Проэкологическое поведение в России: адаптация шкалы Кэмерона Брика и связь с экологической обеспокоенностью
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v13i70.199Ключевые слова:
проэкологическое поведение, экологическая обеспокоенность, изменение климата, психология среды, адаптацияАннотация
В условиях стремительного ухудшения состояния окружающей среды и изменения климата, вызванных антропогенным воздействием, все большую актуальность приобретают исследования проэкологического поведения. Проэкологическим считается поведение, направленное на снижение вреда, наносимого окружающей среде, или же оказывающее на нее благоприятное воздействие. Мы провели адаптацию шкалы проэкологического поведения К.Брика (2017) и исследовали ее связь с экологической обеспокоенностью в России. Шкала из 21 пункта включает в себя такие категории, как выбор транспорта, потребление, обращение с бытовыми отходами, экономия природных ресурсов и социальное экологическое поведение. По результатам опроса 412 жителей России была доказана внутренняя согласованность и конвергентная валидность шкалы в сравнении с экологической обеспокоенностью, а также рассмотрена ее факторная структура. Приведены рекомендации для дальнейшего использования шкалы.
Скачивания
Библиографические ссылки
Cyrillic letters are transliterated according to BSI standards. The titles are given in author’s translation.
Alekseeva N.N., Arshinova M.A., Bancheva A.I. Polozhenie Rossii v mezhdunarodnyh ekologicheskih rejtingah. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya: Ekologiya i bezopasnost' zhiznedeyatel'nosti, 2018, 26(1), 134–152. (in Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2310-2018-26-1-134-152
Berenguer J., Corraliza J.A., Martín R. Rural-urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2005, 21(2), 128–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.128
Biesbroek R., Klostermann J., Termeer C., Kabat P. Barriers to climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. Climate Law, 2011, 2, 181–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/CL-2011-033
Brick C., Lai C.K. Explicit (but not implicit) environmentalist identity predicts pro-environmental behavior and policy preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2018, 58, 8–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.07.003
Brick C., Sherman D.K., Kim H.S. “Green to be seen” and “brown to keep down”: Visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2017, 51, 226–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.004
Clayton S., Devine-Wright P., Swim J., Bonnes M., Steg L., Whitmarsh L., Carrico A. Expanding the role for psychology in addressing environmental challenges. American Psychologist, 2016, 71(3), 199–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039482
Clayton S., Irkhin B.D., Nartova-Bochaver S.K. Environmental Identity in Russia: Validation and Relationship to Concern for People and Plants. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2019, 16(1), 85–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2019-1-85-107
Farrow K., Grolleau G., Ibanez L. Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence. Ecological Economics, 2017, 140, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017
Gardner G.T., Stern P.C. The short list: The most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 2008, 50(5), 12–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.12-25
Gatersleben B. Measuring Environmental Behaviour. In: L. Steg, J. de Groot (Eds.) Environmental Psychology: An Introduction, Second Edition. Wiley Online Library, 2019, 158–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241072.ch16
Gifford R., Nilsson A. Personal and social factors that influence pro‐environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 2014, 49(3), 141–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
Hornsey M.J., Harris E.A., Bain P.G., Fielding K.S. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(6), 622–626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
Hu L.T., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999. 6(1). 1–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416
Kaiser F.G., Wilson M. Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific composition of a general performance. Personality and individual differences, 2004, 36(7), 1531–1544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.06.003
Kryazh I.V., Klimkina Yu.V. Ekologicheskaya ozabochennost' i gotovnost' k ekosberegayushchemu povedeniyu u studentov raznyh special'nostej. Vіsnik Harkіvs'kogo nacіonal'nogo unіversitetu іmenі V.N. Karazіna, 2013, Serіya: «Psihologіya», 1065(52), 33–37. (in Ukrainian)
Lacroix K. Comparing the relative mitigation potential of individual pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 195, 1398–1407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.068
Landry N., Gifford R., Milfont T.L., Weeks A., Arnocky S. Learned helplessness moderates the relationship between environmental concern and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2018, 55, 18–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.003
Lange F., Dewitte S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2019, 63, 92–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009
Larson L.R., Stedman R.C., Cooper C.B., Decker D.J. Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2015, 43, 112–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004
Lee T.M., Markowitz E.M., Howe P.D., Ko C.Y., Leiserowitz A.A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5(11), 1014–1020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2728
Minprirody Rossii. Gosudarstvennyj doklad “O sostoyanii i ob ohrane okruzhayushchej sredy Rossijskoj Federacii v 2017 godu” M.: Minprirody Rossii, NPP Kadastr, 2018. (in Russian)
Nash N., Whitmarsh L., Capstick S., Hargreaves T., Poortinga W., Thomas G., Sautkina E., Xenias D. Climate-relevant behavioral spillover and the potential contribution of social practice theory. WIREs Climate Change, 2017, 8(6), 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.481
Nestik T.A., Zhuravlev A.L. Psihologiya global'nyh riskov. M.: Institut psihologii RAN, 2018, 402. (in Russian)
Nielsen K.S., Clayton S., Stern P.C., Dietz T., Capstick S., Whitmarsh L. How psychology can help limit climate change. American Psychologist, Advance online publication, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000624 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000624
Panov V.I. Ekologicheskoe soznanie v paradigmal'nom kontekste ponyatiya “Priroda”. Noosfernye issledovaniya, 2017, 2(18), 17–30. (in Russian)
Poortinga W., Steg L., Vlek C. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 2004, 36(1), 70–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503251466
Rosgidromet. Vtoroj ocenochnyj doklad Rosgidrometa ob izmeneniyah klimata i ih posledstviyah na territorii Rossijskoj Federacii. M.: Rosgidromet, 2014. (in Russian)
Sautkina E., Ivanova A. The drivers of pro-environmental behaviour in Russia. Proceedings of the International Conference of Environmental Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK, 2019.
Sautkina E. Social'no-psihologicheskij analiz ekologicheskoj kul'tury i ekologicheskoj politiki v Rossii v usloviyah uhudshayushchegosya kachestva okruzhayushchej sredy. V kn.: K.G. Byonke, N.M. Lebedeva (Red.), Social'no-psihologicheskie posledstviya izmenenij na postsovetskom prostranstve: kross-kul'turnyj i kross-regional'nyj analiz. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnaya laboratoriya socio-kul'turnyh issledovanij NIU VSHE, 2019. (in Russian)
Steg L., Bolderdijk J.W., Keizer K., Perlaviciute G. An integrated framework for encouraging proenvironmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2014, 30, 104–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.002
Steg L., Vlek C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2009, 29(3), 309–317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Van der Werff E., Steg L., Keizer K. The value of environmental selfidentity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental selfidentity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2013, 34, 55–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
Whitmarsh L., O'Neill S. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of environmental psychology, 2010, 30(3), 305–314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Copyright (c) 2020 Психологические исследования
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution-NonCommercial» («Атрибуция — Некоммерческое использование») 4.0 Всемирная.
