Scottish Government

Executive Summary

Introduction

1 In December 2008, the Scottish Government published the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill ¹. This includes a statutory target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. While the need for action in relation to climate change is commonly recognised, there has been a paucity of information in Scotland to examine people's attitudes and behaviours in relation to this and other environmental issues. It is within this context that the Scottish Government Rural and Environment Analytical Services ( REAS) Division, on behalf of the Greener Scotland Directorate and Climate Change Division, commissioned the Scottish Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours Survey ( SEABS '08). The SEABS'08 serves the Scottish Government's 'Greener' and 'Wealthier and Fairer' Strategic Objectives.

2 The over-arching aim of SEABS '08 was to produce dedicated, sound and up-to-date robust social survey data on environmental attitudes and behaviours, supporting the development and delivery of environmental policy, relating specifically to climate change, sustainable development and wellbeing, but also of relevance to other policy areas. Specific objectives for the survey were to:

• provide robust information on individual environmental attitudes and individual and household behaviours of adults (aged 16+ across Scotland);
• enable disaggregation of such information in terms of sub-groups;
• enable detection of trends over time;
• allow more detailed surveys or follow-up surveys, if required, of sub-samples from the main survey sample; and
• devise appropriate dissemination, presentation and use of results.

3 The survey was undertaken among a quota sample of the Scottish adult population (aged 16+) between 18 August and 15 November 2008. All interviews were conducted face to face by experienced Ipsos MORI interviewers in respondents' homes. The total number of interviews achieved was 3,054.

4 The primary purposes of the analysis were two-fold. First, to describe the prevalence of various attitudes and behaviours in relation to the environment across Scotland and within particular sub-groups. Secondly, to analyse what drives environmental attitudes and behaviours.

Attitudes to the environment

5 Overall, 12% of respondents considered the environment or environmental issues (such as global warming or climate change) as one of the most important issues facing Scotland today, with 4% saying that the environment is the single most important issue. Respondents were more likely to mention issues relating to the economy and the 'credit crunch' (38%), crime, law and order and anti-social behaviour (32%), and the Scottish constitution (17%).

6 The environment was mentioned more often when respondents were asked what were the most important issues facing the world, with around a third of respondents (35%) mentioning this. Respondents were most likely to view international conflict (such as terrorism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) as an important issue facing the world (43%), while 35% mentioned the economy.

7 When asked about environmental issues specifically, climate change/global warming was mentioned more than any other problem (41%). The second most commonly mentioned issue was weather patterns/freak weather (19%). Other environmental issues included: household waste (18%), consumption of natural resources (15%) and CO2 emissions (15%).

8 Most respondents said they knew something about climate change. Just over two fifths (43%) said they know a fair amount, and 5% said they know a great deal about climate change. Two fifths (40%) said they know not very much. In contrast, 10% said that they had heard of climate change but knew nothing about it. Only 1% of respondents in Scotland have never heard of climate change.

9 The majority of respondents (57%) said climate change is an immediate and urgent problem. Around a fifth of respondents (22%) said that climate change is more of a problem for the future. Fewer respondents said that climate change is not really a problem (4%) or are not convinced that climate change is happening (9%).

10 Respondents were asked what two or three actions they thought would most help reduce climate change. The most common actions were: recycling (45%), avoiding creating waste in the first place (36%), using a more fuel efficient car (32%) and making fewer car journeys (28%). Fewer respondents mentioned buying organic produce (1%), people having fewer children (4%), reusing bottles/containers (5%), using water sparingly (6%), buying fewer products generally (6%), and taking fewer foreign holidays (12%).

11 There were differing views on the value of action and the link between individual behaviour and climate change. While around two-thirds (68%) disagreed with the statement, 'it's not worth me doing things to help the environment if others don't do the same', over one in five (22%) agreed. A sizeable proportion of people struggle to make the link between climate change and their own individual behaviour, with over a third agreeing, 'I don't believe my behaviour and everyday lifestyle contribute to climate change' (48% disagreed and 16% gave a neutral response).

12 A typology of environment engagement was created. This typology is used as a key analysis variable in subsequent chapters on behaviour and policy responses. It segments people into a hierarchy of five groups:

• Deep Greens: These are people who: said that the environment was an important issue in Scotland or the most important issue in the world; believed that climate change is an immediate and urgent problem; and said they know a great deal or a fair amount about climate change. These people are most likely to be engaged with the issues and the most proactive in terms of adopting new or alternative behaviours.
• Light Greens: People who believe that climate change is an immediate and urgent problem and an important issue globally, but who do not necessary feel well informed about climate change or think that it is an important issue in Scotland. This group could be referred to as "aspiring greens". They may be interested in adopting new behaviours but tend to be more passive than those who are highly engaged.
• Shallow Greens: These are people who said that climate change is an immediate and urgent problem, but not one of the most important issues globally or in Scotland. These people accept that climate change is an issue, but may not be convinced of the need to take more than minimal action at present.
• Distanced: This group believe that climate change is more of a problem for the future or hold no views on climate change. It is unlikely that this group will readily accept the need for anything more than minor or relatively easy changes to their lifestyle.
• Disengaged: These are people who are not convinced that climate change is happening or, that if it is happening, believe it is not a problem. This group are likely to be the most resistant to messages about changing their behaviour.

13 High environmental engagement is more concentrated among certain groups in the population, with educational attainment, social class, and age being the strongest predictors of engagement.

14 Educational attainment has the strongest impact on membership of two groupings in the typology, the Deep Green grouping and the Disengaged grouping. While only 4% of those with no educational qualifications were classified as Deep Greens, a quarter (25%) of those with a degree level qualification were classified in this grouping. In contrast, those with no qualifications were twice as likely as those with a degree level qualification to be classified as Distanced (42% compared to 21%).

Energy efficiency in the home

15 To gauge how conscious people are of their energy consumption, respondents were asked whether they felt they could accurately estimate the amount they spend each month on gas and/or electricity to within £20. A majority - 68% of those who use electricity and 66% of those who use gas - felt that they could do so.

16 Respondents in social groups C2DE ² and those with no educational qualifications were among those most likely to say they could provide an estimate within £20. This may be because these groups will have relatively low incomes and therefore may pay closer attention than other people to their monthly outgoings. Those living in a flat or apartment were more likely to be able to provide an estimate than those living in a house and bungalow (for example, 71% versus 67% for electricity) and those living in the most deprived areas were more likely than those in the least deprived areas (for example, 72% compared to 60%). There was no significant difference by rurality.

17 Asked about their current use of gas and electricity compared with a year ago, respondents who use these types of fuel were most likely to say they were using about the same amount (electricity users - 55% and gas users - 58%). Overall, 21% said they were using less electricity/gas now compared with one ear ago. Fewer respondents said they were now using more gas and electricity (15% and 16% respectively) than a year ago.

18 Analysis by the engagement typology finds that the Deep Green grouping were more likely than all of the other groupings to say they use less electricity and/or gas than a year ago.

19 Only around 1% of respondents (N=30) in the survey use energy from micro-generation. Just three people used solar panels and just one person used hydro power. No respondents obtained energy from photovoltaics, air and ground source heat pumps, biomass, or micro-wind turbines.

20 To assess wider awareness of micro-generated forms of energy, all respondents were asked whether they felt their home was suitable for photovoltaics, solar panels, air and ground source heat pumps and micro wind turbines. A consistently higher proportion of respondents felt their home was unsuitable rather than suitable for each of the technologies. Just over half felt their home was unsuitable for micro wind turbines (54%) or air and ground source heat pumps (52%), while 43% felt their home was unsuitable for solar panels and 35% felt the same in respect to photovoltaics. However, significant proportions of respondents were unable to give definitive responses as to the suitability of their homes for the four forms of micro-generation.

21 There was no linear pattern of responding across the five typology groupings, but the Deep Green grouping was consistently a little more likely than all of the other grouping to say that their home was suitable for the four technologies.

22 Respondents were presented with a list of day to day energy saving behaviours and asked how important they think it is that people do each. All of the behaviours were regarded as at least fairly important by a strong majority of respondents. Around nine in ten people felt it was important to: use energy saving light bulbs (90%); hang washing up rather than using a tumble dryer (91%); and turn off lights in rooms that aren't being used (94%). Around eight in ten felt it was important that people avoid over-filling kettles (83%); and seven in ten felt it was important that they turn off heating before going out (73%) and turn off the tap when brushing their teeth (72%).

23 The most engaged typology groupings were generally more likely than the less engaged groupings to rate each of the behaviours as important.

24 Respondents were presented with the list of behaviours again and asked how often they, personally, do each. The prevalence of the behaviours varied considerably. On the one hand, a majority of respondents said they use energy saving light bulbs and hang up washing to dry at least 'most of the time' (63% and 79% respectively). Similarly, 67% say they rarely or never leave lights on in rooms that aren't being used. However, significantly fewer respondents said they turn off heating before going out or turn off the tap when brushing their teeth - indeed, roughly as many people 'rarely' or 'never' did these things as did them 'always' or 'most of the time'.

25 There was no consistent pattern of variation by environmental engagement, but the Deep Green grouping were consistently more likely than all other groupings to: turn off the tap when brushing their teeth (59% compared with 35% of the Disengaged grouping); use energy saving light bulbs (73% compared with 61%); and hang up washing rather than using a tumble dryer (83% compared with 77%).

26 Respondents were asked whether they have bought a number of white goods in the past two years and, if so, whether they were aware of the energy efficiency rating of their new item. For the three items most commonly purchased in the past two years - television, fridge or freezer or fridge freezer and washing machine - the majority of respondents said they did not know what the energy efficiency was (82%, 54% and 53% respectively).

Travel behaviour

27 Driving by car is the most common mode of transport for respondents to travel to work and do grocery shopping. The majority of respondents in employment travel to work in a car, either themselves (56%) or by getting a lift from someone else (6%). In comparison, 16% walk, 12% travel by bus and 5% travel by train.

28 Similarly, the majority of respondents drive (54% drive themselves, 9% get a lift) to the place where they do their main food and grocery shopping. Other most common modes of transport to do the main food and grocery shopping were walking (22%) and using a bus (11%).

29 The prominence of driving in respondents' lives is reflected by how often respondents use different modes of transport. Nearly half (45%) said they use a car as a driver most days, while a further 15% use a car as a passenger most days. By comparison 18% of respondents said they use the bus most days and 3% said they use the train most days. Overall, 27% of respondents never use buses.

30 Regression analysis suggests that among people with a car available to the household, once other socio-economic factors have been controlled for, environmental engagement is not a significant factor in determining whether people drive to work. Similarly, once distance from their main grocery shop, car ownership, and socio-economic factors are controlled for, the environmental typology does not prove to be significant to whether people drive to do their main grocery shopping.

31 There is, however, limited evidence that environmental engagement decreases frequency of driving. Once other variables are controlled for, among respondents with a car available to their household, Deep Greens are significantly, but only slightly less likely to drive most days: 64% of Deep Greens drove every day compared to 68% of Light Greens, 65% of Shallow Greens, 63% of the Distanced and 71% of the Disengaged. In contrast, Deep Greens with a car available to their household were more likely to drive once or twice a week (20%) compared to Light Greens (14%), Shallow Greens (14%), the Distanced (12%) and the Disengaged (12%). This suggests that environmental engagement may have a small effect on reducing car usage overall.

32 Of all forms of transport, cycling is the most closely associated with environmental engagement. This holds even after controlling for socio-economic variables.

33 Overall, 46% of respondents said that they had made at least one journey by air in the last 12 months for non-work reasons: 19% made just one journey, 12% made two journeys, 5% made three journeys, and 10% made four or more journeys. These results are very much in line with findings from the 2007 DEFRA survey.

34 While Deep Greens, the most environmentally engaged group in the attitudinal typology, were the most likely to have flown for leisure purposes in the last year, regression modelling suggests environmental engagement is not a significant factor. A higher proportion of Deep Greens fly than those in the Disengaged Grouping because they are more likely to have high educational attainment and be in social groups ABC1. In other words, after all other factors are controlled, the environmentally engaged do not appear to be any more or less likely to fly for non-work reasons.

35 17% of workers had made at least one journey by air in the last twelve months: 4% had made one journey, 3% had made two journeys, 1% had made three journeys, and 9% had made four or more journeys.

36 Patterns of flying for work by environmental engagement are similar to patterns of flying for non-work reasons. While Deep Greens were more likely to have flown for business in the last year (26%), compared to Light Greens (19%), Shallow Greens (16%), The Distanced (13%) and those in the Disengaged grouping (17%), once other socio-economic factors have been controlled for, there is no significant relationship between environmental engagement and likelihood of flying for work. In other words, environmental engagement does not make a measurable impact on the number of flights taken for work.

Recycling and reusing

37 Respondents were more likely to make use of kerbside recycling services than other recycling facilities, such as bottle banks. Kerbside paper recycling collection services, where available, were used by 84% of respondents at least sometimes; with 76% saying they use such facilities every time.

38 By comparison, they use other recycling services and facilities less often:

• 72% use the kerbside garden waste recycling collection, where available, every time.
• 63% of respondents use the kerbside can recycling collection, where available, every time.
• 60% use the kerbside bottle recycling collection, where available, every time.
• 44% use other bottle recycling facilities, where kerbside services are not provided, every time.
• 41% use other paper recycling facilities, where kerbside services are not provided, every time.
• 33% use other can recycling facilities, where kerbside services are not provided, every time.
• 19% of respondents with a garden use a home composting heap or bin, or worm farm every time.

39 Although those who are environmentally engaged are more likely to use available kerbside recycling facilities, the difference is relatively small. After other factors have been controlled for, environmental engagement is not significant with regard to use of available kerbside recycling facilities. In other words, all other things being equal, the environmentally engaged are no more or less likely than other people to use kerbside recycling facilities where they are available.

40 However, the likelihood of using other recycling facilities, even after other socio-economic factors have been controlled for, is strongly related to environmental engagement and suggests that the impact of environmental engagement on recycling is strongest where it requires the most effort.

41 Respondents were also asked how often they reuse a variety of everyday items. Most respondents sometimes use their own shopping bags or boxes, with 48% saying they use them every time. Similarly, the majority of respondents claim to carry out the following behaviours every time:

• Donate items to the charity shop (28%).
• Reuse wrapping paper/gift bags (21%).
• Reuse plastic food containers (23%).
• Use rechargeable batteries (17%).
• Reuse plastic drink bottles (16%).

42 A significant proportion of respondents said that they never use rechargeable batteries (38%), plastic drinks bottles (36%), wrapping paper/gift bags (24%) and plastic food containers (25%).

43 The likelihood of reusing these items, after other socio-economic factors have been controlled for, was related to environmental engagement.

Eco-purchasing

44 Supermarkets were by far the most popular places to buy groceries, with almost all (97%) respondents saying they visit supermarkets at least once a month, and around half (52%) saying they do most of their grocery shopping in supermarkets. Meanwhile, around two in five respondents said they visit small independent shops (40%) and convenience stores or corner shops (35%). Very few people said they regularly buy groceries from other types of shop - for example, only around one in 10 said they visit farmers' markets (9%) or health food shops (7%) at least once a month.

45 Awareness of different sustainably produced goods varied considerably. The majority of respondents were familiar with Scotch Beef (90%), Fair Trade products (83%) and Scotch Lamb (83%), but only around one in five had heard of sustainably produced timber (23%), fish from sustainable sources (20%) and Freedom Food (19%). Further, only 3% had heard of LEAF Marque food.

46 Respondents were asked which, of the products they had heard of, they make a conscious effort to buy. Again the results were somewhat mixed. Two thirds (66%) of those who had heard of Scotch Beef and around half (53%) of those who had heard of Fair Trade products said they made a point of buying these items. The figures for fish from sustainable sources, Freedom Food, timber, and LEAF Marque food, were somewhat lower, at 39%, 23%, 20% and 11% respectively.

47 Respondents were presented with a list of other eco-friendly products and asked how often, if at all, they buy each. Free range eggs were by far the most widely bought product, with six in ten respondents saying they choose these 'every time' or 'most times'. None of the other products were bought with the same frequency by a majority of respondents. Free range poultry and recycled toilet paper - the next most commonly purchased products - were bought 'every time' or 'most times' by 28% and 22% of respondents respectively. The least commonly bought products were eco-friendly clothing and organic groceries - in each a majority said they never purchase these items.

48 Those in the Deep Green typology grouping were more likely than other groups to buy each of the products 'every time' or 'most times'. The differences were not great, however. For example, the proportion of Deep Greens who bought organic milk 'every time' or 'most times' was 13%, compared with 5% of the 'Disengaged' grouping. For recycled toilet paper, the comparable figures were 32% and 16% respectively. In short, even amongst those segments of the public that are the most engaged with the environment issue, eco-purchasing is not widespread.

Barriers to behavioural change

49 The SEABS'08 questionnaire included a suite of questions aimed at gauging why people do not always choose to adapt their behaviour in ways that may be helpful to the environment. While some of the reasons cited were very behaviour-specific, there were four recurring themes which consistently ranked highly. These were: convenience; cost; a lack of alternative options; and practical considerations.

50 Overall, convenience was the factor that most commonly underpinned people's choice of behaviour. Indeed, it was the main reason respondents gave for opting to: drive to work (50%); drive to do grocery shopping (54%); drive their children to school (30%); and use air travel within the UK for leisure (74%) or business purposes (67%).

51 Cost considerations were among the main reasons respondents gave for changing their gas and/or electricity supplier (89% and 88% respectively, compared with 3% and 4% respectively mentioning environmental considerations), not buying more locally produced food (21%), and using air travel within the UK for leisure (27%) or business purposes (16%). Similarly, of those respondents who said they now use less electricity/and or gas than a year ago, a majority accounted for this with reference to increased energy costs or trying to save money (gas: 68%, electricity: 67%). In contrast, just 13% of those who are using less gas and 16% of those who are using less electricity said they are doing so to help the environment.

52 A lack of alternatives option was most commonly cited in relation to travel behaviour and specifically: driving to work (18% said there was no direct public transport); driving to do grocery shopping (13% said there was no direct public transport); driving children to school (24% said there were no practical alternatives); and flying within the UK for leisure or business purposes (10% and 16% respectively said there were no alternatives).

53 Practical considerations cited were closely related to convenience. For example, amongst the reasons people gave for driving to work were that public transport takes too long (13%); that their work is too far to walk or cycle (10%); or because they work unsociable hours (7%). Similarly, a significant proportion of those who drove to do grocery shopping said they did so because their shopping is too heavy to carry home on foot or onto public transport (44%), or because it is easier to take the car when you have children (6%).

Meeting the challenge of climate change

54 In order to achieve the target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, the public will need to be convinced of the urgency of issues relating to the environment. A key factor determining the likely success of any communications will be the extent to which these are seen as legitimate and trustworthy.

55 Respondents were asked what sources they would trust the most to provide them with correct information about climate change. The most commonly mentioned sources were independent scientists (45%), environmental groups or charities (25%), television news programmes (23%), and the Scottish Government (12%).

56 When asked who they would trust the least, the most commonly mentioned sources were the UK Government (34%), tabloid newspapers (34%), business and industry (22%) and the Scottish Government (17%).

57 Respondents were asked whether they supported a variety of hypothetical policy developments:

• Requiring shops to charge 10p for a carrier bag was supported by 61% of respondents, and opposed by 37%.
• Introducing water meters so that respondents pay for the amount they use was supported by 49% of respondents, and opposed by 45%.
• Charging car owners to drive in city centres (congestion charging) was supported by 40% of respondents and opposed by 55%.

58 Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements relating to the value and impact of renewable energy sources, as well as nuclear energy, vis a vis traditional energy sources.

59 People were considerably more likely to be positive than negative about the value of renewable energy with around three in five (58%) disagreeing that windfarms do more damage than good to the natural environment (12% agreed). This notwithstanding, over two fifths (44%) thought that windfarms and hydro electric schemes should only be built on the condition that they don't lead to more pylons. Further, a majority (53%) said they would not be happy to pay more for electricity if they knew it was produced in a more environmentally friendly way and less than a third (30%) said they would be willing to do so.

60 With regards to attitudes towards nuclear energy, just over half (53%) agreed that society needs nuclear power along with other forms of energy. Respondents were more likely to agree than disagree that nuclear power stations are more environmentally friendly than coal and gas power stations (39% versus 21%).

61 It therefore appears that people were generally in favour of generating energy from renewable rather than nuclear sources. However, they were unwilling to pay higher household bills, or sacrifice the aesthetic of the landscape to make this possible.

62 Perceptions of renewable energy differed according to levels of environmental engagement. Deep Greens were more likely than all other groupings to say they would be happy to pay more for their electricity if they knew that it was produced in a more environmentally friendly way (52% versus 20% of the Disengaged grouping). The Distanced and Disengaged groupings were most likely to say they would not be happy to pay more (58% and 67% respectively).

Greenspace

63 Respondents were asked how often they visit public gardens, parks, countryside or other greenspaces. When asked how often they visited greenspaces, 55% of respondents said they did so at least once a week, 22% said at least once a month but less than once a week, 13% said less than once a month, and 10% said they never visited greenspaces.

64 Most respondents (79%) said that is was very important to them to have gardens, parks, countryside or other green spaces nearby, while 18% said it was fairly important. Only 2% said that this was not very important and 1% that this was not at all important.

Wellbeing

65 Respondents where asked whether they agreed or disagreed with five statements related to their wellbeing:

• I am satisfied with my life: 80% agreed while 13% disagreed.
• So far I have managed to get the important things I want in life: 79% agreed while 14% disagreed.
• In most ways my life is close to my ideal: 69% agreed while 20% disagreed.
• The conditions of my life are excellent: 65% agreed while 23% disagreed.
• If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing: 54% agreed while 36% disagreed.

66 Respondents were also asked what two or three things would most improve their wellbeing. The respondents most commonly given were: earning/having more money (27%), improved health (23%), spending more time with family (20%), doing more exercise/physical activity (17%), working fewer hours (13%), spending more time with friends (12%), losing weight (12%), and spending more time outdoors (11%).

Links between greenspace and wellbeing

67 Those who said they visit greenspace everyday, at least once a week or at least sometimes, were more likely than those who never do so to say they were satisfied with life (82%, 77%, and 78% respectively versus 68%). Conversely, those who never visit greenspace were nearly twice as likely as those who do so every day to say they were dissatisfied with life (27% versus 14%). More specifically, regression modelling suggests that, after socio-economic factors are controlled for, visiting greenspace was a significant factor in determining differences in wellbeing, but only in the groups who comprise the two extremes - those said they visit greenspace everyday and those who never do so.

Key messages

68 Public engagement with the environment issue is mixed. On the one hand a majority of people agree that climate change is an immediate and urgent problem, rather than a problem for the future, and disagree that climate change will only impact on other countries, so there is no need to worry. Further, there are some signs that people are starting to change their behaviour for the sake of the environment. Recycling in particular, appears to be commonplace, with a relatively high proportion of people saying they recycle various types of household waste on a regular basis. Similarly, considerable proportions report reusing items such as shopping bags, and plastic drinks bottles, and taking measures to save energy in the home, such as using energy saving light bulbs. Significantly, the survey found a clear link between attitudes and behaviour - those who were the most environmentally engaged were the most likely to have made green lifestyles changes in terms of recycling, eco-purchasing, reusing households items and taking energy saving measures in the home.

69 However, levels of participation in many other forms of pro-environmental behaviour remain low: 44% of those who live a mile from work and have a car still choose drive there; two thirds of people drive most days; almost half of people have flown for leisure in the last year; a third of people could not say how much they spend on gas or electricity at home; around half of respondents do not reuse shopping bags every time possible; the majority of those who had bought a washing machine or a fridge freezer in the last two years did not know its energy rating; only 1% use energy from micro-generation; and almost half of people never use eco-friendly cleaning products.

70 When respondents were asked what actions would most help reduce climate change they were more likely to mention recycling than any other action. While it is positive that the argument for recycling appears to be generally accepted, there is scope to raise public awareness of the impact of other actions, such as reducing domestic energy use and taking fewer flights.

71 Not making fundamental changes to behaviour is understandable. One of the key difficulties of promoting green behaviours is that the benefits are not necessarily obvious or immediate - one person's actions will not be significant enough to make any perceptible difference to climate change. At the same time, the effort and cost of green behaviours are by no means negligible, and environmental considerations have to be weighed against competing demands. That respondents in the survey consistently identified cost and convenience as among the main considerations influencing their choice of behaviour illustrates the scale of the challenge in this respect.

72 While challenges ahead are undeniable, the survey results also provide an indication of ways in which environmental behaviour could be encouraged in the future. First, and as already noted, there are signs that environmental attitudes lead behaviour. As such, encouraging environmental engagement may go some way to promoting greener lifestyles. Conversely, the fact that environmental engagement was not significant in influencing other behaviours, such as driving to work, suggests that communications relating to these behaviours may be most effective if they focus, not on the need to protect the environment, but on other benefits such as the importance of a healthy lifestyle or cost savings.

73 Second, the two greatest barriers to change, effort and cost, may also provide opportunities to shape the architecture of people's choices and therefore their behaviour. Not only may there be scope to make some environmentally friendly behaviour easier to adopt, there may also be areas where non-environmentally friendly options can be made more difficult. Similarly, and where appropriate, highlighting potential cost-savings to be made from green behaviours may provide an effective means by which to 'sell' those behaviours to the public.

74 As people are, to some extent, sceptical about the influence that they, as individuals can have, the potential role of government in shaping opinions and behaviour should not be underplayed. While a number of policy options put to the public - for example paying more for green energy - elicited a sizeable degree of opposition, it is important to consider that this opposition may not be particularly steadfast. Before the introduction of the smoking ban in Scotland it would have been hard to imagine a majority of people supporting this measure but survey research conducted since the ban indicates that in at least some parts of the country, support is now as high as 75% (Ipsos MORI, Edinburgh Omnibus Survey, Summer 2006). It is not inconceivable that public opinion on policies aimed at promoting green behaviour may be similarly malleable.

75 The evidence in this survey shows that the Scottish public is beginning to engage with the environment issue, and to participate in relatively 'easy' green behaviours such as recycling and reusing. The challenge moving forward will be to increase levels of engagement further among all sections of the public and specifically to persuade people of the need to make more significant lifestyles changes if environmental problems are to be tackled.