Three FGDs comprising 24 participants were conducted according to the guidelines developed by Mason (2010) for determining the appropriate number of interviews [14]. There were 14 males and 10 females in the sample, while 10 of them were less than 40 years of age and seven educated above the General Certificate of Education (GCE) (Ordinary Level).
The following themes were generated during FGDs with regards to behavioural attitudes on climate change mitigation.
Views on climate change prevalent in the country
A majority of the participants believed that climate change is happening in the country, while referring to the recent changes experienced in the atmosphere, such as rising temperature often coupled with frequently encountered disasters. A 45-year old person living in a rural village expressed his views as follows:
“When I think of the changes in weather pattern, first thing that comes to my mind is the increasing temperature. Compared to earlier times, the daytime is getting hotter. In the past, we never experienced floods in the months of February and March, but now we expect heavy rains of shorter duration and long dry seasons during most days of the year. Even though the amount (intensity) of the rain is increasing, I feel the number of rainy days is decreasing”.
In further exploration, it came out that most respondents would consider climate change as more important and serious than personal issues, only if they had experienced any adverse weather outcome. This was apparent, as flood victims and non-victims varied in their perception of how serious the climate change is. A flood victim living in a low-income urban dwelling stated the following:
We seem to be the highest risk for flooding as we are living in a highly populated area. We face floods even when it rains only for a short while.
Misconceptions on the causes of climate change
Human behaviour is the core reason for today’s climate crisis. Awareness on such causal factors seemed to vary widely in the sample.
Climate change is closely associated with rapid population growth, leading to increased consumption of vital natural resources such as water and fossil fuel. Further, an increase in the demand for natural resources could ultimately result in environmental instability. This was expressed by a few participants in the sample who had a science educational background. According to a 65-year old female employed as a teacher stated on her views:
Expansion of the population is responsible for this climate change. More people means, increasing the use of electricity and cutting down more trees to build houses for them to live.
However, the majority failed to recognise that it was substantially contributed by man-made behaviour such as indiscriminate use of energy, despite the general notion that emerged consistently during FGDs of rapidly changing weather patterns in the country. This was more apparent in rural residents.
There is no relationship between people and nature. God made everyone and everything on Earth. How can people change the climate with small amounts of carbon dioxide they release?
It was further shown that misperceptions on causal factors are heavily influenced by socio-cultural beliefs and messages given by media. A 33-year-old female living in a low-income urban dwelling explained her views in the following way:
“We moved to this area in 2005 after experiencing Tsunami. Yes, I have observed that the rainfall has gone up in the area where I am currently living, we also experience floods more frequently mainly due to the congestion in our area. I think people in other parts of the country do not experience such floods like we do. [Sighing] This is like the bad effects of nature (karma) following us constantly”.
A 54-year old person elaborated on this issue:
“Climate change is happening due to the influence of stars. I don’t believe that it is related to science or karma. Therefore, it is difficult to change it even if we want to. If we can change the star pattern one day, we will be able to adjust the long-term weather pattern”.
A 32-year old businessman elaborated stated that:
Harmful rays such as ozones are coming to the air through the holes on Earth
Correcting such misperceptions is crucial for changing behavioural attitudes of people towards climate change, thus provides an opportunity to reduce household GHG emissions across multiple domains.
Perceptions on their vulnerability to effects of climate change
People’s own justification of not being at risk of climate change could be one of the barriers for successful mitigation.
In developing countries, communities living in certain areas (e.g. coastal region) or occupations (e.g. paddy cultivators, fishermen, tourist industry) are conventionally known as being at risk to the effects of climate change. However, the risk could be similar or even greater in populations living in highly congested areas.
In the sample, most living especially in low-income urban dwellings underestimated their vulnerability to the effects of climate change. a 45 year housewife stated that,
“We don’t waste resources as we have no money to buy things, so, we are safe”.
Similarly, most living in rural communities thought that they are not at risk owing to the least availability of energy resources in the area. They further believed that only those living in areas responsible for producing higher GHG emissions would be at risk, implying that they determined their risk by his/her proximity to the threat. This was explicitly expressed by a 53-year-old male living in a rural area:
As we are living away from the town, I am not at risk. Like in Colombo City, we are not facing huge traffic. More vehicles in the city emit more harmful gases, therefore they face risk, not us. In the same way, we do not experience massive floods regularly.
Such beliefs may drive especially rural residents to have a higher tendency to use natural resources without limits or to constantly migrate to safer environment areas.
Negative attitudes towards climate change mitigation activities
Aversion of risk could be done successfully through climate mitigation or by developing climate resilience. However, people’s values, beliefs, thoughts, and social relationships may form barriers for achieving the best solutions.
Individual opinions and own justification could often make the modification of behaviour at household level a difficult task. Such negative opinions identified during FGDs were related to money and space required to practise mitigative behaviour, which explains why people often do not choose to install energy-efficient appliances, reduce fossil fuel consumption or support government policies aimed at addressing climate change, despite having the best of intentions. A 32-year old married female with two children mentioned that,
As factories release air pollutants and people cut down trees at large scale without thinking of the environment or future, what is the purpose of being conscious of my own contribution? My contribution is anyway negligible for climate change.
Participants were also conscious of the practical difficulties of some of the well-known mitigative practices. Those in high social status did not accept that certain practices such as cycling or using public transport are the best options to protect the environment. One person said,
In Sri Lanka, cycling reflects poverty or people think that I’m too stingy. Why should I suffer when I have a car? I think we have to enjoy our lives. Also, even if we use a cycle, we can’t stop the climate change, so why bother so much over it for the 60–70 years of living?
In contrast, some were more concerned about protecting the environment as well as reducing the risk factors for diseases. A university lecturer said,
“I switched to the bicycle from my car to reduce carbon emission to the environment. As I am responsible for reducing climate change, I hope I can educate others to do so. I owe my carbon footprint reduction for cycling rather than travel by motor car which I used previously. Similarly, I enjoy the environment while cycling, reduce my blood pressure and reduce stress in traffic days. The only problem in using the cycle is on rainy days”.
Views on new technologies used for climate mitigation
Building more efficient energies through government initiatives or predicting the impact of carbon taxes on economic development is not sustainable, if the attitudes of people are not supportive of climate mitigation.
Even though some firmly believed that they are not able to contribute, others seemed to engage in GHG emission reduction, by increasing the carbon sinks through newer technologies introduced, such as solar panels and electric vehicles. A 45-year-old male stated that,
I’m using an electric car. On my way to work, I have to drop my kids to two different schools in Colombo. As I am facing a huge traffic daily, I think electric car is the best option for me as well as to save the environment.
Anothr person said,
“I have been using solar panels for enarly ten years. I think it is the most suitable way to reduce elecricity cost.”
Views on the government responsibility in climate mitigation
Favourable attitudes towards climate mitigation cannot cease global warming or reduce its consequences entirely. In order to prevent the environment, proper and strict norms should be enforced by countries all over the world as it is not an issue of a single community or country.
Certain activities that enable massive emissions of GHG to the atmosphere should be banned or restricted by the government. Role played by the government in this regard was highlighted with varying opinions among the discussion groups. A respondent mentioned a few initiatives taken by the Sri Lankan Government, such as the carbon tax which is introduced as a progressive measure to protect the environment, as being fundamentally flawed.
“I don’t accept the carbon tax. What has occurred here is that another tax has been added to the burden of vehicle users, which is an income generator to the government. Also, the government did not start the vehicle emission test with the aim of environmental protection, but simply to check the emission standards and to determine whether vehicles are within the government defined limits. This is one of the failures of the government, so my argument is to initiate some practical solution to save the environment”.
A community leader mentioned,
“We should stand up on our own. We should teach or provide education to our people on how to reduce carbon emission rather than begging from others. We forgot or are about to forget to learn how to survive. Just receiving donations will make people kneel down”.