https://doi.org/10.53656/phil2024-04S-03

2024/4s, стр. 45 - 64

INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR AS A COMMUNITY RESILIENCE FACTOR: LESSONS FOR POLICY MAKING

Prof. Sonya Karabeliova,
Assoc. Prof. Elena Kalfova,
Yonko Bushnyashki
Soa University “St. Kliment Ohridski”

Abstract: The article links community resilience – the resilience of the political community, with the process of public policy-making. In the argumentation, the study investigates the formation of community resilience and the importance of individual attitudes, compared to the individualism-collectivism scale. The sample research is conducted among 669 respondents in Bulgaria, aged 15 to 77 years old (M=29.3; SD=13.39). The applied methodology is based on the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) to measure people’s environmental attitudes, and the Ecological Consumer Behaviour Scale to measure eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. Empirical study measures self-ecacy, Big Five personality traits, and values orientations. The results conrm that there were gender differences on the NEP scale, including that women show higher environmental attitudes. The research ndings provide explanations how human values were positively related to one’s awareness of the environmental crisis. Finally, neuroticism correlated positively with realising the limit to growth. Therefore, it is important, that the design and the implementation of public policies and educational programs, consider various psychological aspects of individual human behaviour. This approach may have key implications for engaging in future sustainable behaviour and increasing the degree of resilience.

Keywords: resilience; pro-environmental behaviour; public policy; values; attitudes

Introduction

“Resilience” is a relatively old concept that has gained new life in the past one or two decades, especially in the research in the eld of disaster and accident protection. According to a study by Zaman et al. (Zaman et al. 2023), between 2010 and 2011, there were between 243 and 263 records in Web of Science and Scopus that matching community resilience search (Zaman & Raihan 2023). In fact, the revival of the concept is largely due to the crisisication1 of public governance, where, because of a series of successive crises, resilience has become a key prerequisite for success. According to the study cited above, the concept of resilience goes far beyond the realm of disasters and accidents. The term is often used as a metaphor (Norris et al. 2008), that proves the unspecied and contradictory nature of its content.

Resilience and community

The rst diculty in understanding resilience is linguistic. Resilience is often used as a synonym for sustainability. The two concepts are closely bound and not specically distinguishable (Fiksel 2006). This tendency is further reinforced in the scientic literature in some languages (e.g. Bulgarian, Russian), in which there is only one word used for both terms. In the current literature review, the two concepts outline separate, albeit related, research trajectories (Lew et al. 2016). In a purely linguistic aspect, resilience is associated primarily with adaptability and survival, and sustainability – with endurance over time. Studies of the concepts of resilience deal more with different crises, whatever their origin, and how to get out of them, while studies in the domain of sustainability emphasize the irreversibility or preservation of a certain state or results.

There are many contradictions in the concept of resilience. Firstly, the concept refers both to the individual and the community. In this sense, resilience is a quality divided into three levels individual, organizational, and communal. This contradiction is not antagonistic. In addition, there are different research tools for each of these three levels. These levels of resilience are related in quite inexplicable way. Therefore, in the present research, we try to answer the following research questions: Is the community of people dominated by resilient individuals or resilient organisations? Is there a direct or an inverse relationship between resilience on an individual level and resilience on a community level?

For the purposes of this study, we dene “resilience” as an ability of the community, viewed as an independent entity, distinct from its constituent individuals. The concept comes from physics and mathematics and refers to the ability of complex systems to restore equilibrium after a collision with unforeseen, internal, or external shock or a signicant change, caused by it. Used in relation to a person, the concept refers to a person's ability to cope with personal changes or changes to the physical environment (Butler et al. 2007). Despite the direct relation to sociological and political issues, the concept of resilience is part of psychological science. Used in relation to the community of people or society (Skerratt 2013), resilience acquires different outlines and becomes an object of study of other sciences, mainly social psychology and sociology.

Resilience, when applied to communities, can be dened as “the ability of a community to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to actual or potential adverse events in a timely and ecient manner including the restoration and improvement of basic functions and structures” (Cutter et al. 2014, p. 65).

Scherzer et al. (2019) summarize the denitions of resilience that exist in the literature. They believe there are two distinct concepts. The rst, named by the authors ecological resilience, includes persistence, change, and unpredictability in a non-linear, non-equilibrium system. The second, is named engineering resilience, and focuses on eciency, constancy, and predictability in a single-equilibrium system, that is always near a stable state. Engineering resilience focuses on a quick and effective return to a normal state of functioning after a disturbance. Ecological resilience, on the other hand, is about absorbing changes and persisting, about “staying in the game.” An ecologically resilient system does not need to be stable. In fact, it “may be quite unstable, in that it may undergo considerable uctuation” (Scherzer et al. 2019, p. 101).

The present article refers primarily to engineering resilience, in which the ecosocial system, thanks to its self-supporting ability, copes with shocking events or processes, which in most cases are external or provoked. This understanding has its limitations, when correlated to modern States – the basic level at which the public policy process is still ongoing. They could be called social-ecological systems only metaphorically and to a great extend with approximation, because of the strong dependence on the outer world. Furthermore, in “comparison to social-ecological systems, engineering systems exhibit a greater degree of human intention” (Scherzer et al. 2019, p. 105). Accordingly, in these systems, we do not discuss stress in the system, caused by unexpected and in most cases, uncontrolled disasters, but rather stress, triggered by human intentions and changes, caused by the achievement of someone's good-intentioned or ill-intentioned goal.

Resilience and individual behaviour

Even if we accept the above denitions, the differences in the views on community resilience do not disappear. Resilience could be applied to different kinds of communities of people. Accordingly, depending on the specic view of community (Norris et al. 2008.) studies identify different research problems and design different methods to address them. “Past writings on community resilience have described everything from grass-roots groups and neighbourhoods to complex amalgams of formal institutions and sectors in larger geo-political units” (Norris et al. 2008, р. 128).

The type of community could inuence the denition of community resilience, because of the different social relationship. Informal, small, local communities are formed around the territory, shared values or the exchange of knowledge and ideas. Political communities, irrespective of their link with a particular territory, are singled out on the basis of formal institutions and in most cases share common cultural identity. The characteristics of the relationship that denes a particular community of people, determine the community’s ability to cope with, adapt and/or change as a result of stressful events or processes. The analysis is further complicated by the coexistence of different relationships (institutions, values, knowledge and ideas) and their historically determined interdependencies.

Communities, as well as the problems they address and the coping strategies they choose, are specic, which makes the comparability of studies dicult, there is some commonality in the view of community resilience: it is not merely the result of the resilience of its constituent individuals. Summarizing multiple studies, Norris et al. (Norris et al. 2008) proved that the ‘‘whole is more than the sum of its parts”, “a collection of resilient individuals does not guarantee a resilient community, and that ‘‘people in communities are resilient together, not merely in similar ways” (Norris et al. 2008, p. 128).

This does not mean, however, that individuals and their behaviours are irrelevant to community resilience. On the contrary, the community is not a single organism which adapts or decides without regard to the behaviour of its constituent parts. Although not the individuals but the relationship between them that gives the specics of the community and its development, the individual members of the community have their own, independent behaviour, which can deviate signicantly from the behaviour of the community.

That is true not only for informal, small communities, where due to the high degree of self-organization, the behaviour of individuals matters. It is true also for political communities. The existence of legitimate institutions and decisionmaking procedures make collective action possible Despite this fact, individuals and organizations can not only challenge decisions, but can take actions that make it impossible to achieve the desired results. Through this reasoning, we arrive at the conclusion that, the ability of a community to cope successfully with its stressors, depends upon a certain type of individual behaviour. There is a direct, statistically signicant relationship between certain individual attitudes and ecofriendly behaviour.

Research Overview

The summer of 2024 was the hottest summer in European climate history. An increase in temperatures of 2°C is bordering on dangerous and catastrophic consequences. The reversibility of the consequences is decreasing and soon, there will be no solution and no way out of the predictions. The data shows us that climate change is the most important global issue, which needs to be addressed urgently. During COVID-19 people were able to reect on their connection with nature and the importance of the natural environment. The pandemic even led to some positive changes in pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. greater engagement with responsible active travel and less food waste) (CAST 2020). Therefore, policy-makers need to work towards creating mechanisms for a resilient community, and policies, which allow people to engage in pro-environmental behaviours. Thus, there is intensied interest in researching environmental issues, connected to climate change and environmental degradation, which have serious negative consequences for people's physical and mental health. The main research question underlying most studies, concerns the dominant psychological aspects that have direct and indirect effects on people's everyday behaviour. Thus, in the present paper we research the dominant psychological aspects of individual behaviour, which builds resilience towards climate change, i.e. pro-environmental behaviour. This could help design policies and educational programmes aimed at making people more aware of the climate crisis and the importance of behaving in a pro-environmental way.

The growing sensitivity and engagement with the environmental crisis have led to the emergence and shift of a different perspective, called the new ecological paradigm. The new ecological paradigm has several themes, for example: respect and responsibility to nature, general manifestation of concern for other species and people, as well as other generations, careful planning and avoidance of risks to people and nature, recognition that there are limits to development, to which people must adapt. Moreover, it refers to the idea of a new society ready for cooperation and openness, as well as the involvement of politics in the direction of anticipation and planning (Dunlap & York 2008; Milbrath 1984).

Environmental concern is dened as a multidimensional construct that includes attitudes, with their cognitive and emotional elements, personality traits, value orientations, and behavioural intentions. (Schlegelmilch et al. 1996). When assessing individuals’ levels of environmental anxiety, it is important to examine both their behavioural intentions, and the degree of awareness and understanding of the consequences of their actions and on nature (Freire et al. 2021). In this respect, a signicant part of the concern for nature is related to the subjective assessment of its condition and the perception of risk. Risk perception is dened as “uncertainty about or sensitivity to the consequences and outcomes of activities, with respect to something that people value” (Aven & Renn 2009, p. 3).

Although many people are aware and concerned about nature-related issues, this does not always translate into pro-environmental behaviours (Dunlap et al. 2000; Kortenkamp & Moore 2001; Pooley & O’Connor 2000). In a study by Nordlund and Garvill (Nordlund and Garvill 2002) the authors found that people who prioritize values that are beyond the person and not cantered around the person are more aware of factors that threaten nature and feel more morally obliged to behave in a way that will protect the environment than subjects with more prominent egoistic values. Other research also shows, that people with stronger collectivistic values, understand better the general consequences of their behaviour and are more willing to make sacrices for the common good than people with stronger value orientations (Komorita & Parks 1994; van Lange et al. 2013). However, reporting individual’s concern for nature, does not always lead to objective proenvironmental actions. Achieving behaviour change is only partially connected with psychological mechanisms (Gifford & Nilsson 2014). In this respect, the question of the prerequisites that give rise to anxiety about nature, which will subsequently lead to pro-environmental behaviour, is legitimate. For example, environmental knowledge and education are strong predictors of pro-environmental behaviour. Lyons & Breakwell (1994) found that the higher the levels of knowledge about the environment and specic issues, the higher the levels of concern for nature. Therefore, one’s awareness of the negative consequences of climate change and the manifestation of pro-environmental behaviour are predicted by the accumulation of knowledge and training in this area.

In addition, scientists are interested in understanding what differences exist in the environmental concerns and priorities of different groups in society, and in understanding what factors inuence environmental attitudes in general. For example, previous research on gender and its relationship to environmental attitudes, concluded that the literature could not identify a clear difference (Hines et al. 1987; Van Liere & Dunlap 1980). However, more recent studies have shown, that women are more concerned about environmental issues, more supportive of policies to ban plastic and reduce its use and are more likely to carry a reusable bag when shopping (Tikka et al. 2000; Luchs & Mooradian 2012; Scannell & Gifford 2013).

Personality traits, furthermore might predict as well concern and commitment to environmental issues. Personality characteristics might inuence people’s engagement in environmentally responsible behaviour. Since personality is the major determinant of motivation for human beliefs, values, and attitudes, it is reasonable to suppose that underlying differences in personality characteristics and values may inuence environmental engagement and attitudes. Findings from studies on the relationships of personality traits and values to attitudes toward proenvironmental behaviour are somewhat mixed. Some studies have emphasized the role of conscientiousness from the Big Five model and related specic traits, while others have identied the effects of the trait Neuroticism. The personality trait Cooperation includes traits such as altruism, tenderness, trust, and modesty, thus emerging as a signicant predictor of pro-environmental values. People who express a stronger sense of empathy and are less self-focused are more likely to develop a personal connection to nature, which in turn predicts their eco-friendly attitudes (Hirsh 2010).

As previously mentioned, personal concern for nature, does not always lead to engaging in pro-environmental actions. This happens partially because psychological mechanisms at work act like a kind of a barrier to behaviour change (Gifford & Nilsson 2014). For example, social norms and cultural differences could inuence the engagement in pro-environmental behaviour together with the availability of infrastructure (public transport, walking paths, cycling paths, etc.).

Another important predictor is self-concept, or how people relate to other people (Markus & Kitayama 1991). According to Bandura (1977) self-ecacy affects the choice of activities, effort costs and persistence. Researchers have also found a positive correlation between self-ecacy and pro-environmental behaviour (Lauren et al. 2016), which shows that the higher the level of self-ecacy, the stronger the behaviour and attitudes towards environmental protection.

In a Canadian study, it was recorded that people with an individual self-concept who separate from others have selsh concerns about the environment, and those with an interdependent self-construal (feeling fundamentally connected to others) have concerns about nature, but a cooperative attitude is observed about their environmental behaviour (Arnocky et al. 2007).

Research conducted in the USA (Schultz & Zelezny 1998) and in 14 other countries (Schultz 2001) support the assumption of the central role of values in the formation of environmental concern and worldview. The results show that egoistic and biosphere attitudes correlate signicantly with values included in the Schwartz scale (Schwartz 1992). A positive relationship was found with self-transcendence values and concern stemming from altruistic and biosphere attitudes. As expected, egoistic attitude was positively related to self-armation values.

Schultz (2001) suggests there are individual differences, in the degree to which people include nature in their cognitive representations of personality. For people, with higher levels of involvement, personality and nature are interconnected and aspects of nature are of primary important. At a low level of involvement, the person and nature are separate, and the environment is valued only to the extent that it affects a person (Schultz 2001). This is an extended interpretation of the new ecological paradigm developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (2000), which reects personal beliefs about the interdependence between humanity and nature.

Environmental concern and behaviour, as a function of values, is based on Schwartz's concept of value orientations (Schwartz 1992). According to this theory, human values are structured in two motivational dimensions: openness to change versus conservatism, and personal development versus personal transcendence. The second dimension is associated with concern for nature, as it relates to the tendency to serve selsh goals, versus the extent to which goals transcend self-interest and the pursuit of the common good. (Gifford & Nilsson 2014). Based on this concept, later studies modied the value system in a way to t environmental concerns (Stern et al. 1995; Stern et al. 1993). People with values that are beyond the self are found to be more concerned about nature than those with more egoistic values (e.g., Milfont & Gouveia 2006; Nilsson et al. 2004; Nordlund & Garvill 2002; Schultz & Zelezny 1998; Stern 2000; Stern et al. 1995).

Additionally, certain behavioural manifestations are related to attitudes about the state of the environment. For example, higher emotional commitment positively affects attitudes towards nature, which is correspondingly manifested in the behaviour. Environmental concern causes a stronger commitment to the environment and encourages people to change their lifestyle. They can start using their cars less often, drive at a lower speed, recycle, make nancial contributions, or the easiest to implement – save water and energy use (Fraj & Martinez 2006).

In this regard, the main research questions of the present empirical study are: What public administration could do to sustain resilience related to pro-environmental behaviours? What factors inuence environmental attitudes? The main goal of the study is to investigate the relationship between environmental attitudes, personality traits, human value orientation, self-ecacy and behavioural intentions.

Methodology

Respondents

The survey was conducted at the beginning of 2023 in Bulgaria. The sample of the study consisted of 669 participants, 60.5% women and 39.5% men. The age of the respondents ranged from 15 to 77 years (M=29.3; SD=13.39).

Research Design

The New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dunlap & Van Liere 2008) is applied, in order to measure the ve basic aspects of the person's attitude towards the environment. It includes 15 items with a ve-point scale (from “1 - Strongly Agree” to “5 – Strongly Disagree”). It is divided into 5 factors: Realising the limit to growth, Anti-anthropocentrism, Unsustainability of the natural balance, Rejecting exceptionalism, Awareness of the possibility of an ecological crisis.

We also use the Ecological Consumer Behaviour Scale (Fraj & Martinez 2006). The questionnaire consists of 23 items, divided into 3 factors: Eco-anxiety – Affect, Verbal Commitment – Cognitive, Actual Commitment – real ecological behaviour. The emotional component (Eco-anxiety – AF) in attitudes towards ecological behaviour is expressed in feelings and emotions, the cognitive component (VC) is related to beliefs and convictions, the third component - the intentional (Actual commitment), determines the intentions for a certain behaviour (Fraj & Martinez 2006).

We used the Self-Ecacy Scale (Bandura 1977; Sherer et al. 1982) to measure our participants’ self-ecacy. The questionnaire consists of 10 items, which are evaluated on a four-point scale and is adapted for the Bulgarian socio-cultural context.

Next, we used the Big Five Inventory (BFI) (John & Srivastava 1999) to measure personality traits. Short version of the questionnaire was adapted for the Bulgarian socio-cultural context by Stoyanova and Karabeliova (2020). The scale includes 15 items in 5 factors: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Openness, and Consciousness.

Finally, we measured values using the Value orientation scale (Schwartz 1992). This questionnaire contains 42 items and forms 12 factors: Nature, Benevolence, Hedonism, Achievements, Safety, Open to change, Authority, Tradition, Modesty, Universalism, Independence, Conformism.

Results

We used independent t-test to check for any differences based on the gender of the respondents.

The results from our study showed, that there were signicant differences between men and women on three of the New Ecological Paradigm dimensions. Women had higher scores on anti-anthropocentrism indicating that women tend to agree more that humans are equal with other living organisms. Next, women also reported that for them balance in nature is more delicate compared to men. Finally, they also thought that the possibility of an eco-crisis is higher compared to men (See Figure1).

We used linear regression analysis to test the effect of commitment to environmental issues on attitudes toward environmental behaviour. The regression analysis results conrmed that eco-anxiety and verbal commitment were positive predictors of the awareness of the environmental crisis (See Figure 2).

Next, we used linear regressions to establish the effect of values on the awareness of the environmental crisis. The ndings proved that nature, benevolence, achievements, safety, universalism were all positive predictors of the awareness of the environmental crisis (See Figure 3).

Value orientations related to conservation of nature and the environment, benevolence to other people, strong achievement aspirations, strong concern for safety and security, and equal treatment of all people have a signicant effect on stronger awareness of the possibility of an environmental crisis and lead to a more expressed and more sustainable (resilience) pro-environmental behaviour.

The nal step in our analysis was to conduct correlation analysis to test the relationship between value orientations and attitudes towards environmental behaviour. We found that, neuroticism was positively correlated to realizing the limit to growth, while self-ecacy was negatively correlated to neglecting negative climate change (See Figure 4).

Discussion
The main goal of the study is to investigate the relationship between
environmental attitudes, personality traits, human value orientation, self-ecacy

and behavioural intentions. Our ndings showed, that there were differences between men and women on the New Ecological Paradigm. We also found that ecoanxiety and verbal commitment predicted awareness of the environmental crisis. Next, nature, benevolence, achievements, safety, universalism were all positive predictors of the awareness of the environmental crisis. Finally, neuroticism was positively correlated to realizing the limit to growth, and self-ecacy was negatively correlated to neglecting negative climate change.

Compared to men, women have higher levels of socialization and tend to be more socially responsible, which may also inuence their environmental behaviour (Zelezny et al. 2000). Women are more likely to say that “they are upset by antienvironmental events and that they intend to do more about environmental issues”. However, they appear to have less background facts-oriented environmental knowledge about the same issues, rather than men do (Gambro & Switzky 1999; Levine & Strube 2012). This might be probably as a result of school curricula that discourage girls from taking an interest in the sciences and the environment (Gifford & Nilsson 2014). Another explanation may be that, altruistic concerns on health and safety, threatened to some degree by the environment, are more important to women, especially married women (Davidson & Freudenburg 1996; Dietz et al. 2002).

A gender difference in environmental concerns has been supported by ageindependent research in 14 countries in Europe, South America, and the United States, and is even more unanimously consistent for behaviour than for environmental attitudes (Zelezny et al. 2000). The only exception is in China, where the pattern described above is seen in household environmental behaviour such as recycling, while outside households, there are no gender differences. Contrary to the general results and those of the present study, in China women have been found to express lower levels of anxiety than men (Xiao & Hong 2010).

Cultural differences together with the idea of collectivism in Asian countries must be considered. Researchers have found that collectivism is related to higher scores on egoistic environmental values in Asian Americans than in European Americans (Burns et al. 2012). This may reect the Asian American value of family fullment through individual achievement (Kim et al. 2005). The egoistic strand reects these collectivist values, and future research should delve into cultural differences affecting sentiment on environmental issues. Regarding gender, women may demonstrate higher levels of anxiety, because of the gender role positions they hold in society and the fact, that household cares are largely their responsibility. These are duties that include recycling, shopping for products, in the process of which, they inevitably come across greener alternatives to the same product, as well as using cleaning agents with a high chemical composition. All of this makes them much more connected to the issue of green consumption and environmental concerns on a daily level as direct consumers.

Researchers have found that environmental behaviour is primarily determined by affectation towards the environment. Therefore, environmental behaviour can be explained by a strong emotional concern given that affect is the most signicant predictor of attitude towards the environment, followed by the cognitive component (Fraj & Martinez 2006). Similar results are conrmed in the present study.

The delicacy of nature as a component of undertaking environmental behaviour is also most strongly linked to the emotional component. This result can probably be interpreted through other mediating aspects. For example, this could be a sense of responsibility as a predictor of environmental behaviour and the subjective assessment of the delicacy of nature. However, the sense of responsibility does not necessarily translate into actions, but is an important part of environmental concern (Kaiser et al. 1999), and can stem from a sense of guilt (Kaiser & Shimoda 1999). A Danish study conducted on a sample of adolescents found, that concern for nature was strongly related to willingness to make environmental sacrices (Kuhlemeier et al. 1999).

The signicant positive correlation found between neuroticism, as a personality trait and the awareness of the limited resources of nature, can be related to ndings that people with a high degree of neuroticism tend to be more worried and negative in their views about a way out of a given situation. Thus, environmental concern in these people can be seen as anxiety about the consequences of environmental decline and degradation, while more stable individuals, would have less emotional disturbance related to this topic (Hirsh 2010). We could conclude that neurotics have a more selsh form of concern for nature, than an altruistic one (Schultz 2001). People with higher levels of neuroticism may lead to a clearer awareness of the limited resources of the natural environment.

Particularly important for collective resilience are the individual attitudes, related to the individualism-collectivism scale. A sustainable community is either predominantly composed of individuals with collectivist attitudes, or these individuals are predominantly inuential within it. Collectivist-oriented individuals have behaviours geared towards communal rather than personal survival or adaptation. In this sense, the concept of community resilience conicts with pure individualism, where competition is the communal bond and strong individuals survive on their own merits. In fact, adaptable individuals do not necessarily hinder community resilience. At the same time, individuals for whom the community to which they belong matters, who believe that the individual survives through the community, rather than vice versa, are a predictor for community resilience.

The state of attitudes on the individualism-collectivism scale in Bulgarian society is peculiar. According to a survey conducted in 2000 and repeated in 2005, these results show that, in Bulgaria, individualistic orientations have the upper hand and are opposed to the aspiration for social integration. Maintaining a sense of belonging and loyalty to the group is seen as a rarer cultural practice. The working environment is the sphere in which, collectivist impulses are most important in Bulgaria. Respondents, who rate the supervisor-employee relationship as similar to a paternalistic family relationship with mutual obligations to cope in dicult life situations, again account for the highest relative share remains (Silgidzhian et al. 2007).

An interesting fact is that in comparison to the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Bulgaria stands out as the country with the highest individualistic orientation of national culture, followed by Poland and the Czech Republic. According to the cited study, the support of individualistic values and practices is least pronounced in Hungary (Silgidzhian et al. 2007, p. 35). It is surprising that, not only that those attitudes have not been overcome, but they are even becoming stronger. As a result, the Bulgarian society is highly atomised, the individual interest matters more than community interest, and natural social groups do not become real social subjects. This creates a complex environment in which community resilience is highly threatened, despite the existence of functioning institutions.

In fact, the question of the resilience of the political community is largely related to public policies. This quality is the result of many factors, which lead to the particular attitude that “community matters.” In this sense, it is related to the institutional tradition that, over time, arranges the values and attitudes of individuals united by common political institutions. Comparative research shows that societies where formal and informal mechanisms for building social consensus are in place, do much better in coping with economic and societal crises. Similarly, societies with weak individualism, due to a strong religious tradition or to attitudes that maintain a hierarchical social order, more easily retain and restore their internal balance. On the contrary, highly individualistic societies, in which the community is only a consequence of individual competition, need a specic process of formulating and implementing collective will. This is in cases of risk to the social homeostasis. In this occasion community cohesion and community resilience must be built through specic public policies. Policy-making is easier for collectivist societies. Individualistic societies need to support the community through policies. In both cases, it is not about what they do, but only about whether they achieve success, as a result of actions aimed at achieving collective will.

Community resilience indices generally consider its dependence on prevailing public attitudes. They contain the view that resilience refers primarily to the ability of the public system to cope with disasters and are, therefore, more relevant to ecological resilience. This is also the reason why the community component in them has relatively small weight.

For example, developed on the basis of Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) (Cutter et al. 2014) community resilience index for Norway (Scherzer et al. 2019) describe and measure community resilience. This index is of extreme interest for the present analysis, because through it the authors increase the weight of social and relational aspects of community in the general understanding of resilience. Community resilience index for Norway contains six components: social, human and community capital, economic, institutional, infrastructure and environmental (Scherzer et al. 2019, p. 64). Behind this index lies the understanding that the sustainability of the social system depends, among other factors, on the ability of the community to be and act as a community. The most important prerequisite for this is the ability of people to come together to solve problems - general or of certain disadvantaged groups or individuals within it. According to the authors of the Community resilience index for Norway, predictors of such a state of the community are: people's involvement in local organizations, such as youth clubs, sports clubs, or religious institutions, sources of innovation and with it the ability to think outside the box, to improvise; a crucial quality when dealing with unexpected stresses and shocks, valuable community resources, such as information providers and childcare services (Scherzer et al. 2019, p. 66).

Broadening the understanding of community resilience in the direction of human and community capital has direct implications for policy making. On the one hand, policies must support and create community cohesion. Such targeted activities have a multiplier effect and lead to a strong increase in the overall eciency of public administration. Since, given the nancial constraints and the still prevailing economic and nancial approach to policies, the development of specic policies for community building is hardly possible, these efforts should become a horizontal principle in policy making. Moreover, in this case their effect would be much greater.

On the other hand, public policies should not destroy community cohesion. This means that when making policies and implementing programs to achieve collective goals, regardless of the specic sphere of action, their effect on human and community capital must be considered. Public spheres are connected and without a comprehensive approach, that considers the cumulative effect of policies, especially those in the elds of technology, investment and infrastructure, the problems facing communities of people can increase (Fiksel 2006).

A good example in this regard is the atomization and diminishing communal capital in many countries, especially in those where a commonly shared morality is not a social regulator. Environmental policy is also extremely telling. It is especially important in these cases that the development and implementation of public policies considers the specics of individual behaviour. Specialized literature supports the idea that environmental consumer behaviour is inuenced by personality traits, self-ecacy, attitudes with their cognitive and emotional components, as well as value orientations.

The empirical research presented in this article has identied the dominant personality traits that can have a signicant effect on attitudes toward proenvironmental behaviour. People, who are more aware of the negative consequences of climate change and are more concerned about the environment change their behaviour towards a more environmentally friendly one.

The results obtained from the present study enrich the theoretical approaches and provide additional information about the signicant psychological aspects at the individual level and their relationship with the attitudes and behavioural characteristics of intentions to pro-environmental behaviours within rather the individualistic Bulgarian socio-cultural context. They can be used and implemented in the creation of educational programs that encourage people to be aware of the risks and negative effects of climate change. All this can contribute to sustainable behaviour, aimed at protecting the environment and increasing the level of resilience.

Acknowledgments & Funding

This study is nanced by the European Union-NextGenerationEU, through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria, project SUMMIT BG-RRP-2.004-0008-C01.

NOTES

1. The term has gained prominence mainly in European studies and it means changes in management, representation and participation as a consequence of crises of different nature following wavelike in succession (Rhinard, 2019).

REFERENCES

ARNOCKY, S., STROINK, M., DeCICCO, T., 2007. Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 255 – 264.

AVEN, T. & RENN, O., 2009. On risk dened as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Philosophy. Journal of Risk Research. vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1 – 11.

BANDURA, A., 1977. Self-ecacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 2, 191 – 215.

BURNS, F. A., DE VILLIERS, P. A., PEARSON, B. Z., & CHAMPION, T. B., 2012. Dialect-neutral indices of narrative cohesion and evaluation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, vol. 43, vol. 2, pp. 132 – 152.

BUTLER, L. D., MORLAND, L. A., & LESKIN, G. A., 2007. Psychological resilience in the face of terrorism. In: B. BONGAR, L. M. BROWN, L. E. BEUTLER, J. N. BRECKENRIDGE, & P. G. ZIMBARDO (eds.). Psychology of terrorism, pp. 400 – 417. Oxford University Press.

CUTTER, S. L., ASH, K. D., & EMRICH, C. T., 2014. The geographies of community disaster resilience. Global environmental change, vol. 29, pp. 65 – 77.

DAVIDSON, D. J. AND FREUDENBURG, W. R., 1996. Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research. Environment and Behavior, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 302 – 339.

DIETZ, T., KALOF, L., & STERN, P. C., 2002. Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 353 – 364.

DUNLAP, R., & VAN LIERE, K., 1978. The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 10 – 19.

DUNLAP, R. E., VAN LIERE, K. D., MERTIG, A. G., & JONES, R. E., 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues,vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 425 – 442.

DUNLAP, R., & YORK, R., 2008. The Globalization of Environmental Concern and the Limits of the Postmaterialist Values Explanation: Evidence from Four Multinational Surveys. The Sociological Quarterly. vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 529 – 563.

FIKSEL, J., 2006. Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 2.2, 14 – 21.

FRAJ, E., & MARTINEZ, E., 2006. Ecological consumer behaviour: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 26-33.

FREIRE, O., QUEVEDO-SILVA, F., FREDERICO, E., VILS, L., & JUNIOR, S. S. B., 2021. Effective scale for consumers’ environmental concerns: A competing scales study between NEP and ECCB. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 304, p. 126801.

GAMBRO, J. S. & SWITZKY, H. N., 1999. Variables Associated With American High School Students' Knowledge of Environmental Issues Related to Energy and Pollution. The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 404 – 413.

GIFFORD, R. & NILSSON, A., 2014. Personal and social factors that inuence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. International Journal of Psychology. vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 141 – 157.

HINES, J. M., HUNGERFORD, H. R. & TOMERA, A. N., 1987. Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education. vol.18, no. 2, pp. 1 – 8.

HIRSH, J. B., 2010. Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 245 – 248.

JOHN, O. P., & SRIVASTAVA, S., 1999. The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: L. A. PERVIN & O. P. JOHN (eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research, pp. 102 – 138. Guilford Press.

KAISER, F. G., 1998. A general measure of ecological behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 395 – 422.

KAISER, F. G., & SHIMODA, T. A., 1999. Responsibility as a predictor of ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 243 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.9123.

KAISER, F. G., RANNEY, M., HARTIG, T., & BOWLER, P. A., 1999. Ecological behavior, environmental attitude, and feelings of responsibility for the environment. European Psychologist, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 59 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.4.2.59.

KIM, Y., KASSER, T., & LEE, H., 2003. Self-concept, aspirations, and well-being in South Korea and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 277 – 290.

KOMORITA, S., & PARKS, C., 1994. Social dilemmas. Brown & Benchmark.

KORTENKAMP, K., & MOORE, C., 2001. Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 261 – 272.

KUHLEMEIER, H., VAN DEN BERGH, H., & LAGERWEIJ, N., 1999. Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior in Dutch Secondary Education. The Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 4 – 14.

LAUREN, N., FIELDING, K. S., SMITH, L., LOUIS, W. R., 2016. You did, so you can and you will: Self-ecacy as a mediator of spillover from easy to more dicult pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 48, pp. 191 – 199.

LEVINE, D. S., & STRUBE, M. J., 2012. Environmental Attitudes, Knowledge, Intentions and Behaviors among College Students. Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 152, no. 3, pp. 308 – 326.

LEW, A. A., NG, P. T., NI, C. C., & WU, T. C., 2016. Community sustainability and resilience: Similarities, differences and indicators. Tourism Geographies, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 18 – 27.

LUCHS, M. & MOORADIAN, T., 2012. Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect, Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 127 – 144.

LYONS, E., & BREAKWELL, G. M., 1994. Factors predicting environmental concern and indifference in 13- to 16-year-olds. Environment and Behavior, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 223 – 238.

MARKUS, H. R., & KITAYAMA, S., 1991. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 224 – 253.

MILBRATH, L., W., 1984. A proposed value structure for a sustainable society. Environmentalist. vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 113 – 124.

MILFONT, T. L., & GOUVEIA, V. V., 2006. Time Perspective and Values: An Exploratory Study of Their Relations to Environmental Attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 72 – 82.

NILSSON, A., VON BORGSTEDE, C., & BIEL, A., 2004. Willingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of values and norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 267 – 277.

NORDLUND, A. M. & GARVILL, J., 2002. Value Structures behind Proenvironmental Behavior. Environment and Behavior, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 740 – 756.

NORRIS, F. H., STEVENS, S. P., PFEFFERBAUM, B., WYCHE, K. F., & PFEFFERBAUM, R. L., 2008. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American journal of community psychology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 127 – 150.

POOLEY, J. A., & O'CONNOR, M., 2000. Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 711 – 723.

RHINARD, M., 2019. The crisisication of policy‐making in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 616 – 633.

SCANNELL, L. & GIFFORD, R., 2013. Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environment and Behavior, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 60 – 85.

SCHERZER, S., LUJALA, P., & RØD, J. K., 2019. A community resilience index for Norway: An adaptation of the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC). International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 101 – 107.

SCHLEGELMILCH, B., BOHLEN, G. M., & DIAMANTOPOULOS, A., 1996. The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. European Journal of Marketing, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 35 – 55.

SCHULTZ, P. W., 2001. The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp.1 – 13.

SCHULTZ, P. W. & ZELEZNY, L. C., 1998. Values and pro-environmental behaviour: A ve-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 540 – 558.

SCHWARTZ, S. H., 1992. Universals in the content and structures of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1 – 65.

SHERER, M., MADDUX, J., MERCANDANTE, B., PRENTICEDUNN, S., JAKOBS, B. & ROGERS, R., 1982. The self-ecacy scale:

Construction and validation, Psychological Reports, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 663 – 671.

SILGIDZHIAN, H., KARABELIOVA, S., GERGANOV, E., & GENOV, Y., 2007. Similar and Different in the Framework of Bulgarian Culture. Results from Representative Research of Values and Cultural Practices in Bulgaria. Annual Journal of Psychology, Soa University, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 5 – 74 [in Bulgarian].

SKERRATT, S., 2013. Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: evidence from community land ownership. Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 31, pp. 36 – 46.

STERN, P., DIETZ, T., & KALOF, L., 1993. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behaviour, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 322 – 348.

STERN, P. C., DIETZ, T., KALOF, L., & GUAGNANO, G. A., 1995. Values, beliefs and pro-environmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 25, no. 18, pp. 1611 – 1636.

STERN, P., 2000. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Signicant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 407 – 424.

STOYANOVA, R. & KARABELIOVA, S., 2020. Big Five personality traits as predictors of time perspective. In: ILIEVA, S. (Ed). Leadership and development of human resources, Soa: University Publishing House “St. Kl. Ohridski”. ISBN [online] 978-954-07-4979-2, pp. 743 – 750 [in Bulgarian].

THE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS (CAST). 2020b. How has COVID-19 Impacted Low- Carbon Lifestyles and Attitudes Towards Climate Action? CAST.

TIKKA, P. M., KUITUNEN, M. T., TYNYS, S. M., 2000. Effects of Educational Background on Students' Attitudes, Activity Levels, and Knowledge Concerning the Environment. The Journal of Environmental Education. vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 12 – 19.

VAN LANGE, P. A., JOIREMAN, J., PARKS, C. D., VAN DIJK, E., 2013. The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Oranizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. vol. 120, no. 2, pp. 125 – 141.

VAN LIERE, K. D., & DUNLAP, R. E., 1980. The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 181 – 197.

XIAO, C., & HONG, D., 2010. Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Population and Environment, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 88 – 104.

ZAMAN, M. O., & RAIHAN, M. M. H. 2023. Community resilience to natural disasters: A systemic review of contemporary methods and theories. Natural Hazards Research, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 583 – 594.

ZELEZNY, L. C., CHUA, P.-P., & ALDRICH, C., 2000. Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 443 – 457.

 Prof. Dr. Sonya Karabeliova, DSc.
Author iD: 6508337016
WoS Researcher iD: L-2487-2016
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0850-1865
Soa University
1504 Soa
15, Tsar Osvoboditel
Bulgaria
E-mail: karabeluov@phls.uni-soa.bg
 Dr. Elena Kalfova, Assoc. Prof.
Author iD: 57205608033
WoS Researcher iD: AAL-9420-2021
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9427-7451
Soa University
1504 Soa
15, Tsar Osvoboditel
Bulgaria
E-mail: elena_kalfova@phls.uni-soa.bg
 Yonko Bushnyashki, Researcher
ORCID iD: 0009-0002-87437469
Soa University
1504 Soa
15, Tsar Osvoboditel
Bulgaria
E-mail: jbushnyashki@phls.uni-soa.bg