There were four key emotional
barriers identified in the research:
(i) ‘Green’
Stereotype
For many, being ‘green’
still has primarily negative associations which causes varying
levels of disassociation, although the focus varies across the sample. The term often
generates negative imagery such as: obsessive individuals like Swampy, ‘tree huggers’
rather ‘dirty’ travellers and ‘hippies’. Alongside this was a perception of the
tendency of
‘greens’ towards rather obsessive, very narrow (and thus rather misguided) personal
thinking. Some also felt that being ‘green’ was not particularly modern or current and
rather a thing of the past.
Much stronger negative
perceptions were evident amongst older people.
“You know – save the planet now!”
[Female, BC1, 36-45, Cohabit/No Kids, Mkt Town, Powys – CWC]
“The first thing I think of is a hippy”
[Male, BC1, 26-35, Cohabit/No Kids, Mkt Town, Powys – EF]
“What, do you mean like whatshisname, Stumpy?”
[Female, C1, 45-54, Married with kids, Valleys, South Wales - CG]
It’s on the news. The pipeline. They’re trying to stop them digging
up for a pipeline”
[Male, D, 35-54, Single, Valleys, South Wales - IG]
There is some evidence
that suggests that the baggage around ‘greenness’ is reducing,
but that there is still a widespread, although not exclusive, aversion to being labelled
green. However, respondents struggled to find a substitute, so it is a key requirement
to normalise ‘green-ness’, and to find shared causes and aspirations that people can
more readily relate to and identify with.
It was also evident that
some ‘green’ behaviour presents a real conflict with other
aspirational aspects of today’s culture. For some, however, there is a willingness to
make some compromises or at least ‘pay’ for these privileges.
(ii) Uncool
As associated issue to
the above, certain environmentally friendly bevaviours, were
currently perceived by some as uncool or a bit ‘naff ‘, such as owning a hybrid car,
and
were anticipated to be seen as compromising someone’s identity or social status. So
clearly, efforts need to be made here to counter such negative perceptions..
(iii) Deserving
gratification
The unwillingness to give
up choices related to comfort (or sometimes indulgence) was
resisted on the basis of deserving/being justified. As in England, travel and transport
was the main area where many of the sample were resistant to change.
As a consequence of ‘working
hard’ most felt that they deserved their holiday(s) and
were most reluctant to relinquish them. And whilst some felt a degree of guilt about
this contributing to unenvironmentally friendly behaviour, others seemed more defiant!
Car travel tended to be
considered a necessity (given weak public transport
infrastructure). However, use of larger cars (including 4x4s) was also often justified as
essential for working requirements (e.g. carrying equipment with ease) and comfort and
safety on Wales’ rural roads.
(iv) Pride/identity
Many respondents were
resistant to the idea of second hand goods. While they were
often happy to give goods away, there was a dislike of accepting things that were not
new.
While not always articulated
clearly, the need to take second-hand items was felt
indicative of being ‘poor’. At a conscious level, respondents wanted to distance
themselves from any sense of poverty and align themselves instead with the ‘success’
attached to being able to purchase new goods. Indeed, for some access to such
‘trappings of success’ as a relatively new experience.
At a less conscious level,
some were also keen to avoid the other associations of
poverty: dirt, disease and lack of control. Taking used goods (with unknown histories)
made this harder to be confident about; and it was clear that those who had such
concerns were very anxious to remain separate from ‘that’ world.
In some areas of regeneration,
including new housing developments and facilities, such
as shopping centres and dual carriageways, mixed messages are also generated around
consumption. These fuel other needs/desires and, in effect, create more ambivalence
towards greenness and compromise. It is difficult for people to rationalise reducing
consumption in this context, therefore helping people consume in a more
environmentally-friendly way is likely to be easier to take on board.
“I know the iron works were a lot of employment for people but they were
worse than the coalmines because
they were underground…and it’s caused a lot of diseases around here…I don’t think
he would have had
asthma…a necessary evil…”
[Female, C1, 45-54, Valleys, South Wales – Disinterested]
