And what is it measuring?

Here are the results of the Greendex for 2010 on the National Geographic website. The first time I saw them I was surprised but in a suspicious sort of way - sadly enough. India at the top of the list in 'environmentally friendly behaviour (and consumption patterns)' in a 17 country survey? I would like to see India at the top of the list of some survey which isn't looking at population explosion or the highest incidence of some deadly disease but the idea that Indians, by and large, are engaging in behaviour that is environmentally sustainable seemed to be a little improbable. A look at the details of the study reveals some basic problems in the study design. It embarrasses me to point this out because this study has been conducted by a global organization alongwith highly trained specialists from the National Geographic.

The detailed report from the Greendex 2009 survey states that it is a 'comprehensive measure of consumer behaviour in 65 areas'. The major areas that the survey covers are questions on/related to housing, transport, food, goods (everyday items and big items). I'll not go into the details of every category. The report mentions that through 2008-2009-2010, rising costs were reported as one of the reasons that individuals engaged in environmentally friendly behaviour. But over and above that - the report states and repeatedly states that rising costs alone were not the only factor. People engaged in the behaviour they did because they felt it would be less harmful to the environment.

The 2009 study report states (as does the 2010 overview) that consumption is measured by the Greendex in terms of 'choices that consumers actively make' and 'choices that are controlled more by circumstances'. Even this distinction poses to be a problem. Choices actively made include: 'repairing rather than replacing items, using cold water to wash laundry, choosing green products rather than environmentally unfriendly ones'. Choices controlled by circumstances include: 'climate [consumers] live in, availability of green products, and public transport.'

To take some specific examples:

Repairing items: in the United States as far as I have seen repairing is not feasible. One, most of the times I can't even find a repair-shop or an individual who does repair-work (unless it's on a car) and two, more often than not it is cheaper to buy a new product than to fix what is broken (I won't go into the details of this). So 'repairing' is not really a choice that a 'consumer' can actively make.

Then take washing laundry with hot/cold water: I'm not sure who the respondents were in India - but it's a rare thing, even now, that houses have running hot water (I'm not sure which houses have running hot and cold water), and somehow I think the idea of filling buckets and buckets of hot water to do regular laundry (unless it's a bucket of whites or clothes that need to be germ-free) will most likely make people raise their eyebrows. It's not even a matter of choice (even if/when the possibility does exist) because the choice itself doesn't make sense.

Take transport, and in no distinct order: One is the matter of availability. Two is the desire. Three is the convenience(in terms of time)/costs. Fourth is the idea that using my own car and using bigger cars and 'better' cars and newer models means a perky feather in my cap. So is this a matter of choice or a matter of favourable/non-favourable circumstances? Does it not go back to the issue of what is being valued and by whom? And these issues exist just as much in India as they do in the United States although the problems are indeed of completely different levels. Whatever the 'choices' are or whatever the circumstances are - it's certainly not just a matter of the distance.

And then take all those aspects, such as, running hot water, heat appliances, and constant air conditioning? How does it make sense 'measuring' these in India? (Or in Brazil for that matter?)

Using personal lawn mowers? And other small engines? Indians don't use lawn mowers and what small engines are they talking about?

And finally to take one last item: 'choosing' to live close to places where one needs to travel? People, in India, live where they do/where they can and go to work....to specifically live in a place to minimise one's impact on the environment? The problem with the question is not that it measures/does not measure environmentally friendly behaviour - it indeed may do so in a country like the United States (where some aspect of choice does enter the action depending upon one's profession and class) - but raising this question, as far as I can see, does not make any sense in a country like India.

In fact the basic problem with the study (apart from the sampling issues) is stated in the study design itself. 'No allowances are made for consumer behavior that is determined by geography, climatic conditions where respondents live, culture, religion, or the relative availability of sustainable products. The Greendex is intended as an overall indicator of one's environmental footprint.' (And if this is the case what do they mean when they say earlier on that they measured consumption in terms of choices that are controlled by circumstances?)

And if none of those above-mentioned factors are going to be taken into consideration - then how can they say that the study is measuring 'environmentally friendly behaviour'? In order to measure environmentally friendly behaviour, a study would have to be designed keeping in mind the culture and the region and also, like it or not, the levels of economic development and poverty and also distinguish between the sort of behaviour that can be practiced/is practiced because of climate/availability of certain goods/services and because of an element of real choice. Now if people have no choice but to engage in behaviour that is less harmful to the environment there is no problem with that - I am all for it as long as it's wisely thought out - but there is a problem when one obtains the figures one does simply because of the levels of poverty in a country or because the questions do not measure what it claims to be measuring, and because of the problems (related to the environment - for instance - littering, waste disposal, terrible pressure on land with the ever increasing population and no strict means of legalizing birth control, over-congestion in cities, the problems of increasing gaps between classes just to mention a handful of factors that do not appear on the list) in one country that are of a very different nature from the problems of a wealthy first world nation. And secondly, and more importantly, my suspicion lies in that the high figures for India (and for two years running) in 'environmentally friendly behaviour' is on the whole not because (the 1000) Indians (interviewed) were/are particularly environmentally conscious but more likely because they are aspiring for the big car, the big house and the running hot and cold water. It's just that they haven't 'gotten' there yet.

Now if the study were measuring one's environmental footprint - that is the impact an individual has on the environment in terms energy use, consumption of different types including food, travel, housing, and also the amount of garbage produced by an individual - it would then have made sense to be asking the questions that the survey asked. The page which gives an introduction to the study does mention that the 'Greendex is intended as an overall indicator of one's environmental footprint.' And that is the truth. That is what it is measuring. And if one looks at the mini questionnaire - here - and if one reads the basic details of the study - one realises why the study lacks validity insofar as the study claims to be measuring 'environmentally friendly behaviour' of consumers. Also, by interviewing 1000 people from each of the 17 countries (no matter the sampling method, and it seems that the survey was conducted on-line), I cannot see how the study can be taken seriously.

And take the issue of 'environmental footprints'. That the 'ecological/environmental footprint' will be 'larger' in terms of resource use, energy consumption, and general consumption in more developed countries - and especially in countries that were driven by large appetites for consumption is not something that is unknown. It's been much talked about since the 1970s, at least (if not earlier), alongwith the problem of the bursting population of Third World and developing countries - and even now the two groups that argued about the two perspectives seem to be at loggerheads for the most part.... The Greendex indeed does courteously point out right at the onset that the study 'reminds us' that people (who are renamed 'consumers') in 'wealthy' countries have a larger impact on the environment. Do we need more reminding though?

And the point remains. If the study is measuring environmental footprints - that is what it should say that it is doing - and that is all that it should say that it is doing. What it is not measuring is environmentally friendly behaviour.

The 2009 report concludes on the upbeat note: 'The message to those that supply the products and services that [consumers] consume, and to those that make the rules about how they behave, is a clear one: Make the right thing, provide the right opportunities, and consumers will do the right thing.'

Nothing that I read from the Report leads me to believe the same. I don't understand how the results of the report lead to this conclusion. And what does 'right opportunities' mean? What does the 'right thing' mean? Do more things have to be made?

The 2009 report, which is available here is 14 pages long. The 2010 report, which I wasn't able to open until now, is 230 pages long (although it's been formatted into slides). For the most part, I can't see any changes between the basic study design.

However, there are a couple of interesting results in the 2010 report: a whopping 140 Indians from the 1000 Indians interviewed said that the environment was the most serious national issue; 370 Chinese felt the same way whereas not a single American believed that the environment was the most serious concern. For most of the 'global' concerns (economy, cost of energy/fuel, air and water pollution, global warming, loss of species/habitat, war/terrorism, spread of infectious diseases) close to 500 of Indians interviewed seemed to be 'very' concerned (measured on a 5-point Likert scale) about all of the global issues (apart from the spread of infectious diseases) and about 200 Americans seem to be 'very' concerned....unless the matter was regarding the economy(and Americans should be concerned about this) or rising costs of energy and fuel or terrorism. There one notes that 740, 470 and some 360 Americans are 'very' concerned about these matters. I don't know whether it's just me but terrorism in the list seems to be a very odd choice. And if one looks at the Indian response rate for all these items close to 50 % of Indians think all of the specific issues are of grave concern. I don't know whether the concern itself is being taken as signs of 'environmentally conscious/friendly behaviour'. And that number of 1000 individuals from each country...that remains quite distressing.

According to the report - Americans seem to be at the bottom of the list and yes, the Indians are at the top (now I can't say I'm too terribly surprised about the Americans being at the bottom but it's the Indians being at the top of this bizarre survey that is unsettling) of whatever it is that this grand survey is measuring. I somehow think that the specialists designing and chalking up the survey were going along with the idea of sustainable behaviour and resource use as measured and as relevant within the American context with less of an eye to the facts that plague a nation like India. When one considers the fact that just the rising middle-class in India accounts for almost the whole population of the United States, and that our 1.3 billion is living on land that is approximately 1/3rd the size of the United States - one has something to think about....

Note: There are lots of interesting articles and stuff though on the website for sure.....