römmele 2002).
A negative value of the effect size indicates the barriers that are significantly connected
to the respondents’ lower willingness to change particular behaviours. The data results on
limiting purchases of tropical fruit show that 46.7% of respondents have a lack of information
about how limiting their purchases would contribute to climate protection, 45.1% experience
a loss of satisfaction, and 5.5% hold the opinion that climate change is not a sufficient
reason to change their behaviour. Here the difference between those who have reported this
barrier and those who have not is the largest.
However, it is also possible to look at these results from another perspective: if a public
education campaign were to succeed in convincing the substantial 45.1% of donors that local
and seasonal fruit and vegetables can also offer a satisfying gourmet experience, for some of
them this barrier would probably disappear and more willingness to change their behaviour
would result. In a similar way, the 46.7% of donors who do not have sufficient information
about how limiting purchases of tropical fruit contributes to climate protection may benefit
from a campaign that would try to explain the connection between the growing and exporting
of tropical fruit and vegetables on the one hand and climate change on the other hand. This
explanation would probably also be beneficial for the 5.7% of donors who are of the opinion
that climate change is not a sufficient reason to change their behaviour.
Further, we should mention the respondents who express a stronger willingness to limit
their purchases of tropical fruit, but who feel prevented from doing so by the lack of support
and understanding of their significant others (7.0 %). In this case, it is important for
a campaign to work with the social norm, encourage the donors in nonconformist behaviour
and offer them tips on how to communicate with others about their difference preferences.
A stronger willingness to change their behaviour is also indicated by the 18.8% of donors
who believe that in this case they are doing enough for climate protection. In regards to this
relatively large group, it may be worth suggesting to them that they could in fact be doing
more in this regard, since the difference between the respondents who reported this barrier
and those who did not, as expressed in Cohen’s D, is very small.
Limiting Meat Consumption
Our analysis of the barriers that prevent the respondents from limiting their consumption of
meat has brought several significant findings. The largest difference in the willingness to
limit meat consumption is between those who like meat and those who do not. If a public
education campaign were to succeed in suggesting that vegetarian or vegan meals can offer
a satisfying gourmet experience, a space would open up for a certain decrease in meat consumption
among this 42.2% of the survey population.
84
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
Table 11: Barriers and the willingness to consider limiting one’s consumption of meat
Are you willing to consider limiting your consumption of meat? [1=No, not at all; 7=I’m determined to
change this behaviour; Mean=3.88; N=362]
What prevents you from limiting
your consumption of meat?
[1=Yes; 0=No]
N=504 N=408 Yes No Mann-Whitney U
Share
(Yes)
Share
(Yes) Mean
Std.
Dev. Mean
Std.
Dev. Z
As. Sig.
(2-tailed)
Effect
Size
(d)
I like meat (loss of satisfaction) 42.2 % 52.2 % 3.01 1.796 4.99 1.831 -9.013 0.000 -1.09
I think that in this case I’m
doing enough for climate
protection
32.4 % 40.0 % 4.58 1.981 3.48 2.000 -4.600 0.000 0.55
I don’t have enough
information about how limiting
my consumption of meat
would contribute to climate
protection
16.0 % 19.8 % 3.57 1.859 3.96 2.104 -1.424 0.154 -0.19
health reasons 12.9 % 15.9 % 3.19 2.059 4.02 2.035 -2.866 0.004 -0.41
I don’t have enough practical
information about how to
replace meat in my diet
11.8 % 14.6 % 4.08 1.828 3.84 2.099 -0.688 0.492 0.12
low support and understanding
from my significant others
10.7 % 13.2 % 4.92 1.835 3.71 2.047 -3.834 0.000 0.60
financial demands 5.7 % 7.0 % 4.11 2.191 3.86 2.052 -0.384 0.701 0.12
time demands 4.7 % 5.8 % 4.60 1.891 3.83 2.064 -1.455 0.146 0.38
I don’t consider climate change
to be a sufficient reason to
change my behaviour
4.6 % 5.7 % 2.49 1.856 3.97 2.042 -3.136 0.002 -0.73
expended energy demands
(effort required)
4.5 % 5.6 % 3.97 2.073 3.87 2.060 -0.097 0.923 0.05
I don’t eat meat 19.1 % / / / / / / / /
Note: First two columns represent shares of positive answers when the reported non-participation in the respective
behaviour is included or excluded from the base. In bold are cited significant values – p=0.05.
Insufficient information about how meat consumption and climate change are connected was
reported by 16.0% of the respondents. Nevertheless, their willingness to limit their meat consumption
is neither much lower nor much higher than the willingness of those who have not
reported this particular barrier. Therefore, it can be assumed that a generally-focused public
education campaign would not be very effective in reaching this particular social segment.
However, such a campaign could have an appreciable influence on the 4.6% of donors who
do not consider climate change to be a sufficient reason to change their behaviour. It would
also be important to provide encouragement and inspirational examples to the 10.7% who are
willing to consider limiting their meat consumption, but who perceive the barrier that prevents
them from doing so to be the lack of adequate support and understanding of their significant
others. The 12.9% who express health concerns related to limiting meat consumption
would probably be resistant to attempts at persuasion. Just as with the other behaviours, it is
85
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
important to work with the 32.4% who are of the opinion that they are doing enough in this
area, but simultaneously report stronger willingness to change their behaviour.
Acquiring More Energy-Efficient Household Appliances
Table 12: Barriers and the willingness to consider acquiring more energy-efficient household appliances
Are you willing to consider acquiring more energy-efficient household appliances? [1=No, not at all; 7=I’m
determined to change this behaviour; Mean=5.09; N=278]
What prevents you from
acquiring more energy-efficient
household appliances? [1=Yes;
0=No]
N=504 N=311 Yes No Mann-Whitney U
Share
(Yes)
Share
(Yes) Mean
Std.
Dev. Mean
Std.
Dev. Z
As. Sig.
(2-tailed)
Effect
Size
(d)
financial demands 37.9 % 61.5 % 5.09 1.567 5.10 1.895 -0.789 0.430 -0.01
I think that in this case I’m doing
enough for climate protection
24.0 % 38.9 % 5.00 2.037 5.14 1.447 -0.658 0.511 -0.09
I don’t have enough practical
information about how to find
and choose more energyefficient
appliances
11.5 % 18.7 % 5.20 1.492 5.06 1.731 -0.315 0.752 0.09
I don’t have enough
information about how
replacing my current
appliances with more energyefficient
ones would contribute
to climate protection
7.3 % 11.8 % 4.88 1.638 5.12 1.694 -1.121 0.262 -0.14
I feel a certain connection to
my current appliances (loss of
satisfaction)
6.3 % 10.2 % 5.03 1.457 5.10 1.713 -0.481 0.630 -0.04
expended energy demands
(effort required)
6.1 % 9.9 % 4.63 1.484 5.13 1.701 -2.103 0.035 -0.30
time demands 5.7 % 9.2 % 5.11 1.379 5.09 1.720 -0.613 0.540 0.01
low support and understanding
from my significant others
5.2 % 8.4 % 5.27 1.367 5.07 1.716 -0.299 0.765 0.11
I don’t consider climate change
to be a sufficient reason to
change my behaviour
1.7 % 2.7 % 3.13 2.244 5.15 1.634 -2.581 0.010 -1.23
health reasons / / / / 5.09 1.686 / / /
I have the most energy
efficient (or the latest types of)
appliances in my household
38.4 % / / / / / / / /
Note: First two columns represent shares of positive answers when the reported non-participation in the respective
behaviour is included or excluded from the base. In bold are cited significant values – p=0.05.
From all the examined behaviours, individual Greenpeace donors reported the highest average
for their willingness to acquire more energy-efficient household appliances. However,
the results regarding this particular behaviour do not clearly indicate which of the barriers
should be targeted in a public education campaign. There are two barriers that are statistically
86
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
significant. While expended energy demands are a barrier for 6.1%, the difference between
this segment and the rest of the respondents, as expressed by Cohen’s D, is not very significant.
But Cohen’s D shows a high value with the barrier related to the respondents’ opinion
that climate change is not a sufficient reason to change their behaviour – though this barrier
was reported by only 1.7% of the respondents.
As many as 37.9 % of the respondents identified financial demands as a barrier, 24.0 %
think that in this case they are doing enough, and 11.5% do not have enough practical information
about how to find and choose more energy-efficient household appliances. Even
though these barriers are frequent, our findings suggest that they have almost no influence on
the reported willingness to acquire these appliances.
Recycling More Types of Waste
Table 13: Barriers and the willingness to consider recycling more types of waste
Are you willing to consider recycling more types of waste than you have so far? [1=no, not at all; 7=I’m
determined to change this behaviour; Mean=5.23; N=281]
What prevents you from
recycling more types of waste
than you have so far? [1=Yes;
0=No]
N=504 N=306 Yes No Mann-Whitney U
Share
(Yes)
Share
(Yes) Mean
Std.
Dev. Mean
Std.
Dev. Z
As. Sig.
(2-tailed)
Effect
Size
(d)
I think that in this case I’m doing
enough for climate protection
31.1 % 51.3 % 5.22 1.807 5.25 1.555 -0.514 0.607 -0.02
I don’t have enough practical
information about how to
recycle more types of waste
25.4 % 41.9 % 5.22 1.631 5.25 1.730 -0.447 0.655 -0.02
time demands 13.4 % 22.0 % 4.84 1.669 5.35 1.677 -2.450 0.014 -0.30
expended energy demands
(effort required)
11.8 % 19.4 % 4.97 1.617 5.30 1.699 -1.635 0.102 -0.20
low support and understanding
from my significant others
8.0 % 13.2 % 5.33 1.473 5.22 1.718 -0.167 0.867 0.06
I don’t have enough information
about how recycling more types
of waste would contribute to
climate protection
3.2 % 5.3 % 4.41 2.315 5.29 1.632 -1.061 0.289 -0.53
financial demands 0.6 % 1.0 % 4.52 3.320 5.16 1.857 -0.037 0.971 -0.34
I don’t consider climate change
to be a sufficient reason to
change my behaviour
0.5 % 0.8 % 3.15 2.585 5.25 1.670 -1.522 0.128 -1.26
health reasons 0.4 % 0.6 % 1.00 0.000 5.25 1.667 -1.686 0.092 -2.55
It’s not possible to recycle any
more waste than I am recycling
(paper, plastic, glass, organic
waste, fabric, medicines, batteries,
electrical appliances, aluminum,
metal . . . )
39.3 % / / / / / / / /
Note: First two columns represent shares of positive answers when the reported non-participation in the respective
behaviour is included or excluded from the base. In bold are cited significant values – p=0.05.
87
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
Greenpeace donors have reported a strong willingness to recycle more types of waste,
but the barriers they have marked do not clearly indicate which of the barriers should be targeted
in a public education campaign. Specifically, the summary of the barriers related to the
willingness to recycle more types of waste shows that with most of the reported barriers there
is not a significant difference in the willingness to recycle more between those respondents
who perceive the particular barriers and those who do not perceive them. There is only one
barrier that shows a significant difference between these two groups–time demands, which
represent a barrier for 13.4% of the respondents. Recycling does demand time, and thus this
barrier cannot be removed by a public education campaign. However, it could be lowered by
improving the availability of recycling bins for various types of waste.
Lowering Room Temperature
Table 14: Barriers and the willingness to lower the room temperature in one’s household
Are you willing to consider keeping the room temperature in your household in winter at 20 °C or lower?
[1=no, not at all; 7=I’m determined to change this behaviour; Mean=3.29; N=268]
What prevents you from
keeping the room temperature
in your household in winter at
20°C (or lower)? [1=Yes; 0=No]
N=504 N=290 Yes No Mann-Whitney U
Share
(Yes)
Share
(Yes) Mean
Std.
Dev. Mean
Std.
Dev. Z
As. Sig.
(2-tailed)
Effect
Size
(d)
I like the current temperature
(loss of satisfaction)
33.4 % 58.2 % 2.73 1.575 4.20 2.053 -5.585 0.000 -0.77
health reasons 17.1 % 29.8 % 2.55 1.656 3.63 1.925 -4.291 0.000 -0.58
low support and understanding
from my significant others
13.5 % 23.6 % 3.61 1.873 3.19 1.914 -1.781 0.075 0.22
I think that in this case I’m doing
enough for climate protection
11.9 % 20.8 % 4.55 1.929 2.98 1.774 -5.027 0.000 0.88
I don’t have enough practical
information about what that
would mean at my place – how
we should prepare for lowering
the temperature to 20 °C
7.4 % 12.9 % 3.48 1.795 3.26 1.926 -0.572 0.567 0.11
I don’t have enough
information about how lowering
the temperature to 20 °C would
contribute to climate protection
7.4 % 12.9 % 3.12 1.663 3.31 1.943 -0.424 0.672 -0.10
I don’t consider climate change
to be a sufficient reason
to change my behaviour
1.5 % 2.6 % 1.10 0.327 3.35 1.899 -3.371 0.001 -1.19
expended energy demands
(effort required)
1.3 % 2.3 % 2.87 1.730 3.30 1.915 -0.470 0.638 -0.22
financial demands 1.0 % 1.7 % 3.90 2.337 0.00 1.904 -0.964 0.335 2.05
time demands 0.9 % 1.5 % 2.99 1.414 3.30 1.918 -0.175 0.851 -0.16
In my household the room
temperature in winter is kept at
20 °C or lower
42.6 % / / / / / / / /
Note: First two columns represent shares of positive answers when the reported non-participation in the respective
behaviour is included or excluded from the base. In bold are cited significant values – p=0.05.
88
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
The largest proportion of the respondents reported that they are reluctant to lower the room
temperature at home to 20 °C or lower due to loss of satisfaction. The 33.4% who perceive this
barrier are also much less willing to consider changing their behaviour. The 17.1% who have
marked health reasons and the 1.5% who do not consider climate change to be a sufficient reason
to change their behaviour are also not very willing to make a behavioural change. On the
other hand, the 11.9% who think that in this case they are doing enough for climate protection
are more willing to change their behaviour. Therefore, when dealing with this barrier in a public
education campaign, it could be effective to provide the target group with information about how
a warmer house is connected to greenhouse gas emissions. The campaign also could offer inspirational
examples of people who are ahead of the target group in lowering the room temperature
at home. Communication focused on the positive health effects of lower room temperatures and
on the health benefits of hardiness also has the potential to reach people in this target group.
Minimizing Plane Travel
Table 15: Barriers and the willingness to minimize plane travel in one’s free time
Are you willing to consider minimizing plane travel in your free time? [1=no, not at all; 7=I’m determined
to change this behaviour; Mean=4.03; N=139]
What prevents you from minimizing
plane travel in your free time?
[1=Yes; 0=No]
N=504 N=162 Yes No Mann-Whitney U
Share
(Yes)
Share
(Yes) Mean
Std.
Dev. Mean
Std.
Dev. Z
As. Sig.
(2-tailed)
Effect
Size
(d)
time demands 14.8 % 46.1 % 4.00 1.708 4.07 2.342 -0.641 0.521 -0.03
I like plane travel / with no plane
travel I’d have to give up traveling
to places that are important to me
(loss of satisfaction)
13.6 % 42.6 % 3.30 1.889 4.70 1.964 -4.160 0.000 -0.72
I think that in this case I’m doing
enough for climate protection
10.7 % 33.3 % 5.11 2.034 3.58 1.883 -4.269 0.000 0.81
financial demands 4.7 % 14.7 % 3.88 1.904 4.06 2.076 -0.419 0.675 -0.09
expended energy demands (effort
required)
4.2 % 13.0 % 3.43 1.750 4.14 2.083 -1.460 0.144 -0.34
I don’t consider climate change to
be a sufficient reason to change
my behaviour
1.4 % 4.4 % 2.36 2.488 4.12 1.991 -2.099 0.036 -0.88
I don’t have enough information
about how minimizing plane
travel would contribute to climate
protection
1.3 % 4.0 % 2.48 1.393 4.11 2.046 -1.935 0.053 -0.80
I don’t have enough practical
information about alternative forms
of travel
1.2 % 3.9 % 2.43 1.531 4.09 2.043 -1.866 0.062 -0.82
low support and understanding
from my significant others
1.1 % 3.5 % 3.74 2.911 4.04 2.030 -0.019 0.985 -0.15
health reasons 0.8 % 2.6 % 3.51 1.875 4.05 2.056 -0.537 0.591 -0.26
I don’t travel by plane in my free time 68.0 % / / / / / / / /
Note: First two columns represent shares of positive answers when the reported non-participation in the respective
behaviour is included or excluded from the base. In bold are cited significant values – p=0.05.
89
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
In the area of minimizing plane travel, there are significant differences among Greenpeace
donors in three of the barriers. Those who experience a loss of satisfaction in regards to
minimizing plane travel (13.6%) and those few who do not consider climate change to be
a sufficient reason to change their behaviour (1.4%) are less willing to change their behaviour.
On average, the 10.7% who think that in this case they are doing enough are more willing
to make a behavioural change. A significant proportion of the respondents (14.8%) also
reported time demands as a barrier, but this group does not indicate a lower willingness to
minimize plane travel. Here a suitable strategy for a public education campaign would be
to familiarize the target group with interesting people who do consider climate change to
be a sufficient reason to change their behaviour. In this respect they are ahead of the target
group. They actively search for alternatives to flying, and at the same time find these alternative
modes of travel satisfying.
Limiting Short-Distance Car Travel
Table 16: Barriers and the willingness to consider limiting short-distance commuting by car
Are you willing to consider limiting short-distance commuting by car (up to 15 km)? [1=No, not at all; 7=I’m
determined to change this behaviour; Mean=4.11; N=246]
N=504 N=280 Yes No Mann-Whitney U
What prevents you from limiting
short-distance commuting by
car (up to 15 km)? [1=Yes; 0=No]
Share
(Yes)
Share
(Yes) Mean
Std.
Dev. Mean
Std.
Dev. Z
As. Sig.
(2-tailed)
Effect
Size
(d)
time demands 34.0 % 61.2 % 3.82 2.022 4.64 2.003 -3.092 0.002 -0.41
I think that in this case I’m doing
enough for climate protection
18.8 % 33.9 % 4.82 1.994 3.80 2.020 -3.637 0.000 0.51
expended energy demands
(effort required)
15.4 % 27.7 % 3.39 1.888 4.41 2.042 -3.803 0.000 -0.51
I like short-distance commuting
by car (loss of satisfaction)
6.0 % 10.9 % 3.34 1.896 4.22 2.050 -2.253 0.024 -0.43
low support and understanding
from my significant others
4.3 % 7.8 % 4.02 2.297 4.12 2.023 -0.321 0.748 -0.05
financial demands 4.0 % 7.2 % 3.39 1.774 4.17 2.061 -1.542 0.123 -0.38
health reasons 3.8 % 6.8 % 4.42 2.286 4.09 2.035 -0.727 0.467 0.16
I don’t have enough practical
information about how to deal
with short-distance commuting
without a car
3.4 % 6.1 % 3.62 2.193 4.14 2.040 -0.993 0.321 -0.25
I don’t consider climate change
to be a sufficient reason to
change my behaviour
1.3 % 2.4 % 2.45 2.281 4.16 2.027 -1.857 0.063 -0.85
I don’t have enough information
about how limiting short-distance
commuting by car would
contribute to climate protection
0.6 % 1.0 % 4.00 2.834 4.11 2.046 -0.057 0.954 -0.05
I don’t commute short-distance
by car
44.5 % / / / / / / / /
Note: First two columns represent shares of positive answers when the reported non-participation in the respective
behaviour is included or excluded from the base. In bold are cited significant values – p=0.05.
90
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
Those respondents who perceive a major barrier to be time demands (34.0 %), expended energy
demands (15.4 %), and loss of satisfaction (6.0%) are significantly less willing to consider
limiting short distance car travel. On the other hand, those respondents who think that in this
case they are doing enough (18.8%) are more willing to change their behaviour. These barriers
are difficult for a campaign to overcome. In order to decrease their influence, it would
be more effective to emphasize the benefits of alternative behaviours, for example walking
or bicycling (recreation, health benefits, etc.). Further, especially in urban areas where more
environmentally-friendly alternatives may actually involve saving time, it would be advisable
to stress the alternatives’ time efficiency.
Discussion
In accordance with models of pro-environmental behaviour (Ajzen 1991; Stern 2000), the
above analysis of barriers to climate-friendly behaviour shows that having pro-environmental
attitudes is not sufficient for people to get involved in pro-environmental behaviour. The presented
results have confirmed this: even the pro-environmentally oriented respondents demonstrate
considerable reserves in their pro-environmental behaviour because, apart from their
attitudes, their willingness to participate in this behaviour is influenced by many other factors
(see the overview in Clayton and Myers 2009: 145–156; Krajhanzl, Zahradníková and Rut
2009: 10–18; Steg, van den Berg and de Groot 2013: 129–220, Krajhanzl 2014: 114–136).
Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the inclination toward pro-environmental attitudes is
a guarantee of the target group’s pro-environmental behaviour (Gardner and Stern 1996: 71–94).
Our study also pinpoints the possibilities of the Community-Based Social Marketing
(McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999; McKenzie-Mohr 2011) approach which identifies barriers
to specific behaviours among specific target groups. As the results of our study show, the composition
of barriers to particular behaviours differs significantly from behaviour to behaviour.
Therefore, when planning public education campaigns requires identifying as precisely as possible
the barriers to a specific behaviour of a specific target group (Tyson 2009: 29–36; Lee
and Kotler 2011: 185–211), the Community-Based Social Marketing approach offers a suitable
strategy. In addition, we have explored the limits of mapping barriers as conducted according
to the Community-Based Social Marketing approach that is based on self-reports. Clearly, these
limits are serious: in regards to the willingness to adopt more climate-friendly behaviours, it is
only in a minority of the cases that respondents for whom a certain barrier prevented them from
adopting a climate-friendly behaviour differ in a statistically significant way from the respondents
who did not reported the same barrier. In other words, only a part of the barriers reported
by the respondents are linked to a statistically stronger willingness to behave in a more climatefriendly
way. Therefore, if we formulated a recommendation for a particular public education
campaign solely on the basis of self-reports, as is suggested by the Community-Based Social
Marketing approach, this recommendation would differ greatly from the one we would formulate
after also examining the difference in willingness to change the behaviour between the groups
with a present and an absent barrier (conducted by the Mann Whitney U test and Cohen’s D).
The present study has several limitations. The results are based on data collected from
504 respondents from among former and current Greenpeace donors who were contacted
91
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
by email. Since the participation in the research was voluntary, the sample of the population
was self-selected. Nevertheless, our analysis has shown that the socio-demographic variables
of the sample correspond to a high degree to those of the whole population of Czech
Greenpeace donors. Moreover, to address the composition of the sample in relation to the surveyed
population as part of the data preparation process, the data were weighted. On the other
hand, it is not clear whether the donors who decided to respond to our request and take part in
the research may differ from the other donors specifically in the area of their climate-relevant
attitudes and behaviours. Even though it is hard to imagine a type of data collection among
this population that would be based on something other than voluntary participation (and thus
self-selecting), when interpreting these results it is still necessary to keep in mind the possible
limits of the sample’s representativeness.
In addition, our study has also supported the notion that with some of the questions, selfreports
are not very reliable (Babbie 2010: 261). While the interpretation of the responses
regarding the various barriers could be corrected with the help of additional analyses, using
the Mann-Whitney U test and Cohen’s D, in other areas such a correction was not possible.
This particularly concerns the question about whether the respondents are already behaving
in an environmentally-friendly way. If 68% of the respondents reported that they do not
travel by plane in their free time, 42.6% keep the room temperature in their household in
winter at 20° C or lower, and 38.4% use the most energy-efficient household appliances
available, it is important not to overestimate the reliability of these responses. Even though
the reliability of the reported proportions can be sometimes questioned, the results still allow
us to mutually compare the respective behaviours and the barriers unaffected by these biases.
For the purposes of future research, it would be advisable to prepare questions that elicit less
social desirability or possibly to use lie scores and the filtering of respondents with an aboveaverage
agreement with highly socially-desirable questions.
It was in fact the large proportion of respondents who had reported already doing all they
could in a particular behavioural area that posed a certain statistical problem to us. We did not
include these respondents‘ answers to the question related to their willingness to change their
behaviour, and in many instances this lead to a significant decrease in the sample size left to
compare the presence and absence of a particular barrier. The statistical analyses regarding
the barriers that were relevant for only a small percentage of the respondents thus may be
based on the answers of just a few respondents. If the barrier was revealed to be significant in
spite of these limitations, such a finding may indicate a really large difference that, in a survey
based on a bigger sample, might have been revealed to be even more significant. At the
same time, it is possible that due to the low overall number of respondents who reported barriers
with low frequencies, we were not able to detect a significant difference regarding these
questions, even though in a bigger sample it may have been detectable. Therefore, our study
offers a basis for more detailed research in this area.
Conclusion
Climate-friendly household behaviour is an important part of a broad spectrum of climateprotection
efforts. This study focused on examining the barriers that interfere with the
92
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
climate-friendly behaviours of a particular pro-environmentally oriented segment of the
Czech society – the current and former donors of Greenpeace Czech Republic. The presented
analysis showed the most frequent barriers to the seven selected climate-friendly behaviours,
and it pinpointed which of the barriers are significant for each particular behaviour. The
results support the notion that pro-environmental attitudes are not a guarantee of pro-environmental
behaviour. They also show that a Community-Based Social Marketing approach is
more suitable than general models of pro-environmental behaviour for describing the barriers
to specific behaviours of specific target groups. At the same time, it is important to adjust the
results that are based on self-reports by employing additional methodological approaches that
compensate for social desirability bias.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the cooperation of the Czech Greenpeace Office and its donors,
particularly to MUDr. Lenka Pipková and Ing. Jitka Nesrstová. Our methodological consultations
with PhDr. Jan Činčera, Ph.D. and Mgr. Jan Urban, Ph.D. were of much benefit to the
study. Translation of the text into English was provided by Mgr. Kateřina Prajznerová, M.A.,
Ph.D. Thanks to you all.
References
AJZEN, Icek. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50(2): 179–211.
BABBIE, Earl. 2010. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
BAKIR, Vian. 2005. “Greenpeace v. Shell: Media Exploitation and the Social Amplification of Risk
Framework (SARF).” Journal of Risk Research 8(7-8): 679–691.
BAMBERG, Sebastian and Guido MÖSER. 2007. “Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera:
A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour.” Journal
of Environmental Psychology 27(1): 14–25.
BERGENGREN, Jon C., Duane E. WALISER and Yuk L. YUNG. 2011. “Ecological sensitivity: a biospheric
view of climate change.” Climatic Change 107(3-4): 433–457.
BOSTROM, Ann, Gisela BÖHM and Robert E. O’CONNOR. 2013. “Targeting and Tailoring Climate
Change Communications.” WIREs Climate Change. 4(5): 447–455.
BRUNI, Coral M. and P. Wesley SCHULTZ. 2010. “Implicit beliefs about self and nature: Evidence from
an IAT game.” Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30(1): 95–102.
COHEN, Jacob. 2013. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Waltham: Academic Press.
CLAYTON, Susan and Gene MYERS (eds.). 2009. Conservation Psychology: Understanding and Promoting
Human Care for Nature. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
ČESKÝ STATISTICKÝ ÚŘAD. 2014. Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů 2011. Český statistický úřad. Veřejná
databáze. Retrieved December 20, 2014 (http://vdb.czso.cz/).
CVVM. 2014. Vztah k životnímu prostředí a chování domácností – květen 2014. Retrieved December 20,
2014 (http://cvvm.soc.cas.cz/media/com_form2content/documents/c1/a7251/f3/oe140616.pdf).
DIETZ, Thomas, Gerald T. GARDNER, Jonathan GILLIGAN, Paul C. STERN and Michael P. VANDENBERGH.
2009. “Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US car-
93
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
bon emissions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
106(44): 18452–18456.
DIETZ, Thomas, Christina LESHKO and Aaron M. McCRIGHT. 2013. “Politics shapes individual
choices about energy efficiency.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 110(23): 9191–9192.
DIETZ, Thomas, Paul C. STERN and Elke U. WEBER. 2013. “Reducing carbon-based energy consumption
through changes in household behavior.” Daedalus 142(1): 78–89.
DOYLE, Julie. 2007. “Picturing the Clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the Representational Politics of Climate
Change Communication.” Science as Culture 16(2): 129–150.
GARCÍA, María M. 2011. “Perception is truth: How U.S. newspapers framed the ‘Go Greenʼ conflict
between BP and Greenpeace.” Public Relations Review 37(1): 57–59.
GARDNER, Gerald T. and Paul C. STERN. 1996. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
GEMENNE, François, Jon BARNETT, Neil W. ADGER and Geoffrey D. DABELKO. 2014. “Climate
and security: evidence, emerging risks, and a new agenda.” Climatic Change 123(1): 1–9.
GREENPEACE ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA. 2014a. Greenpeace Česká republika. Retrieved December 20,
2014 (http://www.greenpeace.org/czech/cz/).
GREENPEACE ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA. 2014b. Výroční zpráva. Greenpeace Česká republika.
Retrieved December 20, 2014 (http://www.greenpeace.org/czech/Global/czech/P3/publikace/
Vyrocni%20zpravy/vyrocni_zprava_12.pdf).
GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL. 2009. Greenpeace Science Unit. Greenpeace International. Retrieved
December 20, 2014 (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/greenpeace-sci-
ence-unit-2/).
HEINZ, Bettina, Hsin-I CHENG and Ako INUZUKA. 2007. “Greenpeace Greenspeak: A Transcultural
Discourse Analysis.” Language and Intercultural Communication 7(1): 16–36.
HUNGERFORD, Harold R. and Trudi L. VOLK. 1990. “Changing Learner Behavior through Environmental
Education.” The Journal of Environmental Education 21(3): 8–21.
IPPC. 2014. “Summary for Policymakers.” Pp. 1–33 in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by FIELD, Christopher
B., Vicente R. BARROS et al. New York: Cambridge University Press.
JEHLIČKA, Petr. 2001. “The new subversives – Czech environmentalists after 1989.” Pp. 81–94 in Pink,
purple, green: women’s, religious, environmental, and gay/lesbian movements in central Europe
today, edited by Helena FLAM. Boulder: East European Monographs.
KENT, Jennifer. 2009. “Individualized responsibility: ‘If climate protection becomes everyone’s responsibility,
does it end up being no-one’s?’” Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal
1(3): 132–149.
KLÖCKNER, Christian A. 2013. “Comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behavior –
A meta-analysis.” Global Environmental Change 23(5): 1028–1038.
KRAJHANZL, Jan. 2014. Psychologie vztahu k přírodě a životnímu prostředí. Brno: Lipka & Masarykova
univerzita.
KRAJHANZL, Jan, Šárka ZAHRADNÍKOVÁ and Ondřej RUT. 2010. Možnosti spolupráce s veřejností
(nejen) při ochraně životního prostředí. Praha: Zelený kruh.
LEE, Nancy R. and Philip KOTLER. 2011. Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good. London:
SAGE.
LENTH, Russell V. 2001. “Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination.” The
American Statistician 55(3): 187–193.
94
SOCIÁLNÍ STUDIA 3/2015
McKENZIE-MOHR, Doug and William SMITH. 1990. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction
to Community-Based Social Marketing. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
McKENZIE-MOHR, Doug. 2011. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to CommunityBased
Social Marketing. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
McKENZIE-MOHR, Doug, Nancy R. LEE, Wesley SCHULTZ and Philip A. KOTLER. 2012. Social
Marketing to Protect the Environment: What Works. London: SAGE.
McKENZIE-MOHR, Doug. 2014. Fostering Sustainable Behavior. Community-Based Social Marketing.
Retrieved December 20, 2014 (http://www.cbsm.com/).
MOBLEY, Catherine and William KILBOURNE. 2013. “Gender Differences in Pro-Environmental Intentions:
A Cross-National Perspective on the Influence of Self-Enhancement Values and Views on
Technology.” Sociological Inquiry 83(2): 310–332.
RÖMMELE, Andrea and Hans-Dieter KLINGEMANN. 2002. Public Information Campaigns & Opinion
Research: A Handbook for the Student & Practitioner. London: SAGE.
RICHARDSON, Katherine et al. 2009. Synthesis Report from Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges
and Decisions. Copenhagen 2009, 10-12 March. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.
Retrieved October 1, 2014 (http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport).
SCHULTZ, P. Wesley and Jennifer TABANICO. 2007. “Self, Identity, and the Natural Environment:
Exploring Implicit Connections with Nature.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37(6):
1219–1247.
STEG, Linda, Agnes E. VAN DEN BERG and Judith I. M. DE GROOT (eds.). 2013. Environmental
Psychology – An Introduction. Chichester: British Psychological Society & John Wiley.
STEM. 2009. “Dochází ke globálnímu oteplování, myslí si 80 % Čechů. Příčinou je podle většiny z nich
lidská činnost.” STEM. Retrieved December 20, 2014 (http://www.stem.cz/clanek/1894).
STERN, Paul C. 2000. “Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.” Journal
of Social Issues 56(3): 407–424.
STRØMSNES, Kristin, Per SELLE and Gunnar GRENDSTAD. 2009. “Environmentalism between
state and local community: why Greenpeace has failed in Norway.” Environmental Politics 18(3):
391–407.
TNS OPINION & SOCIAL. Climate Change. Report. Special Eurobarometer 409 / Wave EB80.2. European
Commision. Retrieved December 20, 2014 (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/
ebs_409_en.pdf).
TYSON, Ben and Mercedes D. HURD. 2009. Social Marketing Environmental Issues. Bloomington:
iUniverse.
UN. A/64/350 Climate change and its possible security implications: report of the Secretary-General.
pp. 11. United Nations. Retrieved December 5, 2014 (http://www.unhcr.org/543e73f69.html).
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER. 2010. “Greenpeace Research Laboratories.” Retrieved December 20, 2014
(http://www.greenpeace.to/greenpeace/).
WBGU – Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen. 2007. Svět
v přechodu: Změna klimatu jako bezpečnostní riziko: Shrnutí pro politické činitele. Translated by
Hollan, J. from Welt im Wandel: Sicherheitsrisiko Klimawandel. Zusammenfassung für Entscheidungsträger.
Berlin: WBGU. Retrieved December 20, 2014 (http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/wbgu/
srkw_cz.pdf).
Authors
Jan Krajhanzl is a social psychologist, conservation psychologist and ecopsychologist.
He works at the Department of Environmental Studies, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk
University. He specializes in the various types of motivation for pro-environmental behaviour,
95
Jan Krajhanzl, Jan Skalík: Czech Greenpeace Donors and the Barriers...
environmental communication and the psychological consequences of a decrease in contact
with nature. He is the author of the following publications: Dobře utajené emoce a problémy
životního prostředí [Well Hidden Emotions and Environmental Problems; 2012] and
Psychologie vztahu k přírodě a životnímu prostředí [Psychology of the Relationship toward
Nature and the Environment; 2014]. He is the editor of the Czech Website of Ecopsychology
(www.ekopsychologie.cz).
Contact: jan.krajhanzl@mail.muni.cz
Jan Skalík is a Ph.D. student at the Department of Environmental Studies, Faculty of Social
Studies, Masaryk University. Among his interests is environmental politics, particularly the
proenvironmental attitudes and political strategies of Czech politicians. He also participates
in several academic projects and initiatives bridging academia and the NGO sector. His participation
in the article was possible thanks to the support of the grant MUNI/A/1299/2014
“Current Approaches to the Study of Environmental Phenomena”.
Contact: skalik@mail.muni.cz