The Challenges of Environmental Safety in Russian Public Opinion

Prokhoda Vladimir PhD in Sociology Senior Scientific Associate, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University; Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 125993, Russia, g. Moscow, Leningradskii prospekt, 49 prohoda@bk.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction. Against the background of the actualization of the "green agenda", the problem of environmental safety attracts wide attention of both domestic authors ^{[1; 2; 12]} and foreign researchers ^{[3; 14; 15; 19]}. At the official level, it is postulated that environmental safety, acting as one of the basic components of national security, is a strategic national priority (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 400 of 02.07.2021 "On the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation").

The multidimensional nature of environmental safety as a complex social phenomenon determines the existence of various approaches to its definition and study ^{[10; 20]}. In the publication, we will rely on a legally fixed definition that interprets environmental safety as "... the state of protection of the natural environment and vital human interests from the possible negative impact of economic and other activities, natural and man-made emergencies, and their consequences" (Federal Law No. 7-FZ of 10.01.2002 "On Environmental Protection").

It is obvious that the problem is complex, and effective counteraction to challenges and threats to environmental safety implies coordinated actions of numerous entities - state and municipal government bodies, business entities, civil society institutions, as well as broad participation of the population. Sociological surveys of the population provide information that complements objective data of state environmental monitoring and increases the effectiveness of management decisions in the field of environmental safety. Performing the feedback function, they can signal the presence of environmental problems, contribute to the effectiveness of public control, while at the same time they allow to identify the level of ecological culture of the population.

In the Russian scientific literature, the study of environmental safety is often carried out in a theoretical way ^[11]. In the works appealing to the results of surveys, the problem is mainly considered in the regional aspect ^{[5; 13]} or attention is focused on the consideration of the peculiarities of the attitude to environmental issues of certain categories of the population, in particular students ^{[4; 9]}. It can be stated that there is a certain shortage of modern research using data from comparative sociological surveys.

In this context, it is particularly relevant to consider the results of an authoritative cross-country project that allows identifying the specifics of the issues under consideration in Russia using the capabilities of comparative analysis.

Materials and methods. The empirical basis for the publication was the materials of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP). As part of the ISSP, annual surveys on topics related to the subject area of social sciences have been conducted in various countries since 1985. ISSP members are 43 countries. The article analyzes some of the results of the 2020 thematic module on environmental issues. In Russia, the field stage of the study was conducted by the ANO "Levada Center" (entered by the Ministry of Justice in the register of non-profit organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent) by a personal interview (face-to-face, CAPI) at the place of residence. Respondents aged 18 and older were interviewed using a multi-stage random sample (n = 1583 respondents) representing the adult population of the country. The working version of the database (ZA7650 v1.0.0 from 30.05.2022) contains information about fourteen countries. Providing the possibility of comparing the results required the use of weighting factors.

The survey tools included groups of questions characterizing the environmental agenda of modern Russia, the structure of the problematic background of the country, the level of concern of the population with environmental problems, an assessment of the danger of environmental threats, an assessment of the environmental situation in the place of residence, etc.

In the course of the work, the following methods were used: frequency analysis, cross-tables, Pearson's criterion of agreement, correlation analysis (Spearman's rank correlation), meaningful analysis of statistical material.

Results and discussion. The study showed that the problem of the state of the environment is an outsider in the problematic field of the country, sharing the last place in the improvised ranking of importance with terrorism, significantly inferior to other social threats. Only 1.7% of respondents identified it as the most important for Russia. For comparison, 37% of respondents mention healthcare, poverty – 22.9%, the state of the economy – 19.3%, education – 7.8%, crime – 3.5%, the influx of migrants – 3.5% of respondents. At the same time, only 5.4% of Russians consider the state of the environment to be the second most important problem for the country. The results obtained are stable, generally consistent with the materials of earlier studies stating that environmental issues are not among the most acute and urgent problems for the population (Environmental issues in the mass consciousness of the population of Russia. ZIRCON Research Group).

The reflection of the urgency of the problem in the public consciousness is dissonant with the data of objective environmental control. The basic national documents in the field of environmental safety characterize the state of the environment in the territory of residence of the majority of the population of the country as unfavorable (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 04/19/2017 No. 176 "On the Strategy of Environmental Safety of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025"). Consideration of the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which characterizes environmental health and the viability of the ecological system in the countries of the world through a number of indicators, testifies to the tense environmental situation in Russia. In 2022, the country was ranked 112th in the ranking next to Niger, Nicaragua and Uruguay (Environmental Performance Index 2022. Ranking country performance on sustainability issues). At the same time, there is no tendency to improve the situation - according to EPI 2020, Russia ranked 58th in the rating (Environmental Performance Index 2020).

A comparative analysis partly explains the current situation. Russia was among the states with a relatively low standard of living, in the minds of the population of which the environmental situation goes to the background of the problematic agenda (see Figure 1). These are the post-socialist countries and states of Southeast Asia, located on the left side of the diagram.

Fig. 1. The population of the ISPP member countries on the importance of the environmental problem (% of respondents who put the problem in first or second place in importance)

In countries with a high standard of living (center and right part of the diagram), the environmental problem is being updated in the representation of the population. Differences in assessments are significantly associated with transformations of value attitudes, the transition from survival values to self-expression values, egocentric and humanistic perception of threats ^[6]. In Russia, problems related to economic (poverty, the state of the economy) and physical (health) security come to the fore. Against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic, the press of large-scale, acute socio-economic problems in the absence of a momentary immediate environmental threat affects the attitudes of most Russians. In the conditions of material well-being and social security characteristic of developed countries, the environmental problem is actualized in subjective assessments.

The relationship between the level of economic development of the country, characterized by the gross domestic product indicator taking into account purchasing power parity (GDP PPP) per capita in 2020 (World Economic Outlook database: April 2022), and the importance of the environmental problem for the population (the proportion of respondents who rated the problem as the most important) is shown in Figure 2. The presence of a statistically significant dependence is confirmed by the results of correlation analysis (Spearman rank correlation). A strong direct relationship between the considered indicators was revealed (rs = 0.89; p<0.001).

Fig. 2. Assessment of the importance of the environmental problem depending on the level of economic development of the ISPP member countriesAt the same time, it should be noted that the assessment of the importance of the environmental problem is also associated with an insufficient level of awareness of the population about environmental challenges and threats and indirectly characterize the activities of both state and non-state structures in the field of environmental education.

In this case, awareness can be considered as one of the indicators of the ecological culture of Russians. The low level of ecological culture of citizens is in itself a threat to environmental safety.

Among the most serious environmental challenges, Russians most often mention air pollution – 22.4%. The latter is not surprising, according to the official monitoring of the state of atmospheric air conducted in Russian cities, almost half (46%) of the urban population of Russia (50.6 million people) lives in conditions of high and very high levels of air pollution. In the absolute majority (88%) of the cities included in the monitoring program, the average annual concentrations of a pollutant exceeded 1 MPC (Review of the state and pollution of the environment in the Russian Federation for 2021).

Next in the improvised rating of environmental problems are the disposal of household waste – 18.1% and water pollution – 11.3%. In part, the results obtained correspond to the materials of other studies, which indicates their sustainability (The environmental situation in Russia: monitoring. VTSIOM). According to a survey by the Public Opinion Foundation (POM) conducted in 2019, among the most acute and dangerous environmental problems, Russians most often mentioned the same three – "garbage, plastic, their recycling", "pollution of reservoirs, poor drinking water", "the state of the air, its pollution" (Global problems ecology. FOM). Some differences in the sequence may be related to the specifics of the wording and form of the questions. The FOM survey toolkit included an open question.

Among other challenges and threats, Russians noted the depletion of the country's natural resources – 10.7%, genetically modified products – 9.9%, chemicals and pesticides – 7.8%, nuclear waste – 7.3%, climate change – 6.6%, lack of water – 1.9% of respondents.

In general, the research materials indicate that in the mass consciousness, challenges and threats directly affecting Russians, connected with the current state of the environment, characterized by manifestations occurring "here and now" come to the fore. At the same time, the potential environmental danger fades into the background. This is how Russians differ from residents of most other countries participating in the project. Let's illustrate with an example of the attitude to the problem of global climate change (see Figure 3).

Fig. 3. The share of respondents who noted climate change as the most serious problem for the country of residence (% of respondents)

In most of the ISPP member countries, climate change is considered by the population as the main challenge to environmental safety, in some cases with a multiple separation in frequency of mentions from other problems. It is significant that in Russia, the minimum indicator among the countries under consideration is 6.6%. In general, the strong concern of, for example, residents of island countries is understandable, however, reducing the recorded differences only to the geographical location of Russia will be uninformative.

Global climate change, increasing the risks existing in society, has far-reaching and difficult to predict consequences ^[16-18]. In such a situation, the peculiarities of perception are largely determined by the level of ecological culture of the population. It is obvious that it is difficult for Russians to assess the scale and danger of the threat due to the low level of awareness of the problem. This is confirmed by the results of other studies, indicating a relatively low level of awareness among Russians, a low level of ecological culture of the population by European standards, and its fragmentation ^[8]. The attitude to the problem of climate change illustrates that Russian society, unlike most of the countries participating in the ISPP project, is more characterized by an egocentric rather than a humanistic perception of threats.

It should be noted that Russia belongs to a small group of states in which there is no statistically significant link between concern about climate change and the level of education of respondents. At the same time, the results of the correlation analysis are reproduced both in relation to the categories adopted in the national educational system and to the comparable scale of the International Standard Classification of Education ISCED, as well as to the total number of years spent on formal education. All this partly indicates that the development of environmental education in the country faces significant difficulties.

The level of environmental knowledge of Russians can be judged by the fact that Russia was the only country where the proportion of respondents who consider genetically modified products to be the most serious environmental problem (9.9%) exceeds the percentage of those concerned about climate change. For comparison, in the Republic of the Philippines, only 1% of respondents expressed concern about GMOs, in Japan – 1.7%, in Iceland – 2.1%, etc. In a situation of consensus of the scientific community on the safety of consumption of genetically modified products, the presence of numerous explanations from Rospotrebnadzor and international organizations, researchers conclude that the scientific literacy of Russians is low, they note a low level of awareness, lack of real knowledge about the dangers ^[7].

Conclusion. Thus, the research materials indicate a relatively low relevance of the problem of the state of the environment for Russians. Environmental issues are an outsider among the most pressing problems of the population. In public opinion, problems related to economic and physical security come to the fore. Such results are stable over time.

A strong statistically significant correlation was revealed between the level of economic development of the country and the importance of the environmental problem for the population. Comparative analysis allows us to state that in developed, financially prosperous countries, in contrast to Russia, environmental issues are being updated.

In the mass consciousness of Russians, challenges and threats directly affecting the population, connected with the current state of the environment, characterized by momentary manifestations come to the fore. At the same time, the potential environmental danger fades into the background. Among the most serious environmental challenges, Russians most often mention air pollution, household waste disposal, and water pollution. In part, the results obtained correspond to the materials of other studies, which indicates their stability.

Climate change is much less often considered by Russians, unlike most ISPP member countries, as the main challenge to environmental safety. This is due to the relatively low level of ecological culture of the population, including low awareness of the problem.

The research materials allow us to conclude that Russian society, unlike most of the countries participating in the ISPP project, is more characterized by an egocentric rather than a humanistic perception of environmental challenges and threats.