Somebody Should Do Something

In a well-documented case of “bystander apathy”, a young woman called Kitty Genovese was beaten to death in New York in 1964 while 38 people looked from their windows. Nobody called the police during the one and a half hour attack. The plethora of research conducted on this and similar cases has revealed the power of “diffusion of responsibility”, which occurs when people fail to act due to a lack of individual accountability which occurs in certain circumstances. (“The Tipping Point”, by Malcolm Gladwell, discusses this phenomenon in depth). When we feel that responsibility is shared between a vast number of people, our own responsibility is somehow diminished. Could this be the case in situations where people fail to act on environmental issues?

Environmental problems certainly fit the profile of the kind of shared responsibility in which a diffusion of responsibility would take place. Research reveals that several key factors contribute to such a diffusion.
Firstly, a larger group size reduces the extent to which individuals feel a sense of responsibility. Several studies have show that, for instance, when people observe an emergency in a large group, they are less likely to intervene than when they are on their own, or in a smaller group. When we consider the challenges of global warming, both the cause and possible solutions involve an immense number of people. Therefore, it is easy to see how people would see their own share of the responsibility as pretty insignificant.

Closely linked to group size is the power of anonymity. When people perceive that they will not be found out, they are less likely to act in the public interest. Many studies have concluded that the depersonalising effects of urbanisation have reduced people’s sense of community accountability. As much environmentally significant behaviour are done in private, such as spending time in the shower and using home energy, there is very little social accountability. Indeed, research has found that curbside recycling behaviour is very much linked to being seen to be doing the right thing by the neighbours, perhaps explaining it’s relative popularity as a green behaviour.

The distance in time and space of the environmental issues confronting us are another perfect opportunity to diffuse responsibility. Many people feel that the problems are so intangible due to the apparent lack of immediacy, and the belief that they will take place primarily in far-flung parts of the world, that their actions can’t possibly make a significant difference. This leads to what is termed a lack of “efficacy” – one’s ability to make a difference. Self-efficacy is well-established as a key driver of green behaviours.

If we are to overcome the issue of diffusion of responsibility as a barrier to sustainable behaviour, it makes sense to address each of it’s parts individually.

Firstly, the issue of group size suggests that people need to feel that they are part of a smaller group responsible for addressing problems with personally relevant consequences. Hence the importance of the “think global, act local” concept. While it is difficult to see how one person can stop the Arctic ice shelf melting, it is likely to be a lot more realistic to see how they can contribute to making the local beach cleaner. Engaging people in such localised efforts is a key step to increasing participation in green initiatives.

Anonymity may also be addressed by community-scale efforts. Where people identify with a group, the peer pressure and effect of social norms is a strong driver for behaviour which is consistent with that group. This is where the importance of pledges and commitments is underlined, as a way of creating group accountability.

Similar to group size, distance in time and space needs to be overcome by focusing on more local, immediate effects. Wherever local examples of environmental problems can be highlighted, the more salient the message is likely to be. People respond more strongly to threats which are immediate and close to home, making it more difficult to believe that it is someone else’s problem.

In summary, engaging people in sustainable behaviours starts with getting them to accept their responsibility to take action. The several psychological factors which lead to a diffusion of this responsibility are best addressed through a focus on building a sense of community, and engaging people in local actions. When people can see for themselves the problems, and their own crucial role in addressing them, they are more likely to take action themselves, rather than waiting for someone else to do something.

WANT TO USE THIS ARTICLE IN YOUR E-ZINE OR WEB SITE?
You can, as long as you include this complete blurb with it:

Awake provides psychology-based services to support the development of sustainable behaviour in individuals, groups and organisations. Visit www.awake.com.au for more info

Attitude change; the ultimate course in environmental management

Ask any Kenyan primary school graduate proceeding to high school about the career he/she is intending to pursue. Most probably the response will be “a doctor” to mean a medical practitioner. Ask an adult Kenyan what he/she knows about environment and do not be surprised to hear disjointed phrases like Waangari Maathai, tree planting and probably NEMA (National Environmental Management Authority). Never mind, the full meaning of NEMA many not be known by most people. Worse still, this problem extends to the individuals considered as highly educated but in a different way. To serve as an illustration, let me share a comment made by one of my friends, who is currently pursuing Ph.D in one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Let not the fact that he had served as a lecturer in one of the Kenya’s universities worry you. “I do not like these people so called NEMA.” When I asked why, “Because they are increasing poverty in Kenya by hindering development projects.”

From the presented level of environmental awareness among majority of Kenyans, it becomes a tall order for the environmental management activities to succeed. Perhaps this is why a decade has passed since the government started a serious work on the natural resources management but with very little success. Unfortunately, which ever reason we would like to offer as an excuse, the adverse effects are continuing. Taking cognisance that no arguments for the environment are more persuasive than those made from the perspective of human health, I wish to point out some of the known environmental impacts on our health but normally given very little attention. The environment in which we find ourselves becomes the most determinant of our health conditions. Therefore, protection of the environment and preservation of ecosystems are, in public health terms, the most fundamental steps in preventing human illness (Chivian et al., 1993). All of us do make decisions at various levels and hence have a responsibility in managing the environment. Examples of such decisions range from where to dump a piece of your candy wrapper to siting a factory premise among others. The level of importance we assign to environmental issues can be easily depicted in our actions. Just to pick on one aspect, have you ever wondered how much environmental consideration we normally incorporate when building residential houses, especially those occupied by the citizens categorized as middle and low income earners?

Chivian et al., (1993) observes that the resulting high levels of air pollution (including indoor air pollution) are considered by experts to explain the high mortality rates for acute respiratory disease (about 4 million per year) in children under the age of 5 in many developing countries. Most of the houses especially in the rural areas have served as kitchens, sitting rooms and bedrooms. In these homes, firewood has remained the main source of energy therefore, exposing many people to air which is polluted by smoke particles. Women and children have been the main victims given their stereotyped gender roles. In some cases, you will find babies of below one year in these smoke filled houses. As adapted from H.A. Boushey and D. Sheppard, “Air pollution,” in textbook of Respiratory Medicine, ed. J.F Murray and J.A Nadel (Saunders, 1998) and presented by Chivian et al., (1993), some of the health effects from specific pollutants are as outlined. Sulphur oxides particulates from kerosene stoves, oil refineries, smelters, coal and power plants cause broncho-constriction, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive and lung disease. Carbon monoxide from motor vehicle emissions and fossil fuel burning cause asphyxia leading to heart and nervous system damage and ultimately death. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from diesel exhaust, cigarette smoke and stove smoke have a potential of causing lung cancer. Asbestos from asbestos mines and mills, insulation and building materials cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. Finally, pollen, animal dander and house dust cause asthma and rhinitis.

Therefore, we must start thinking critically and incorporate environmental concerns in all that we do. It no longer matters which profession one is pursuing because that will not offer immunity to our health. The first step is to change our attitude and start seeking for information regarding sound environmental management practices. At the same time, we must stop considering efforts by the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) as steps meant to frustrate development projects but as those geared towards achieving sustainable development. Efforts in environmental education need to be stepped up both in learning institutions and in the public domain. Practically, all have a role to play in this.

References
Chivian E., McCally M., Hu H., and Haines A (1993), Critical condition; human health and the environment. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England.

How much are Kenyans ready to save their future?

Solid waste problem.
Photo by Benard Ochieng.

For many decades, environmental concerns have received great attention all over the world. Many nations are getting cautious with their actions in order to secure livelihood for their future generations. However, this may not be the case in Kenya. We have experienced situations indicating how fully aware we are of what is happening to our resources but with less concern. Lack of commitment has been demonstrated by all stakeholders i.e., the government, citizens and business owners. As a result, most of our resources have been degraded beyond measure. Think of Nairobi river, Dandora dump site, Lake Nakuru, Lake Victoria and all the tropical forests.

As we reflect on our failures to manage environmental resources effectively, we need to appreciate the little efforts that have been put by various individuals and institutions. I accept that Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) 1999 offers a neat framework to alleviate most of the today’s environmental issues dogging the country. In addition to this, we have had individuals with great passion for conserving the resources such as Prof. Wangari Maathai. However, these efforts are in most cases not coordinated and supported. Perhaps this is because of the skewed perception most leaders have about the environment. Just to remind ourselves, I guess we still remember when our present vice president (Hon. Kalonzo Musyoka) was assigned new duties as the environment minister from the foreign affairs ministry. There were talks all over with a common understanding that Hon. Kalonzo Musyoka was “demoted.” This suggested how most Kenyans place very little value on environment matters. This has been reflected in the manner in which we handle our businesses and has also influenced our decisions. Again, remember the fiasco between the current Public Health Minister (Hon. Beth Mugo) and the environment officials from National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA). Whereas the NEMA officials found it fit to close down the slaughter houses in Nairobi on account of not meeting the minimal required standards hence a threat to the environment, the minister defended the slaughter houses operators without necessarily asking them to make some corrections.

Land degradation.
Photo by Benard Ochieng.

Several examples illustrating how our leaders have failed to take charge can be cited including the implementation of EMCA 1999 itself. Just to let you know and perhaps arouse your interest, the Act specifies qualifications for individuals who should run different offices in institutions created by the Act. Perhaps you may want to access the Act and find out if all the officers occupying those offices are meeting the stipulated criteria. In addition to this, the need for conducting Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Environmental Audits (EAs) has almost lost its originally intended purpose. I claim this because some of these studies have failed to improve environmental performance. Reasons for this failure could be diverse and you can be sure that all players ranging from the proponents, auditors and the government officials have contributed in different ways.

Therefore, my appeal is that all stakeholders take an active role in reversing the current trend of systematic environmental degradation. One way of doing this as has been done in some countries is to voluntarily adopt Environmental Management Systems (EMSs). EMS is a set of activities incorporated in the operations of businesses, organisations etc in order to prevent or minimize adverse impacts to the environment. They normally help businesses, organisations and institutions to identify their environmental concerns, set objectives, plan, execute, monitor and review environmental performance. There exist numerous EMSs such that each type of business, institution, organisation, farm, etc can have one appropriate for its operations. Examples of these EMSs are ISO 14001, The Natural Step (TNS), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Cleaner Production, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Rainforest Alliance Certification and Green Globe among others. These voluntary EMSs may not achieve sustainability but will definitely improve environmental performance.

Wetland destruction.
Photo by Benard Ochieng.

For the sake of achieving sustainability in our operations, all stakeholders will have to work together. For example, the responsible government institutions must ensure that the set legislations and standards in various sectors are adhered to without compromise, the citizens must learn to demand for a quality environment as well as promoting it and the businesses owners including institutions' and organisations' managers must commit toward corporate social responsibility.
In attempting to achieve this, all parties must be wary of the cost implications. For example, the citizens may have to pay a little more for the goods and services that are produced from environmentally sound practices, the businesses owners will have to redesign their products and services and also meet the expenses of monitoring environmental performance, and the government must be willing to train and hire qualified staff to help in managing its environment.

Finally, I wish to state that while incorporating environmental concerns may seem to be an increase of the capital resource, many businesses have experienced immediate benefits and are aiming at doing more in environmental conservation. I challenge our local authorities to be the first in adopting these EMSs as they are entrusted with the management of our resources. Finally, may I recognise the efforts of Unilever tea farms for adopting Rainforest Alliance Certification and all other organisations that are already doing the same.