Chapter 7. Sustainability understanding and individual characteristics

In addition to the main purpose of exploring similarities and differences between countries, the potential differences by demographics and individual characteristics were investigated. Differences were tested for age group, gender, education, residence, and perceived income as demographic characteristics (see Table 1) and environmental concern level as an individual characteristic. Median split was used on environmental concern to group people into those with high environmental concern (median value or above per country) versus low environmental concern (below median value per country).

There were some small differences in certain countries in terms of some of these background measures, however, at large these did not have important effects. Only the more noteworthy differences in terms of demographics and individual characteristics are mentioned in this chapter, given that the main focus of the report is on country differences and similarities.

Respondents with higher environmental concern have selected more frequently the pair of words ‘environmentally-friendly, healthy’ as describing sustainability than those with low environmental concern in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden. Similarly, those with high environmental concern have selected less frequently the pair of words ‘safe, fair’ as describing sustainability in Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. This difference by environmental concern was strongest in Finland followed by Estonia. There were no differences between environmental concern groups in Denmark and Norway.

Age had an impact on the ranking of the ‘animal welfare’ sustainability dimension in the Baltic countries. The younger the group, the more important ‘animal welfare’ was ranked, although in Lithuania and Latvia only the youngest group differed from the older ones. In Estonia, the oldest age group ranked ‘culture’ as more important compared to the other age groups.  In relation to the ranking of 'biodiversity’, in Finland, those with the highest level of education have ranked ‘biodiversity’ as more important than the other two lower-educated groups.

Environmental concern level was associated to some extent with the ranks of some dimensions of sustainability. ‘Economic growth’ was ranked lower across countries by those with high environmental concern as opposed to those with low environmental concern, but the effect was weak in Lithuania.  ‘Climate change prevention’ was ranked higher across countries by those more concerned about the environment than those less concerned about the environment, but the effect was weaker in Denmark and Lithuania.

Environmental concern level was related to some of the associations people made with sustainability in food. Those with high environmental concern selected more often ‘reducing the amount of pesticides used in food production’, ‘less energy use when cooking products’, ‘improving welfare/conditions for animals’ and ‘biodiversity preservation’ as being about food sustainability than those with low environmental concern. These associations were stronger in Finland, whereas for ‘less energy use when cooking products’ the difference was not significant in Denmark. Those more concerned with the environment also associated more frequently ‘minimising carbon emissions when producing goods’ and ‘reducing deforestation of the rain forest’ with food sustainability than those with low environmental concern. These associations were stronger in Finland and Estonia. ‘Organic production’ was seen as being related to food sustainability more frequently in the high environmental concern group. This association was stronger in Estonia. ‘Reducing meat consumption’ was associated to food sustainability more frequently among those with high environmental concern. This association was stronger in Finland and Norway. Overall, these associations had small to medium strength.

Respondents who score high on environmental concern perceive ‘plant-based alternatives to meat’ as more sustainable than ‘meat’ compared to those in the low environmental concern group. This effect was stronger in Finland, Norway, Sweden and Estonia, but not significant in Lithuania.

Gender was associated with interest in sustainability and sustainability labelling, as well as with attitudes and willingness to use a hypothetical common sustainability label across the EU. Females were more interested in sustainability and sustainability labelling of food, had a more positive attitude towards a common label and were more willing to use a common label when choosing food as opposed to males, except in Latvia where there was no difference as to gender.

Respondents with high environmental concern level were more interested in sustainability and sustainability labelling in food compared to those with low environmental concern. This effect was smaller in the Baltic countries compared to the Nordic ones. Similarly, those with high environmental concern had more positive attitudes towards a hypothetical common sustainability label across the EU and were more willing to use such a label when making food choices, as opposed to those with low environmental concern. This effect was smaller in Lithuania compared to the other countries.