How Do Copenhagener’s Cope with Climate Change? Katherin Sibel June 1, 2014
Photo from http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/11/investing-in-climate-change-areas-of-opportunity-spurred-by-a-new-economy/
Created for Copenhagen Area Survey / København Område Oversigt (KOO) Rice University: Kinder Institute for Urban Research and the Danish Institute for Study Abroad
Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2 The Issue ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Research…………………………………………………………………………………………...4 Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………...5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………...9 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 10
1|Page
Executive Summary Given Copenhagen’s prestigious green reputation in all of Europe, the following research looks into what factors and beliefs prompt people (or not) to engage in environmental behaviors that might mitigate climate change. Some of these behaviors include taking public transportation, recycling, reducing water consumption, and more personal use of wind and solar renewable energy. I examine the internal and external factors that make up an environmentally conscious Copenhagener. The internal factors are general demographic characteristics such as age, gender, income and education level. In addition to this, external factors look into a Copenhagener’s levels of perceived happiness, income history and how that affects their beliefs on climate change. In terms of external factors, there exist some intriguing relationships between a Copenhagener’s water usage, and likelihood of personal renewable energy usage. In addition to this, there are some interesting percentages about Copenhageners who bike and whether or not they believe climate change to be a threat. In summation, since over 95% of Copenhagener’s believe climate change to be a threat, there are no definite internal factors that indicate whether or not a Copenhagener will engage in pro-environmental behavior.
2|Page
I. THE ISSUE Copenhagen, recently voted the 2014 Green Capital of Europe, is the first city to publicly pledge in becoming carbon neutral by the year 2025. The 2012 CPH 2025 Climate Plan is a holistic city plan tackling different environmental issues such as, green mobility, along with energy consumption and production. According to the City of Copenhagen Climate Consortium, the city hopes to combine “growth, and development with the reduction of CO2 emissions” (Bolsen). In doing so, they hope to find efficient solutions that will ensure a better quality of life, along with technological innovation, job creation, and investment. The manner in which Copenhagen will deal with the expenses of such plans is to shift the city’s infrastructure gradually through development projects across the city. Doing this will reduce carbon emissions, and encourage collaboration and participation with a large number of sectors and stakeholders in creating ‘green growth,’ thereby enhancing the quality of life. According to the Copenhagen’s Climate Action Plan, two thirds of CO2 reduction will come from the efficient production and consumption of waste and energy. So far the use of renewables such as the installation of wind turbines, waste incineration and biomass cogeneration plants are contributing to this carbon dioxide reduction. Unfortunately in terms of energy, households have only had a reduced energy consumption of 10%, whereas commercial buildings have had more than double the percentage reduction. Another important sector that the city is trying to accomplish is the promotion of green transportation. According to the city’s action plan, 22% of Copenhagen’s transportation sector has contributed to the carbon discharge in 2010. Since the city’s action plan includes having an 11% carbon emission reduction, the main goals for the transportation sector includes having at least “75% of all trips being done by foot, bike or public transport.” In addition, half of a Copenhagener’s commute to work or school will done by bike. Besides this, the city looks to have all public transportation be carbon neutral, therefore a predicted 20% to 30% of all light vehicles are to run on electricity, hydrogen, biogas or bioethanol, and other new renewable technologies. Climate change is a worldwide issue, with Copenhagen being no exception. Therefore, as the evidence for anthropogenic climate change grows stronger, uncertainty remains on how social, economic, moral and political aspects play into one’s responsiveness and engagement with climate change issues. The global extent of climate change creates an interesting case of global collective action and norms making, since “many of the recommended behaviors have relatively high individual costs” (Bolsen). Therefore, the current literature on public participation includes a wide range of social movement, demographics, sociology and public participation theories in relation to environmental consciousness. The goal of this research is to help supplement policy makers and city planners in effectively interacting with Copenhageners on climate change mitigation issues through understanding how the city’s demographics (gender, income, age, and education) affect their behavior and participation. Furthermore, understanding the average Copenhagener’s opinions on climate change issues will be beneficial to the city’s climate action plan since they will be able to better engage with the public.
3|Page
II. RESEARCH The existing literature on this topic explores different theories of cooperation, social norms, collective behavior, and internal and external factors that influence one’s behavior. One of the authors, Ben Clements, uses a national representative survey in order to examine Britain’s beliefs and behaviors for the environment. By using linear regression analysis, he finds consistent sociological factors relating to gender, age, education and political engagement. Although he finds general environmental concerns in all social groups, “the intensity with which people express it varies greatly” (Clements). He found that the most environmentally conscious person is more likely to be an older, well-educated female who supports the Liberal Democrat’s agenda and other political affairs. Conversely, a male with lower education levels who supports the Conservative Party or is disinterested in political affairs altogether is likely the least engaged with environmental issues. In order to explain these results, Clements uses the “enlightenment hypothesis” to stress the importance education plays in evoking one’s commitment to the common good, (including environmental protection). The theme of the “common good” has been frequently used throughout research in order to highlight the necessity of collective action in response to global warming. According to researchers Lubell, Zahran, and Vedlitz, one’s actions are dependent on their perceived risk, and if their actions will modify the consequences of global warming. From this, they are more likely to possess environmental values, take action, and support more climate change policies. Understanding a Copenhagener’s (positive or negative) perceived risk of climate change is very important for the government to understand how to engage with all citizens in order to achieve their sustainability goals. Although having a citizen-to-government relationship is essential for policy support, other literature discusses the importance of citizen-to-citizen relationships, otherwise known as norms. Tony Bolsen elaborates this idea in Doing What Others Do: Norms, Science and Collective Action on Global Warming, by stating that “behavioral intentions to take voluntary action are strongly affected by norms and science-based interventions,” and when individuals believe that others are cooperating (2012). Bolsen continues to explain that when an individual decides to take part in a collective action, it results from a careful evaluation of the personal costs and benefits associated with partaking in the proposed action. More importantly, there is another calculation involving, “collective interest” (Bolsen) or whether an individual’s action will impact the outcome or the “likelihood of the group achieving success” (Bolsen). These calculations influence the potency norms have on individuals in relation to the collective interest through shaping “beliefs, intentions, and actions” (Bolsen). According to Bolsen, norms have the “potential to influence beliefs and behaviors, though only under particular conditions” (2012). As mentioned by Clements previously, party identification plays an important role on climate change-related policy outcomes. Therefore, Bolsen suggests that the blend of science and norm-based communications can be beneficial in lessening the partisan divide on climate change. This is important for research because it suggests harnessing the science to support further policies, and incorporating norms in order to cultivate individual action instead of polarizing the issue. Although norms may be very important in ensuring participation and altering behavior, condemning a person’s lifestyle may not be the most ideal approach. Lubell, Zahran, and Vedlitz states that the norm-based approach may not be equally relevant since certain people may be indifferent to the social consequences due to the “overwhelming influence of individual costs 4|Page
and benefits of modifying their current behavior” (2007). Another important factor that influences a person’s skepticism about climate change is their level of “perceived uncertainty” (Lubell, Zahran, Vedlitz). This involves one’s attitude on the “reliability of the sources of information, personal involvement with the issue,” (Lubell, Zahran, Vedlitz) and the degree in which one is open to change. In an experiment using attitudinal domains, Corner, Whitmarsh, and Xenias show that individuals with opposing prior attitudes “assimilate new information in a way that is consistent with their existing position” (2012). This process is termed ‘biased assimilation,’ since it involves the selection of accepting new evidence that confirms their original views, despite being exposed to other explanations. The idea of ‘biased assimilation’ provides a major barrier for public engagement due to the controversial nature and ambiguous consequences of climate change. This idea thus brings about the question as to how Copenhagen should proceed in promoting positive environmental behavior despite this psychological barrier. Authors Corner, Whitmarsh and Xenias found that if one is able to positively frame the uncertainty of climate change consequences, then people are more likely to have stronger intentions to act in a pro-environmental way. Biased assimilation exists most predominantly when scientific and political positions are entrenched and unclear. Therefore, the researchers suggest that any campaigns geared toward engaging with the public should promote a two-sided dialogue that discusses the “values and trade offs in order to ensure viable attitudinal and behavioral change and participation” (Corner, Whitmarsh, & Xenias). Understanding a citizen’s personal engagement with environmental issues is relative to one’s life experiences. This is important for policy makers and urban planners to understand in order to best communicate the city’s sustainability strategies currently being undertaken. Additionally, life experiences influences one’s propensity towards pro-environmental behavior, which can be further separated into external (institutional, economic, social and cultural) and internal factors (motivation, pro-environmental knowledge, awareness, values, attitudes, priorities). According to Kollmus and Agyeman, “direct experiences have a stronger influence on people’s behavior than indirect” (2002). In addition, they heavily emphasize the significance of social norms, cultural traditions, and family customs in shaping one’s attitude. For example, if the dominant culture promotes an unsustainable lifestyle, then pro-environmental behaviors, attitudes, and action is less likely to occur. In order to solve this, both authors suggest that internal and external factors perform “synergistically” (Kollmus, Agyemn). Altering one’s culture and existing habits in Copenhagen may require more time than infrastructural changes. Nevertheless, citizens should reciprocate and alter their behavior in order for the city to effectively reach carbon neutrality. By analyzing the different internal and external factors that affects one’s behavior (gender, age, income, education), one may be able to understand the benefits and barriers the city must undertake within the coming years. III. FINDINGS: Since the city of Copenhagen is a growing, and dynamic city, the Copenhagen Area Survey wanted to look more specifically into the opinions of adults on national issues, such as religion, immigration, happiness, etc. In relation to this research, questions related to climate change were posed in order to understand what measures citizen’s think and were willing to do. After asking whether or not they view climate change as a threat, the subsequent questions posed was related to how one should personally respond to climate change. The options given included 5|Page
more personal usage of wind and solar renewable electricity, using public transportation, participating in local green initiatives through community gardening or vegetable coops; reducing water usage by taking shorter showers or rain water collection; finally, reducing personal consumption through less shopping and carbon intensive eating habits. Therefore, this research analyzes the internal factors (gender, income, age, education) and external factors (happiness, living conditions, current financial status). The theories used in the literature are integral in understanding how and what kinds of people are engaged (or not) in being environmentally responsible. The Copenhagen Area Survey conducted shows that an overwhelming amount (92%) of Copenhageners think that climate change is caused by humans. When asked more specifically on how serious they perceive climate change to be, the data was spread with 76% of Copenhageners believing it to be somewhat to very serious (45% say ‘very serious,’ and 31% say ‘somewhat serious’). The remaining results indicated that 16 and 6% of Copenhageners found climate change to be little or not serious at all. The main focus of this paper is to understand the demographics, and values of the 92% of Copenhageners whom take personal action to combat climate change. Therefore, the results of this test contribute to the goal of this paper, since it could help explain whether one’s perception of risk affects how they respond to this global problem. The Copenhagen Area Survey asked what different types of activities should be pursued in order to alleviate climate change. The options included reducing consumption (through recycling, etc.), more personal use of renewable energy (like wind and solar electricity), reduce municipal water usage (shorter showers, or rain water collection), or participating in local green initiatives. As expected, the overwhelming majority of the people who indicated the risk of climate change to be somewhat to very serious felt that each of the measures listed were necessary in easing climate change issues in Copenhagen. Knowing and understanding these figures can help someone paint a mental picture of the average Copenhagener’s personal involvement with issues regarding climate change. Therefore, the city’s local culture of having one of the best biking infrastructures in the world may make Copenhageners feel more inclined to indicate this option. In addition, the developing integration and implementation of renewable energy projects throughout the country would therefore make it the subsequent option preferred. Overall, city officials need to re-evaluate how they can promote changes in their citizen’s participation rate with local initiatives, along with the revision of water and waste consumption habits. In order to explain the most and least popular behavioral choices, I subtracted each option from the ‘no’ and ‘yes’ respondents. It is perhaps not surprising that the use of public transportation (every manner but car) was the most popular given the cultural context of Copenhagen. The second most popular is the use or purchase of more wind and solar sources in order to replace fossil fuel produced electricity. The next two suggesting the reduction of water usage and consumptions habits were the median actions preferred, with participation in local green initiatives being the lowest ranked with a difference of -464 people. This information is important because it will help city planners, non-profits, and policy makers understand the average Copenhagener’s opinion on the different sustainability strategies being pursued to achieve carbon neutrality. Given this knowledge, we now know that measures involving public transportation are more likely to guarantee public participation. In addition, action plans that focus upon the average Copenhageners water and consumption habits requires more piloting in order to make it as a popular as transportation. Most importantly, the action that demands the
6|Page
highest amount of attention is the promotion of more local initiatives such as food-cops, urban gardens, etc. Unfortunately, after thorough analysis I found no significant relationships between the gender, age, education, and income in relation to the variable of climate change being a threat. Such a high percentage of Copenhagen areas residents believe climate change to be a threat that it does not vary by any particular socio-demographic factors. Figure 1: Percent Who Make More Use of Renewable Energy, by Whether They also Reduce Their Water Usage 100% 90% 80%
87%
70%
69%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Reduce Water Usage
Do Not Reduce
Although there is no indication that internal factors play into oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s involvement with environmental issues, some relationships were found after performing a cross tabulation with the different options (transportation, energy and water usage). The most interesting, as shown in Figure 1, was that 87% of the Copenhageners who have reduce their water consumption in their attempt to be environmental responsible also have switched to using more renewable energy (wind, solar, water), compared to 69% of Copenhagen area residents using more renewable energy if they have not reduced their water usage (chi-square = 25.0, p < .05). Likewise those who have reduced their water consumption are more likely to have reduced their personal consumption (purchasing of consumer good, recycling, etc.) compared to those who have not reduced their water consumption (81% vs. 54%, chi-square = 40.7, p < .05), and to participate in local green initiatives, such as gardening cooperatives (38% vs. 21%, chisquare = 13.5, p < .05). I also examined personal renewable energy usage and the current self-reported financial status of Copenhageners. The most likely to use renewable energy sources are those believing their personal financial situation is getting worse. Over 90% of this group make a conscious 7|Page
100% 90%
Use of personal renewable energy is influenced by recent financial history 9%
21%
15%
80% 70% 60% 50% 40%
91%
No 79%
85%
Yes
30% 20% 10% 0% Getting worse
About the same
Getting better
effort to use renewable energy, compared to 79% of residents who think their financial situation is the staying the same and 85% of those who think their financial situation is getting better (chi-square = 9.5, p < .05). Perhaps the people who are in a great financial position do not feel that investing in more technology is as necessary. I also analyzed whether the means by which Copenhagen area residents commute to work is associated with their climate change views. As Figure 3 shows, those who bike to work are more likely to believe that climate change is a very serious threat, compared to those who commute to work using other means (chi-square = 10.1, p < .05). I also found that when compared to other commuters, those who commute to work via bike are more likely to say that climate change is caused by humans (94% vs. 88%, chi-square = 3.9, p < .05). Figure 3: Percent Who Believe Climate Change is a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Very Seriousâ&#x20AC;? Threat by whether Bike to Work or Use Other Means 60% 50%
50%
40% 30%
39%
20% 10% 0% Do not bike to work
Bike to work
In sum, there were no definite relationships with consumption habits, or participation in local green initiatives. That aside, the relationships found within personal renewable energy and 8|Page
water usage helps one understand the average Copenhagener’s feelings towards this activity; and will help contribute information towards the city’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2025. IV. Conclusion: The results have shown that an overwhelming majority of Copenhageners perceive climate change to be a serious issue, and one that needs to be personally addressed by all. For this reason, demographic factors such as age, gender, income and education level were note associated with their climate change views. Considering the overwhelming percentage of people that believe in climate change, along with the city’s many green efforts, the combination bodes well for the goal of achieving the ambitious carbon neutrality goals. When looking at the literature, the authors cited include theories revolving around public participation, social movements, and sociology and public participation. They were previously mentioned in order to explain how a person becomes environmental conscious, and thus evolves into an active global citizen. Although the city of Copenhagen has a strong history of public participation in politics, some of these theories are not relevant, nor do they correlate with the research found. For example, Clements wrote that one would actively participate in order to contribute and help the common good. Although the social welfare system is a major aspect of the Danish culture, there is no strong indication that this is case in terms of what Copenhageners believe to be the most environmentally beneficial actions (recycling, gardening, etc.) In addition, Authors Kolmus and Agyman found that life experiences formulate one’s propensity to be pro-environmental, and he separates this into internal (awareness, values, attitudes, priorities) and external factors (institutional, economic, social and cultural). Therefore, how one acts is dependent on their culture and environment. Along with this, Ben Clemens described the most environmentally conscious person to be an older female, well educated, and support liberal agenda. In the case of Copenhagen there are no definite demographics that describe the most environmentally active Copenhagener. In conclusion, the author’s whose theory best relates to the findings is Corner, Whitmarsh, and Xenias. Since framing uncertainty (climate change) in a positive manner is more likely to achieve pro-environmental behavior. Since over 92% of the citizens believe that climate change exists, and that it is a threat, this influences the age, gender, education, and income variable to be negligible in this research. As the results have shown, a strong majority of Copenhageners believe in climate change, therefore the city is likely able to achieve their goals and percentages that contribute to the city’s carbon neutrality plan. This will be likely dependent on the strategies they take to promote their carbon neutrality city plan, and how they actively engage with the citizens. For this reason, working with the current culture, along with positive message framing will likely make this goal a reality over time. Therefore, understanding the opinions and beliefs of Copenhagener’s will help in promoting effective public engagement with environmental, income equality, immigration, and other relevant issues that are currently affecting the city today, and in the future.
9|Page
Bibliography Bolsen, Toby. 2014. Doing What Others Do: Norms, Science, and Collective Action on Global Warming. American Politics. 42(1): 65-89. Online Article. Clements, Ben. 2012. The Sociological and Attitudinal Bases of Environmentally Related Beliefs and Behavior in Britain. Environmental Politics. 21(6): 901-921. Text. Corner, Adam, Whitmarsh, Lorraine, Xenias, Dimitrios. 2012. Uncertainty, Scepticism and Attitudes Towards Climate Change: Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization. Climate Change 114(3): 463-478. Online Text. Grundvig, James. 2013. Can Copenhagen Become the Worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s First Carbon Neutral City? Huffington Post Green. Blog post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-grundvig/cancopenhagen-become-the_b_2523272.html Kollmuss, Anja, Agyeman, Julian. 2002. Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior? Environmental Education Research. 8(3): 239-258. Online Text. Lubell, Mark, Zahran, Sammy, Vedlitz, Arnold. 2007. Collective Action and Citizen Responses to Global Warming. Springer Science and Business Media. 391-410. Online text.
10 | P a g e