AbstractI administered a brief survey to seven different subsets of the population of Latvia to assess perceptions of environmental issues within the subgroups examined. Factor analyses indicated that the survey measured nine distinct factors. Group differences on these factors and individual questions were examined. Correlation of factors and questions with demographic variables, including marital status, income, age, and gender were also examined. Support was lent for the hypothesis that greater connection with environmental issues, either intellectual or through direct connect with land, results in increased concern for issues of environmental protection. This indicates that fostering an increased connection with the natural environment will facilitate awareness. Significant differences between environmental ministry members and members of the public on key issues are discussed. The study is concluded with a discussion of shortcomings and suggestions for future work.
§Introduction
In order to incorporate the public in the decision making process, one must first understand what the public believes and how they believe they should be involved. Though there has been some work on examining general issues of public perceptions on participation in Latvia, environmental issues in the Baltic State of Estonia, and for one localized region of Latvia involved in environmental protection, Latvia currently has a dearth of knowledge in terms of specific examination of general perceptions of environmental issues held by the public and key stakeholder groups. This report aims to begin to alleviate this deficiency and to help identify methods for better incorporating the public in future environmental policy decision-making.
§General Issues of Public Participation in the Transition Period
There have been several attempts by different organizations in Latvia to assess public opinions on policy matters. As my focus is on environmental issues I describe the current state in that sphere below but first will briefly speak on general participation in policy in Latvia through examination of the generalized work of Zepa (1998) who studied participation in the transition period between 1990 and 1998 using analysis of documents, a variety of surveys, and group discussions with leaders and participants of NGOs.
Zepa (1998) generally found that although there was an upsurge around the time that Latvia regained independence, views on the benefits of participation and actual levels of such participation rapidly declined. The low levels of Latvian participation and enthusiasm for such are highlighted in comparison to Norwegian levels that are often two or more times as high. Another reason for the low level of participation and interest in such may be that, like other newly democratic countries, including Chile, Byelorussia, Poland, and South Africa, levels of interpersonal trust are much lower in the Baltics compared to Western European countries.
Though many of these differences may be a result of the Soviet regime, Zepa (1998: 49) points out that some survey respondents appear to believe that these differences may in part be simply due to Latvian culture. This possibility is supported by statements of respondents such as the one of one head of an NGO who said, “Latvians are unsociable. They are not so communicative, open as people of other nationalities. They try to resolve their problems on their own.” Further study would help to better understand the root causes of these hurdles towards effective participation.
§Baltic Environmental Forum Assessments
Under the auspice of the Baltic Natura 2000 project (BANAT) of the Baltic Environmental Forum (BEF), Lang (2000) conducted an assessment of knowledge, hopes, and fears in the Baltics regarding environmental issues. The basic premise of this project was to use workshops, habitat classification, and an information campaign to help instigate discussions between stakeholders, politicians, and scientists. Lang (2000) specifically focused on assessing the views of different groups to help determine the most effective implementation of the program.
The assessment consisted of interviews conducted in the local language of landowners, forest owners, farmers, hunters, fishers, members of the environmental government sector, planning institutions, environmental journalists, environmental NGOs, and regional administrators. Despite the potential interest of this assessment and project, it appears that only 113 people were interviewed between all three countries and thus the report is more of a starting point for examining potential differences in these groups. Key points that arose are that all groups are concerned about potential negative financial impacts of sustainable-based development focused primarily towards meeting European Union goals. Another common concern observed was how beneficial the EU would be to those interviewed. Unlike members of the other Baltic States, the Latvian population specifically mentioned a fear of more bureaucracy.
Furthermore, this survey pointed to the fact that general concern for the environment is high but actual willingness to participate in activities involving protection is very low. The reason for this lack of willingness should be addressed. Is it due to lacking information, awareness of ways to effectively participate, mistrust of bureaucratic or other institutions of power, or some other factor?
Latvian NGOs specifically pointed to the concern that environmental regulations are often simply done on paper with little actual work realized (Lang 2000). Prior to the 2000 report, Simanovska (1997) similarly conducted a survey under the BEF of all three Baltic countries but the sample size was low, the analyses presented make conclusions difficult, and the focus was primarily on views of the participant in the seminars on inter-Baltic co-operation rather than on stakeholders and the views of the general populace on environmental issues.
Previous to her more generalized Baltic work, Lang (1999) also conducted an opinion poll of on concepts of nature and environmental consciousness and behavior in Estonia. Though Lang clearly states that a truly representative sample was not possible and thus not attempted with available resources, it appears that Lang attempted to poll groupings which are at least similar to that found in the general populace with 304 respondents consisting of Estonians, Russians, and others, aged 11 to 70 in general proportion to the actual ratios found in Estonia. This report was used to examine potential demographic differences on such questions as actions for environment protection and reasons for lack of action (Lang 1999).
Several key points are raised in this report with implications for future work with public participation. Two concerns which could be addressed by more public outreach and education are that most people in Estonia are not more active in environmental protection due to lack of knowledge and a concern that there is no impact if they do, rather than the often assumed limited time or money. Of particular interest for the present report are the responses to questions regarding the perceptions of inhabitants regarding their connection with nature and the implications for radically different responses elicited by posing the same question with either nature or environment as the subject. For example, whereas respondents largely had positive associations with the word “nature” revolving around life, including “good feelings”, “landscapes”, “senses, actions”, “life/flora/fauna”, the word “environment” typically elicited either more negative terms or terms relating to their immediate geographical vicinity, with little consideration for global perspectives. These terms included, things such as “city waste”, “degradation”, and “surroundings”. This has important implications for decision making policy because the terminology used to communicate with the public may in fact have strong differences in meaning though some might initially assume that meanings are the same.
Though a utilitarian view of nature as a place to get away from daily stressors becomes evident in analysis of Lang’s report, 84% of respondents stated that the relationship of humans with nature is that “man is part of nature”. Fifty four percent of respondents said that they get in touch with nature during “relaxing time” and 99% of respondents agreed with the statement, “In nature, I can rest and recover”. Though the general statement that man is part of nature indicates a basic belief of humans being fundamentally part of their natural environments, the other responses indicate that respondents feel that one can only be truly in touch with their place in their natural environment when they are not busy working. I argue, as an outgrowth from the first chapter in this document, that finding ways to make the natural connection more evident throughout daily working lives is important so that these activities may also be environmentally sustainable.
As in the questions framed on environment and nature, framing of the question for dependence on nature provides dramatically different responses. When asked if respondents agreed that, “Estonians (or Russians in the case of Russian informants) have a special connection with nature…” nearly all of the subjects agreed. When asked if, “love for nature is dependent on ethnicity” approximately half of the sample agreed and the other half disagreed. This again indicates that framing of questions must be carefully considered for possible cognitive biases and furthermore that it might be beneficial to frame questions multiple ways to examine such potential biases. Though Lang indicates that ethnicity was not generally responsible for differences, on these specific items she states that considerably more ethnic Estonians linked love for nature with ethnicity than Russians who more often linked love for nature with different factors such as value system or personality.
In general, most respondents expressed support for environmental actions and concern for environmental degradation as well as a belief that the government is not adequately addressing these issues. Though respondents typically gave themselves reasonably high levels of self reported knowledge of environmental issues, questions directed towards determining levels of knowledge typically evoked fairly poor understanding in terms of current predominant ecological views. Most respondents also expressed an understanding of limited resources, indicating that conversations on sustainability could be initiated without concern for the need of basic education. It is also interesting that most respondents agreed with the statements, “we should return to more traditional values and a less materialistic lifestyle to help the environment” and, “I would accept some people losing their jobs if this helped the environment”.
A number of areas needing future research are raised by examination of Lang’s report. Lang states that her analysis indicates that geographical location within Estonia is the primary variable responsible for differences in attitudes. Though it is possible that this is partially confounded by ethnicity because the three regions did have large disparity in ethnic origin (with one being roughly half and half and the others predominantly ethnic Estonian), she did not find significant differences when looking at ethnicity alone. A future analysis might look further into the possibility of ethnic differences by looking at ethnicity by geographic region as well as other possible confounding factors that may be associated with samples in the three regions studied. Another highlighted issue that is also a concern in the present study is the predominance of students as participants. This is most likely because students are the easiest participants to survey in groups and also generally have more time and willingness to participate in surveys without significant compensation (Lang 1999).
Though previous to her poll in Estonia, Lang apparently conducted a similar poll of 180 people to the one described in the Estonia report in Riga, Latvia, I was unable to find a summary of the findings or gain access to the data. The present report addresses determination of general perceptions in several different groups within three regions in Latvia.
§Case Studies Where Public Perception Was Examined in Latvian Environmental Protection
I next briefly discuss two examples where public perception was assessed in environmental policy related initiatives in Latvia. The first is the Papes Ezera (Lake Papes) protection project and the other is a planning for land zoning project in downtown Riga.
§Lake Papes Project
The Papes Ezera (Lake Papes) project is a project developed by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF Latvia). This project is centered on restoring key ecosystems using systems that integrate the environment with the local economy through development of sustainable forestry, agriculture, and eco-tourism. Though the Papes region in the Rucava Municipality is named after the large shallow lake centered within it, the area has an abundance of meadows, dunes, shorelines, forests, and wetlands. Due to the warm winter climate in this area and diverse eco-systems, this lake is an extremely abundant source of migrating birds, including owls, geese, and passerine birds. The diversity present in this area most likely results from this area being closed from the public during Soviet times. An important part of the management plan that the WWF incorporated was the introduction of wild horses from Holland to graze the land in hope of helping to manage the meadows because the original species serving in this function no longer exist (Penke et al., 1999).
As part of this project, the WWF attempted a representative poll by way of surveying 117 of the 1900 inhabitants of this region. The function of this survey was to determine public views on the idea of this land becoming a protected area and various subcomponents, including the introduction of wild horses and the possibility of facilitating alternative industries for workers, such as eco-tourism. After the survey was conducted, the WWF used their analysis to tailor a plan to fit the needs of the local populace. The Lake Papes project has proved to be a success with a sustainable economy generated around the idea of a natural protected area. Due in part to the incorporation of the public views in designing this project, the inhabitants of this region have helped facilitate a situation which allows for protection of their natural habitats while incorporating sustainable non-destructive sources of living including eco tourism and sustainable timber harvesting (Penke et al., 1999).
§Social Policy Institute Zoning Project
The zoning project was one in which I worked during my Fulbright extension with the Social Policy Institute to determine how the public viewed various plans proposed for zoning streets in the downtown portion of the capital, including more ecologically directed, and more business directed plans. In this circumstance, due to general public apathy resulting from a perception that their views wouldn’t be incorporated and a view that life is simply too busy, we tried the innovative approach of having a downtown musical concert which incorporated both traditional folk music as well as more modern pop artists with the idea of attracting as wide a grouping of the public as possible. Informational stands were set up at this concert and the public was asked to fill out brief surveys on how they thought zoning should happen. In general this project turned out to be a success, attracting a wide array of local citizens who both enjoyed the music and filled out their views on urban environmental planning.
§Purpose of This Study
I decided to do the present study to begin to address the dearth of information on societal views and perceptions in regard to general environmental issues in Latvia. I believe that it is important to understand how different segments of the populace view general environmental issues and participation to help understand both how these views can be incorporated in policy as well as to understand how to model future sub-studies aimed at integrating stakeholders. Ideally any proposed policy would include the views of all stakeholders, including affected local inhabitants.
This study is of primary import in order to determine how general views of environmental issues differ in different segments of Latvian society from those in employees of the environmental ministry. This is needed in order to help facilitate greater access to information and incorporation of the perceptions of different groups in the environmental policy decision process.
This study is exploratory and should be considered a pilot for a larger study that includes a representative grouping of the populace of Latvia including all major stakeholders and ethnic groups. For the purpose of this pilot study, I surveyed groups that I had access to, including employees of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Development, three schools, members of the expat community, and a general sampling of people in Riga.
§Methods
Seven groups comprising 260 individuals were surveyed to provide preliminary analyses on how environmental perceptions in Latvia differ based on religion, gender, age, schooling, and connection with environmental issues. The school groups were selected to obtain as representative a grouping as possible, over a sizeable geographical region of Latvia, with limited funding. The expat, farmer, and environmental ministry samples were chosen as people who were willing to fill out the survey within these groups with the purpose of contrasting the perceptions of experts, foreigners, and those directly economically tied to the local environment. The hypotheses was that farmers would be most concerned with local environmental issues due to their direct connection with the land and then experts due to their job connection, whereas the other groups would have significantly lower levels concern. This study is primarily exploratory with much post-hoc examination as the data available on Latvian perceptions were inadequate for creating detailed a-priori hypotheses.
Members of each group filled out surveys anonymously, without compensation. In the school samples, following permission from the principals and teachers available, I was allowed to present my surveys to students and request that they fill them out though abstaining was also clearly allowed. Abstaining students were told to work on their homework while other students filled out the surveys.
To attain environmental ministry surveys, I established contact with one member and went with him to each department, explained my purpose, and left surveys to be filled out by anyone that was interested. These surveys were then collected approximately one week later.
The farmer sample was collected by route of a colleague who was doing an ethnographic study of farmers in Latvia who agreed to bring my survey to each farmer visited. These farmers were again given the option of filling out the survey.
The Riga sample and expat (people originating in other countries and temporarily residing in Latvia) sample were simply taken from approaching people that I encountered in restaurants, coffee shops, and pubs and asking if they’d be willing to fill out a survey for no compensation; this last method did not prove particularly fruitful which explains the low sample sizes for these groups. Along with these I had also collected a sampling of NGO participant surveys but unfortunately the notebook that contained these is missing and thus the data were not included or analyzed.
Participants filled out the survey in Latvian with the exception of those who were more comfortable using English. Participants who chose to use English surveys were only found in the Jewish school and expat groups.
§Measures
The survey was comprised of 18 demographic items, 31 modified five point likert like items, and eight open ended questions. The 31 likert scale items had anchors at 1 and 5 with categories of “very true”, “somewhat true”, “somewhat not true”, and “not at all true”, as well as the option of “don’t know”. Items were used to assess the views of respondents on the current state of the environment in Latvia, importance of environmental protection, cultural viewpoints, views on the respondent’s current emotional and financial state, and participation in environmental conservation. The survey as translated in English follows this chapter. Though there were eight open-ended questions, for brevity the present report does not present analysis of these items.
§Results
§Descriptives
§Whole Sample
The entire sample consisted of 260 participants with 111 males and 149 females. The mean age was 19.10 (SD = 7.04). Nearly all respondents, excepting the Jewish school and expats, reported some variant of Latvian for ethnicity. Two hundred nine participants reported student as their primary occupation with the others being divided basically along the lines of their sample group (farmers and various fields related to the environmental ministry and a diverse grouping for the miscellaneous other respondents). Two hundred fifty participants reported their country of origin as Latvia with the balance made by the expat sample as well as two born in Russia and one in Estonia.
As I was informed participants might not be comfortable reporting exact income, income was rated from 0-5 with 1 being 1-100 Lats and 5 as 500 or more Lats. One Lat is worth approximately 1.86 US dollars. Fifty eight percent reported no income and 28 percent reported 1-100 Lats a month, indicating that most respondents made less than $200 a month. Only 1.3% of respondents made 500 Lats or more a month ($930 or more). This is indicative of the frequency of students in the sample and the overall low incomes in Latvia. For ease of understanding by an international audience, the rest of this chapter uses approximate US dollar amounts in description of income.
Seventy three percent of respondents reported a middle school education, which is indicative of the sample predominantly being composed of current high school students. Seven percent had attained a BA and four percent had a graduate degree of some kind. Twenty seven percent of respondents reported to be Lutheran, twenty three to be Catholic, twenty five percent indicated no religion, 7.3 percent indicated Jewish, and 2.9 percent indicated Russian Orthodox. The others were composed of fourteen categories of small sample size and varied responses including various Christian sects, Pagans, and responses that were most likely meant to be humorous, such as “anti-Christian”.
§Expats
The expat sample was composed of five males and two females with a mean age of 26.29 (SD = 4.19) all primarily living in Riga, the capital of Latvia. Forty three percent of this sample reported Latvian as their ethnicity while fifty seven percent reported “American”. Eighty six percent reported their country of origin as American and thirteen percent failed to report. Reported incomes for this group varied from zero to $930 or above with three respondents reporting $650-$930. All respondents in this group were college educated with five claiming a BA and two claiming a graduate degree. Fifty seven percent of respondents were catholic, while there was one response for each of the following: Lutheran, miscellaneous protestant, and none.
§Riga Sample
The miscellaneous Riga sample was composed of five males and six females with a mean age of 22.09 (SD= 2.59). All reported some variant of Latvian as their ethnicity. Fifty five percent reported student as their occupation and the others each reported different occupations. Eighty two percent reported less than $372/month and eighteen percent failed to report. Eighteen percent of respondents reported middle school, thirty six percent reported high school, and forty five percent reported some college education.
§Environmental Ministry
The Environmental Ministry sample consisted of six males and eleven females with a mean age of 30.29 (SD = 7.63). All respondents reported to be Latvian and most reported different occupations. Reported occupations included clerk, forest engineer, lawyer, government administrator, accountant, senior reporter, PHARE project assistant, governmental institution supervisor, consultant, and economist. Fifty three percent reported incomes below $372/month, thirty five percent reported $651-$930 and one respondent reported over $930/month. Fifty three percent of respondents had a B.A. degree, forty one percent had a graduate degree, and one respondent had still not finished university.
§Jewish School
The Jewish school students consisted of fifteen male and twenty-six female students with a mean age of 13.63 (SD = 1.18) living in downtown Riga. The primary function of this private school was to provide parents with an opportunity to raise their children with awareness of their Jewish culture and traditions. Participants reported a variety of ethnicities, including Jewish, Russian, Russian-Jewish, Latvian, Latvian-Jewish and accounted for much of the non-Latvian variance in the overall sample. The most common responses were Russian Jewish (38.5%) and Russian (20.5%). All reported student as their occupation. All but one reported Russia as their country of origin. Ninety five percent reported no income and five percent report under $186 as their income. Sixty percent reported completing middle school and forty percent reported completing elementary school. As the mean age indicates most were middle school students, it is possible that the question was misinterpreted by some students as their current standing in school instead of the intended determination of level completed.
§Farmer Sample
The farmer sample was composed of five male and eleven female respondents throughout Latvia with a mean age of 38.31 (SD = 7.85). All respondents reported Latvian as their ethnicity, cultural identity and country of origin. Eighty percent reported an income under $186/month and all respondents reported less than $651/month.
§Valmiera School
The Valmiera School sample consisted of 48 males and 48 females with a mean age of 17.19 (SD = 1.03). Valmiera is an average sized city in central Northern Latvia. The school sampled was the primary public high school in this city and thus this sample may be considered relatively representative of students of this region. All students excepting one Ukranian reported some variant of Latvian ethnicity. Fifty five percent reported no income, forty three reported between one and one hundred eighty six dollars per month, one student reported between one hundred eighty six and three hundred seventy two dollars per month and one student reported an income over nine hundred thirty dollars a month. From my own understanding all were high school students though two students did report only completion of elementary school.
§Skrieveri School
The Skrieveri school sample consisted of twenty-seven males and forty-five females with a mean age of 16.69 (SD = 1.44). Skrieveri is a small to average sized city in central Southern Latvia. The school sampled was the primary public high school in this city and thus this sample may be considered relatively representative of students of this region. Nearly all students reported some Latvian variant as their ethnic background though four percent reported Russian, one student reported English, and one student reported Polish. Seventy seven percent of respondents reported non-income and all reported less than $651/month. All were high school students though one only reported completion of elementary school.
§Issues for Consideration in Examination of Results
§Recode of Missing Don’t Know Response
An issue which came up in analysis and which must be considered in examination of the following results was that the survey was administered with answer option five as “don’t know” instead of this item being anchored in the center.
As a result, I compared three methods of data analysis for situations where the “don’t know” response was offered: 1) list wise deletion, 2) deletion of responses using this choice and subsequent imputation using Full Information Maximum Likelihood, and 3) recoding this don’t know response in the middle of the scale, making a five point likert scale and effectively equating “don’t know” to being directly between “very true” and “not true at all”.
Analysis using all three methods provided similar results with nearly identical factor structures and subsequent reliability, ANOVA, and multiple regression analyses. That all methods produced similar results is particularly interesting as there was considerable variance in the use of this choice. Though the average use of this choice by question was approximately 15% of respondents, some items, such as question eight, “the government is doing enough to educate people and include them in environmental decision making” had nearly half responses marked as “don’t know”.
Though Little’s test indicated that the response could be considered completely at random (Chi-Square = 6660.614, DF = 6574, Sig. = .224), with further consideration, it became obvious that neither of the deletion methods were adequate as logic showed that the data were in fact not missing at random and thus I chose to use the analyses with “don’t know” recoded as the middle point.
§Reverse Coding
As the initial survey was coded from low to high with “very true” at the bottom of the scale and “not at all true” at the top of the scale, to ease in interpretation of analyses, I subsequently reverse coded all responses so that the scales were analyzed with high values suggesting more agreement with the item.
§Sample Size
Though the total number of subjects with complete data was 260, due to limited resources and ability to find members of other subgroups willing to be surveyed, some of the other groupings were relatively small. In contrast with the adequate sample sizes for the schools, with 96 for the Valmiera School, 72 for the Skrieveri School, and 41 for the Jewish school, the other samples were relatively scant. There were 17 completed environmental ministry surveys, 16 for farmers, 11 for miscellaneous Riga residents, and 7 for expats.
§Psychometrics
§Reliability
When measured together, the 31 likert items had adequate reliability (α= .80). Despite this, as factor analysis resulted in multiple factors and I was interested in exploring the individual items in greater depth, I chose to conduct analyses of the scale on an item and factor level basis.
§Factor Analysis
A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization was run on the interrelation of the 31 quantitative scale items of the instrument. As can be seen in the following scree plot, nine factors were extracted with eigen values above 1. These factors which are used in the following analyses account for variance in the data for the individual items with the following degrees: factor one 20%, factor two 7%, factor three 5.8%, factor four 5.6%, factor five 5%, factor six 4.8%, factor seven 4%, factor eight 3.9%, and factor nine 3.5%.
Figure 63: Scree Plot of Factors Produced by Factor Analysis
The specific loadings of items of different questions are demonstrated in the following table. Scores were saved out using the regression method so as to have a mean of zero and a variance equivalent to the squared multiple correlation between true factor values and estimated factor scores. The full questions can be seen in the survey attached at the back of this chapter.
Table 12: Rotated Factor Loadings for Thirty-One Scale Items
Component
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|
| Q1 | .592 | | | | | | | | |
| Q2 | .367 | | | | | | | | |
| Q3 | | | | .573 | .409 | | | | |
| Q4 | .347 | | | | | | | .354 | |
| Q5 | | | | .455 | | | | | |
| Q6 | | | | | | .796 | | | |
| Q7 | | | | | | | | .808 | |
| Q8 | | | | | .756 | | | | |
| Q9 | | .717 | | | | | | | |
| Q10 | | | | .682 | | | | | |
| Q11 | | | | | | | | | .792 |
| Q12 | | .470 | | | | | | | -.521 |
| Q13 | | .397 | | .423 | | | | | |
| Q14 | | | | | | | .504 | .409 | |
| Q15 | | | | | | .788 | | | |
| Q16 | | | | | .442 | | -.557 | | |
| Q17 | .801 | | | | | | | | |
| Q18 | .805 | | | | | | | | |
| Q19 | .663 | | | | | | | | |
| Q20 | .730 | | | | -.300 | | | | |
| Q21 | .855 | | | | | | | | |
| Q22 | .793 | | | | | | | | |
| Q23 | .359 | | | | | | | | |
| Q24 | .317 | | .696 | | | | | | |
| Q25 | | | .819 | | | | | | |
| Q26 | | .353 | | | -.348 | | | | |
| Q27 | | .711 | | | | | | | |
| Q28 | | .609 | | .312 | | | | | |
| Q29 | | .364 | .393 | .302 | | | | | |
| Q30 | | .586 | | | | | | | |
| Q31 | | | | | | | .781 | | |
Analysis of the questions with loadings of .3 and above on any factor provided means to label these factors as indicated below.
Importance of environmental protection for self
Culture and environmental protection
Awareness of ways in which one can facilitate environmental protection
Importance of environmental protection for economic development and ceasing global environmental problems
Importance of a governmental role in environmental education
Happiness and economic stability
Economic development as a threat to the environment and support for shutting down polluting factories
Hierarchical views and helping environment important for economic growth
Environmental protection as responsibility of citizens, not the government.
§Analysis by Groups
§Factor Level Differences
Analysis of variance indicated that there was a significant group by factor effect (p < .05). All factors except factor four, “Importance of environmental protection for economic development and ceasing global environmental problems” and factor six, “Happiness and economic stability” displayed significant differences (p < .05) by group. I next use graphs and an exploration of LSD post hoc comparisons to explore how groups differed on a factor level. As this work is exploratory, in these and all of the following analysis, I looked at all possible pair wise comparisons in any situation where the omnibus F was significant. On all following analyses, higher values indicate greater support by the participant group of the statement or factor in question.
As can be seen in the following figure, the importance of environmental protection for self was higher for all groups excepting the two Latvian language schools and was significantly higher (p < .05) for the farmer and Jewish school groups. As with several other factors, it appears that power might not have been adequate specifically regarding the expat sample as they are visibly the highest higher but the result is not significant.
Figure 64: Plot of Mean For the Importance of Environmental Protection for Self By Group
The figure below shows that the importance of Culture in environmental protection is highest amongst the environmental ministry and farmer groups. Environmental ministry members were significantly higher (p < .05) than expats, Jewish school members, and the school in Valmiera. The farmer group was higher than expats, Jewish school members, and either the Valmiera or Skrieveri school (p < .05). Jewish school members were significantly lower than all but the expat groups (p < .05).
Figure 65: Plot of Mean For Importance of Culture in Environmental Protection By Group
Expats were the highest in their awareness of ways in which one can facilitate environmental protection, followed by environmental ministry members, Jewish school members, farmers, Valmiera school students, the Riga sample, and Skrieveri school students. Expats self report was significantly higher than any of the other groups (p < .05). Environmental ministry members and Jewish school members reported significantly higher levels than either the Valmiera or Skrieveri student samples (p < .05).
Figure 66: Plot of Mean For Awareness of Ways to Facilitate Environmental Protection By Group
Though the following figure depicts that farmers are the highest, followed by Skrieveri students, Valmiera students, environmental ministry members, Jewish school students, the Riga sample, and expats on consideration of the importance of environmental protection for economic development and ceasing global environmental problems, the F test for this factor was non significant so post hoc contrasts were not evaluated.
Figure 67: Plot of Mean For The Importance of Environmental Protection for Economic Development and Ceasing Global Environmental Problems By Group
Environmental Ministry members were the highest on the factor measuring importance of a governmental role in environmental education, followed by Jewish school students, Skrieveri school students, farmers, Valmiera school students, the Riga sample, and the expat sample. Environmental ministry members were significantly higher than the expat, Riga, farmer, and Valmiera school samples (p < .05). The Skrieveri school sample was significantly higher than the Valmiera school sample on this measure (p <. 05).
Figure 68: Plot of Mean For the Import of a Governmental Role in Environmental Education By Group
The omnibus F for group effect on factor six, which measured happiness and personal economic stability, was non significant for all samples so post hoc comparisons were not evaluated. Visually, the expat and Jewish school samples were the highest, followed by Skrieveri school students, Valmiera school students, environmental ministry members, farmers, and the Riga sample. Possibly with greater power from a higher sample size, significant differences would evince.
Figure 69: Plot of Mean For Happiness and Personal Economic Stability By Group
Environmental ministry members were significantly lower than all other groups except the Riga sample on factor seven, which measures the importance of economic development as a threat to the environment and support for shutting down polluting factories. The Riga sample and the Valmiera school sample were also significantly lower than the Skrieveri school sample and the Jewish school sample.
Figure 70: Plot of Mean For Economic Development as a Threat to the Environment By Group
Jewish school students were significantly higher (p < .05) than expats, environmental ministry members, Valmiera students, and Skrieveri students on factor eight which measures the importance of hierarchical views and helping the environment for economic growth. Farmers were higher (p < .05) on this factor than environmental ministry members, expatriates, and Valmiera students. Skrieveri students were significantly higher than expats (p < .05).
Figure 71: Plot of Mean For Importance of Hierarchical Views for Environment and Economic Growth By Group
Farmers and the Riga sample were highest and the environmental ministry members lowest on factor nine, which measures environmental protection as the responsibility of citizens, not the government. Farmers were significantly higher on this measure than all groups, excluding the Riga sample (p < .05), whereas the Riga sample was significantly higher than environmental ministry members, Jewish school students, and Skrieveri school students. Along with Farmers and the Riga sample, Valmiera students had significantly higher values than the Environmental Ministry members on this factor (p < .05).
Figure 72: Plot of Mean For Environmental Protection as Responsibility of Citizens, not Government By Group
§Differences on Individual Questions
Next I look at differences between the groups on an individual question basis, again using graphs and, post hoc LSD comparisons when appropriate.
In the following figure we see that expats, environmental ministry members, and farmers are higher than the other groups on their view that protecting their natural environment is important to them. Post hoc testing indicates that all three of these groups are significantly higher than the two Latvian schools (p < .05).
Figure 73: Question 1. Protecting my natural environment is important to me.
Both expats and farmers were significantly higher than Jewish school, and Valmiera school students on perception that environmental protection is important to the respondent’s well being. The Riga sample, the farmer sample, and Skrieveri school students were also significantly higher than the Jewish school members on their rating of this question (p < .05).
Figure 74: Question 2. Environmental protection is important for my well-being.
Expats were significantly lower than all groups but the Riga sample on their self reported understanding of the environmental situation in Latvia (p < .05). The Riga sample was significantly lower than the farmer sample and the Skrieveri school sample. The farmer sample, the environmental ministry sample, and the Valmiera school sample were significantly higher than the Valmiera school sample (p < .05).
Figure 75: Question 3. I understand the environmental situation in Latvia.
Farmers were significantly higher than all groups except the Riga sample on the belief that helping the environment is important for Latvia’s economic growth (p < .05).
Figure 76: Question 4. Helping the environment is important for Latvia’s economic growth.
Though there no significant differences for the question that asked whether, given time, would one be more interested in protecting the environment, its interesting that the farmer group is higher than the other groups.
Figure 77: Question 5. If I had more time I would be more interested in protecting my environment.
The question on level of happiness was non significant by groups:
Figure 78: Question 6. I am happy.
Question seven which asked whether people with more ability should earn more wealth was non significant but its interesting that the highest paid group, expats, has the lowest rating for this item. My own experience tells me that this result may be influenced by relatively liberal views of most of the expats that were surveyed.
Figure 79: Question 7. People with more ability should earn more wealth.
The question on whether the government is doing enough to educate people and include them in environmental decision-making was borderline significant (p = .058). Though statistically not significant, the high score for the environmental ministry in comparison to other scores is interesting. If the sample size were higher, it might make give validity to the post-hoc result, which indicates that this group is significantly higher than expats, farmers, and the Valmiera school.
Figure 80: Question 8. The government is doing enough to educate people and include them in environmental decision-making.
Expats, ministry members, and farmers were all significantly higher than the Riga sample, the Jewish school students, and the Valmiera school students on their view of the importance of maintaining culture for themselves (p < .05) while Skrieveri students were significantly lower than farmers and ministry members (p < .05). All groups excepting the Riga sample were lower than the Jewish school members on this question (p < .05).
Figure 81: Question 9. Maintaining culture is important to me.
Environmental ministry members were lower than all groups and significantly lower than the Valmiera and Skrieveri school students on the perception that global warming is a serious problem (p < .05).
Figure 82: Question 10. Global warming is a serious problem.
Farmers were higher than all groups excepting the Riga sample on the view that environmental protection is the responsibility of the government and not the public (p < .05).
Figure 83: Question 11. Environmental protection is the responsibility of the government and not the public.
All groups but the Riga sample were significantly higher than the expats on their view that the government is doing a good job protecting their environment (p < .05). Environmental ministry members and both the Valmiera and Skrieveri school were significantly higher on this perception than the Riga sample. Environmental ministry members were significantly higher than all groups except the Skrieveri and Valmiera school members who were both higher than the Jewish school students (p < .05).
Figure 84: Question 12. The government is doing a good job in protecting our environment.
Environmental ministry members were significantly higher than all groups except farmers and Skrieveri students on the view that polluters should be severely fined or punished (p < .05). Expats were significantly lower than both ministry members and farmers (p < .05). Jewish school members were significantly lower than ministry members, farmers, and Skrieveri students (p < .05). Valmiera students were significantly lower than Skrieveri students on this measure (p < .05).
Figure 85: Question 13. Polluters should be severely fined or punished.
In apparent contrast to the last question, environmental ministry members were significantly lower than Jewish school students, Skrieveri Students, and farmers on their belief that factories that pollute heavily should be shut down (p < .05). The Jewish school students were significantly higher than the Riga sample, the environmental ministry members, and the Valmiera students who were also lower than the Skrieveri students (p < .05).
Figure 86: Question 14. Factories that pollute heavily should be shut down.
Though the expat sample was highest, the perception that one has enough money to live comfortable was not significantly different by group. Non-significance on this and other factors demonstrating stark visual contrast with this group may be due to the inadequate sample size and thus future work would benefit by further exploring this.
Figure 87: Question 15. I have enough money to live comfortably.
Satisfaction with the state of the environment is also non significant with an opposite trend to that seen in satisfaction with personal income level.
Figure 88: Question 16. I feel satisfied with the state of the environment in Latvia.
Expats and the Riga sample both gave significantly higher values to the importance of protecting water resources for oneself compared to the Jewish school and expats gave a higher value of this compared to the Skrieveri and Valmiera schools (p < .05).
Figure 89: Question 17. Protecting Latvia’s water resources is very important to me.
While only expats and farmers gave consistently high values to the importance of forestry protection for self, the result was non significant.
Figure 90: Question 18. Protecting Latvia’s forests is very important to me.
We see a similar pattern with farmers and expats high on the importance for saving Latvia’s wetlands for oneself but the results are non significant.
Figure 91: Question 19. Protecting Latvia’s wetlands is very important to me.
The same basic pattern with high expat and farmer values for the protecting Latvia’s air for self but again non significant:
Figure 92: Question 20. Protecting Latvia’s air is very important to me.
Expats, Jewish school students, and farmers all rated the importance of protecting Latvia’s rivers significantly higher than Valmiera and Skrieveri school students (p < .05). Farmers also rated this factor significantly higher than the Riga sample (p < .05).
Figure 93: Question 21. Protecting Latvia’s Rivers is very important to me.
Expats, Jewish school students, and farmers all rate the importance of protection of the Baltic Sea significantly higher than Skrieveri students while Jewish students also scored this question higher than Valmiera school students (p < .05).
Figure 94: Question 22. Protecting the Baltic Sea is very important to me.
Though the mean farmer rating for whether environmental damage negatively impacts them was higher than other groups, the difference was non significant:
Figure 95: Question 23. Environmental damage negatively impacts me.
Expats expressed significantly more belief that there are actions that they could take which are effective in helping the environment than all other groups (p < .05). Environmental ministry members scored this question higher than either Valmiera or Skrieveri students and Jewish school students also scored this higher than Skrieveri students.
Figure 96: Question 24. There are actions that I could take which would be effective in helping the environment.
Awareness of ways to be more involved in environmental conservation was scored highest by expats and environmental ministry members but the results were non significant:
Figure 97: Question 25. I am aware of ways for me to be more involved in conserving Latvia’s environment.
Though expats, environmental ministry members, and farmers all had the highest levels on considering themselves part of nature, the result was not significant.
Figure 98: Question 26. I consider myself to be part of nature.
Jewish students had a significantly lower belief that Latvian culture was important to them than all other groups (p < .05). Valmiera students had significantly lower scores on this perception than farmers and environmental ministry members.
Figure 99: Question 27. Latvian culture is important to me.
Jewish school members were significantly less likely to think that their relationship with their environment is a product of their cultural heritage than all other groups (p < .05):
Figure 100: Question 28. How I relate to my environment is a product of my cultural heritage.
Environmental ministry members were significantly more likely to have participated in environmental activist groups than any of the school groups (p < .05):
Figure 101: Question 29. I have participated in environmental activist groups.
Jewish school members reported significantly less awareness of Latvian traditions than ministry members, farmers, Valmiera students, or Skrieveri students:
Figure 102: Question 30. I am aware of Latvian traditions.
Environmental ministry members were significantly less likely to think that economic development is a serious threat to Latvia’s natural environment than all groups but expats and the Riga sample:
Figure 103: Question 31. Economic development is a serious threat to Latvia’s natural environment.
§Summary of Group Differences
§Environmental Connection and Conservation
The group analysis generally supports the primary hypothesis of this paper that closer environmental connection indicates greater concern for its conservation. Of the ethnically Latvian local groups, the farmer sample was generally the highest, followed by the environmental ministry employees, followed by the two Latvian schools and miscellaneous sample in expressing concern for environmental issues. Furthermore, the Skrieveri school generally had slightly higher levels than the Valmiera school, which is somewhat more urban. It is also interesting to note that, for the ethnically Latvian groups, these patterns of group difference on concern for environmental issues went along with interest in cultural heritage.
The expat and Jewish school groupings varied more widely with less obvious patterns but both were generally high in terms of their view of concern for conservation. Both of these groups might be confounded due to several factors, including low sample size in the expat group and the fact that the survey was not conducted in the primary language for many of the Jewish school members who were also younger, ethnically different, and went to a private school, indicating a large number of differences in comparison with the other populations surveyed.
The general pattern described in which greater environmental connection is related with greater import to environmental matters can be seen in the figure depicting question twenty three in which respondents rated how much they perceived environmental damage as negatively impacting them:
Figure 104: Question 23. Environmental damage negatively impacts me.
Furthermore, its interesting to note that the pattern was similar in relation to import of cultural factors, demonstrating that feeling a connection between culture and environment relates to higher levels of concern for environmental matters:
Figure 105: Question 28. How I relate to my environment is a product of my cultural heritage.
In the same vein, we see that the same pattern of group differences of perception for the item used to determine that participants perceive that they are part of nature. This also reinforces the hypothesized ordering of group connection to environment:
Figure 106: Question 26. I consider myself to be part of nature.
§Environmental Ministry Discord
Another factor that is interesting to note is that environmental ministry members had comparatively low ratings on perceptions that economic growth hinders environmental protection demonstrated by this graph of item thirty-one.
Figure 107: Question 31. Economic development is a serious threat to Latvia’s natural environment.
Ministry members also had low levels of belief that polluting factories should be shut down:
Figure 108: Question 14. Factories that pollute heavily should be shut down.
Also rather interesting is that ministry members had the lowest level of concern for global warming:
Figure 109: Question 10. Global warming is a serious problem.
Also presenting some support for discord between the government and others is that ministry members scored the current work of the government the highest of any group on education and job performance:
Figure 110: Question 8. The government is doing enough to educate people and include them in environmental decision-making.
Figure 111: Question 12. The government is doing a good job in protecting our environment.
And the ministry members are the most satisfied with the current state of the environment in Latvia:
Figure 112: Question 16. I feel satisfied with the state of the environment in Latvia.
§General Feeling of Disempowerment
Another interesting item discovered in the analyses of groups was a general level of disempowerment prevalent in all groups excepting the expats. Though environmental ministry members were slightly on the positive end in their level of belief that there are actions they can take which would be effective in helping the environment, all local groups reported very low levels in perceived ability to impact change:
Figure 113: Question 24. There are actions that I could take which would be effective in helping the environment.
§Differences by Gender
Next I examine gender effects. I found significantly higher values for females than males on factor two, Culture and environmental protection (p = .02). This same pattern was demonstrated in analysis of individual questions, where both question 9, “Maintaining Culture is Important to Me” (p = .03), and question 26 “I consider myself to be part of Nature” (p = .03) were significantly higher for females.
§Differences by Marital Status
Marital status proved to be significantly correlated with several factors as well as individual questions. Factor two, culture and environmental protection displayed significant differences (p < .01) with single respondents significantly lower than married (p < .01) or cohabiting (p < .01) respondents:
Figure 114: Plot of Mean For Importance of Culture in Environmental Protection By Marital Status
Factor three, awareness of ways to facilitate environmental protection, also evinced differences (p=. 03), with separated respondents significantly higher than married (p=. 03) or single respondents (p=. 03) and single respondents significantly less than cohabiting respondents (p=. 02).
Figure 115: Plot of Mean For Awareness of Ways to Facilitate Environmental Protection By Marital Status
Factor nine, which measures environmental protection as responsibility of citizens and not the government was also significantly different by marital status (p < .05) with cohabiting respondents significantly higher than single respondents (p = .02).
Figure 116: Plot of Mean For Environmental Protection as Responsibility of Citizens, not Government By Marital Status
The following questions were also significantly different (p < .05) but in the interest of maintaining some brevity and because much of the information is reflected in the factors, I am not providing the graphs or results of post hoc comparisons:
Question 1. Protecting my natural environment is important to me.
Question 9. Maintaining culture is important to me.
Question 24. There are actions that I could take which would be effective in helping the environment.
Question 25. I am aware of ways for me to be more involved in conserving Latvia’s environment.
Question 27. Latvian culture is important to me.
Question 28. How I relate to my environment is a product of my cultural heritage.
Question 30. I am aware of Latvian traditions.
§Religion
Though a variety of religions were reported, I examined all factors by the four most commonly reported religious beliefs: Lutheran, Catholicism, Judaism, and none. These groups consisted of 55, 65, 19, and 60 individuals respectively. The only factor to indicate a significant effect (p < .05) by religion was factor 2, the importance of culture for environmental protection. Both Lutherans and Catholics had significantly higher values than the other two groups for this factor (p < .05). This result may also be due to ethnic or other differences, especially for the Jewish school group who were predominantly Russian, younger (middle school as opposed to high school or adult), and also were sometimes filling the survey out in a second language (English or Latvian as opposed to Russian or Hebrew).
Figure 117: Plot of Mean For Importance of Culture in Environmental Protection By Religion
§Political Party, Occupation, and City
Potential effects of political party, occupation and city were difficult to determine due to the number of categories and confounds with other variables. Future analyses might benefit from combining the different responses into more generalized categories and examining differences. Differences are further compounded by the comparatively homogenous nature of the groups with nearly all of the students having no occupation or political party and being from one of three cities. This means that in the present study its impossible to fully differentiate group differences from some of these other variables.
§Ethnicity
Though I initially attempted to examine the impact of ethnicity by looking at differences on factors across ethnic groupings, I ultimately decided not to present these, as there are too many confounding factors. Ethnic differences in my sample are basically divided amongst groups, with the expat sample predominantly American, the Jewish school largely composed of people that identified themselves as Russian, Jewish, or some combination thereof, and the rest of the samples almost entirely Latvia. Though it is possible that ethnic differences account for some of the differences in these groups there was insufficient ethnic variation within each group to adequately test for this hypothesis.
§Education
The omnibus regression of education on the factors was significant (p < .01), with a significant prediction of factor two, indicating higher education predicted higher attribution of the importance of culture to environmental protection (p = .04). Similarly, on an individual question level the omnibus F was significant (p < .01) with the following questions displaying significant positive correlation (p < .05):
Q7. People with more ability should earn more wealth.
Q25 I am aware of ways for me to be more involved in the environment.
And these questions displaying significant negative correlation (p < .05):
Q6 I am happy.
Q14 Factories that pollute heavily should be shut down.
§Number of Languages
An analysis of the impact of number of languages known by a respondent on questions and factors indicated that this is not significantly correlated.
§Income
Factor three, awareness of ways to facilitate environmental protection, was the only factor indicating a relationship with income. My analysis indicates that this may be partially an artifact of the expat sample, which both had significantly higher income than average and rated awareness of ways to facilitate environmental protection higher. As a result, I believe that one should be cautious in generalizing this effect to the sample at large.
§Discussion
In this paper I provide an exploratory examination of perceptions of seven sup-populations in Latvia. Most findings did go along with the general thesis of this paper, indicating that those most directly connected with environmental issues, such as farmers and people working in the environmental ministry, would express the most awareness and interest in conservation. It is interesting to note that cultural factors were also higher for these groups, possibly indicating an interconnection with environmental and cultural values. More support for this is that farmers often scored the highest on these issues, indicating that those directly in contact with real world environmental impacts are most concerned whereas ministry members who are probably more working from a theoretical basis are not as directly connected and thus show less concern.
§Discord of Environmental Ministry With Other Groups
One notable finding indicating a possible discord with my central thesis is found in the views of environmental ministry members specifically on concern for global warming and views of shutting down polluting factories for environmental protection. On both of these, ministry members expressed significantly lower levels of concern than other groups. Though possibly this is due to greater education on these issues and thus a real understanding of the factual situation, another potentially disturbing possibility is that these members may also be benefiting in some way from outside interests to downplay the negative role of industry for environmental pollution as well as the potential concern of global warming. Global warming has been linked to pollution emissions and thus potentially downplaying these issues is of interest to groups that may have influence on employees of policy related institutions. I have no direct evidence to suggest this conclusion for these specific questions and only mention it as I constantly heard in Latvia that everyone and everything is corrupt.
Another interesting finding is that the ministry employees surveyed were significantly higher than other groups on perception that the government is doing enough to educate people and include them in environmental decision-making. This indicates that, at least in my own samples, the government is at a strong discord with the public who would like more information and access to avenues for participation while governmental members feel that everything is currently adequate. Similarly, the environmental ministry members scored the highest on their perception that the government is doing a good job in environmental protection and in satisfaction with the state of the environment, indicating their own self-perception of performance may be significantly biased.
§Marital Status, Gender, and Education
It is interesting to note that female as well as married and cohabiting respondents gave higher values for the import of cultural factors in environmental protection. This same pattern was found in reported levels of belief that environmental protection is the responsibility of the citizens and not the government. In interesting contrast to this is the finding that separated and cohabiting respondents report higher levels of awareness of methods to facilitate environmental protection. Possibly separated respondents who reported the highest level of awareness have more time to think about such issues due to fewer marital obligations whereas single respondents may simply be younger and less concerned.
As was shown for marital status and gender, education also predicted importance of cultural factors for environmental protection. The negative correlation of education with happiness is an interesting result, which might benefit from further investigation. Though possibly an artifact of the sample, it could also be related to age with the realities of the harsh world for workers and even harsher for pensioners in Latvia. More educated people also reported less belief that polluting factories should not be shut down but this may be confounded due to comparatively higher education levels in the environmental ministry sample that reported significantly higher levels on this question. Further analyses could help discern the root of these finding and further studies could see if it is replicable.
§Potential Concerns and Areas for Future Work
§Legitimacy of Response
Legitimacy of response is a general concern for this and any such survey in the former Soviet Union due to many issues, including corruption. Other reasons for concern over legitimacy of response result from the impact of the Soviet era, which caused increased paranoia, specifically regarding disclosure of information. In my experience administering the survey, I sometimes had the perception that people were answering with the response that they felt was “correct” instead of what they necessarily believed. Future survey designers should learn from this and find ways to address potential concerns of subjects to elicit honest responses. Possibly a multimethod design using various instruments and subject reports could help to determine the validity of response.
§Ethnic Differences
Another concern in this survey and others undertaken thus far in Latvia is ethnic difference. All work of which I’m aware, including this study, has focused primarily on the ethnic Latvian population. Future research is needed to better understand how the very large (nearly half the population) Russian population might differ in their views on environmental issues to ensure that as representative a grouping as possible is incorporated in the decision making process. Though initially I planned to also look at this group, due to my own lacking Russian skills, I had difficulty ensuring that translations which others did for me were adequate and I thus chose to concentrate on Latvian and English speaking groups. A concern in the same vein is that the Jewish school that was surveyed had the survey conducted in Latvian or English, neither of which were typically the participants first or primary languages (Russian or Hebrew being the most common).
§Sample Size
Considering that the population of Latvia is nearly two and a half million people, my limited resources made it impossible to attempt a representative sample. Future work would benefit from a much larger sample, more representative sample which could be used to examine the views of all of the major ethnic and age groups found throughout all of the major regions of Latvia. Most notably, in this sample size the ex-pat group was far too small to adequately test significance and thus a future study would benefit from larger samples with size determined by power analyses, especially for all groups excepting the schools. It would be interesting to see if the effects produced in the presented post-hoc exploratory work could be replicated in larger, more representative samples.
§Open Ended Questions
There is a rich amount of open-ended data that I did not fully use in my analysis. Future work could employ the data set and determine coding schemes or simply report in depth on qualitative responses. Also, categorical responses could relatively easily be created as summaries of the demographic questions such as religion, political party, and city. I attempted analysis with less summarized codes and found too many categories. Future work could determine the most ideal categories for these variables and determine their correlation with factors and questions.
§Summary and Conclusions
This study provides an initial examination of the differing public perceptions on environmental issues in Latvia and support for the hypothesis that greater connection to the environment facilitates more concern for environmental conservation. I found that different groups significantly differ on a variety of factors, and specifically that members of the environmental ministry are at significant disparity with other members of the general public. One particularly shocking finding was that environmental ministry members had significantly less concern for global environmental issues, such as global warming than my samples of the general public and also that they were significantly more likely to think that development was environmentally beneficial and should not be curtailed.
Future studies might use the information gleaned from this preliminary work to design an education based multi-method, multi trait longitudinal intervention where education material would be focused for different groups and assessments made to determine later awareness and concern for environmental issues. Further work would also benefit from a focus on specific methods for conducting research in post-soviet countries, which may have higher levels of distrust of people gathering information. What is the legitimacy of data collected in these environments? Possibly future studies would benefit by using multiple methods, including observational analyses, to contrast and compare the accuracy of response, specifically in terms of self-report measurements.
§Literature Cited
- Lang, S. 1999. Results from the Opinion Poll on: Nature Concepts, Environmental Consciousness, and Behavior in Estonia. Baltic Environmental Forum, Riga.
- Lang, S. 2000. Target Group Assessment of the EU-program Natura 2000: Level of Knowledge, Hopes, and Fears. Baltic Environmental Forum. Riga.
- Penke, I., Klave, E. Ergle, A., and Aboma, A. 1999. Resident survey of the Lake Papes Project Territory Nr. 1. World Wild Life Fund Latvia. Riga.
- Simanovska, J. 1997. Baltic Co-operation in the Environmental Field. Baltic Environmental Forum. Riga.
- Zepa, B. 1998. Conditions of Enhancement of Civic Participation. Baltic Data House. Riga.
The captions as listed in the manuscript. The plates themselves are in the figure appendix.
- Table 13: Survey of Public Attitudes in Latvia for Environmental Policy
§Survey: Public attitudes in Latvia towards the Environment and Environmental Policy
Overview of Project
The purpose of this project is to gain an understanding of the perceptions of environmental issues of the residents of Latvia. The primary function purpose is to gain an understanding of how these perceptions differ for different segments of the local population. The information will be used for statistical analysis and names or other traits that could identify the specific individual will not be used in the analysis or any publication resulting from this data. We are interested in this information to better understand how different segments of the populace (including business, scientists, and the general populace) feel about their natural environment.
Demographic Information
| Gender? | |
| Age? | |
| Ethnicity (genetic background)? | |
| Cultural identity (How identify self?) | |
| Country of origin? | |
| Occupation? | |
| Income? | |
| Marital status? | |
| Religion? | |
| Political party? | |
| Education attained? | |
| City where reside? | |
| Languages spoken? | |
Please circle the most appropriate answer. 1= very true 2=somewhat true 3=somewhat not true 4=not at all true D=don’t know Protecting my natural environment is important to me. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Environmental protection is important for my well being. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| I understand the environmental situation in Latvia. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Helping the environment is important for Latvia’s economic growth. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| If I had more time I would be more interested in protecting my environment. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| I am happy. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| People with more ability should earn more wealth. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| The government is doing enough to educate people and include them in environmental decision making. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Maintaining culture is important to me. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Global warming is a serious problem. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Environmental protection is the responsibility of the government and not the public. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| The government is doing a good job in protecting our environment. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Polluters should be severely fined or punished. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Factories that pollute heavily should be shut down. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| I have enough money to live comfortably. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| I feel satisfied with the state of the environment in Latvia. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Protecting Latvia’s water resources is very important to me. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Protecting Latvia’s forests is very important to me. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Protecting Latvia’s wetlands is very important to me. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Protecting Latvia’s air is very important to me. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Protecting Latvia’s Rivers is very important to me. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Protecting the Baltic Sea is very important to me. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Environmental damage negatively impacts me. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| There are actions that I could take which would be effective in helping the environment. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| I am aware of ways for me to be more involved in conserving Latvia’s environment. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| I consider myself to be part of nature. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Latvian culture is important to me. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| How I relate to my environment is a product of my cultural heritage. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| I have participated in environmental activist groups. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| I am aware of Latvian traditions. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Economic development is a serious threat to Latvia’s natural environment. | 1 2 3 4 D |
| Do you think that the environment was more important for ancient Latvians, the USSR, or present day people? |
| For which cultural group do you think the environment is most important? |
| What, if anything, do you do to protect the environment? |
| Is there anything, barring direct payment to you, that might motivate you to be more involved in environmental conservation? |
| What do you think is the greatest environmental threat in Latvia? |
| What do you think culture is? |
| How do you think Latvians, Russians, and others differ in their environmental beliefs? |
| How do you think Latvians, Russians, and others differ in their cultural values? |