Estonian Human Development Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 5.2.3. Distribution of consumer dissatisfaction (percentage of the entire sample) 17% Source: Mina. Maailm. Meedia 2008 Country 9% 28% % of population that has submitted at least one official complaint to a provider of goods or services within the past year 46% None Slight Considerable Strong Table 5.2.2. Consumer protection and consumer rights indicators for the EU in 2008 % of population that % of popu- has exercised their rights arising from the warranties of goods lation that feels sufficiently protected by the regulations as a consumer % of population that feels that sellers and service providers generally respect their rights Sweden 34 31 70 77 The Netherlands 25 17 74 77 Germany 24 20 61 72 United Kingdom 24 16 66 77 Finland 23 25 72 88 Denmark 22 25 73 57 Malta 17 17 52 58 EU27 16 16 51 59 Austria 16 20 61 66 Poland 16 14 45 49 Belgium 14 20 61 78 Slovakia 14 25 41 54 Ireland 13 10 56 58 Slovenia 13 18 45 61 Spain 11 14 53 63 France 11 15 40 61 Czech Republic 11 30 48 49 Hungary 11 12 50 57 Cyprus 10 16 52 53 Greece 9 8 30 39 Italy 9 12 39 36 Luxembourg 8 16 60 73 Estonia 8 15 50 68 Lithuania 6 12 25 35 Romania 6 11 - - Portugal 5 9 35 39 Latvia 5 8 35 55 Bulgaria 4 7 - - Source: Special Eurobarometer 298 income below 2500 kroons per household member) and had reached 50% in the group with the highest income (monthly income above 10,000 kroons per household member). Consumption-related differences between ethnicities are considerably smaller than those exhibited by different age groups, and the spread of consumerism has been even more widespread among the Russian-speaking population. In 2002 only 4% of Estonians and 5% of Russians provided answers indicating a very high level of consumerism, while in 2008 the percentage of respondents characterized by a very high level of consumerism reached 25% among Estonians and 30% among the Russian-speaking population. The results of the 2008 survey allowed us to compile another important indicator related to consumption attitudes, namely the consumer dissatisfaction index. This index characterizes people’s dissatisfaction with the selection of food in our stores and markets, their families’ opportunities for healthy eating, the insufficient selection in our clothing market as well as the fact that small shops and marketplaces are increasingly being replaced by large retail chains. An individual’s dissatisfaction with consumption opportunities also belongs among the indirect indicators of quality of life. The results are quite telling: 47% of the respondents are satisfied with their consumption opportunities and only 9% of the respondents report a strong sense of dissatisfaction (Figure 5.2.3.). It is noteworthy that Estonian-speaking consumers are somewhat more critical of their consumption opportunities (43% expressed no dissatisfaction) than non-Estonians (56% were not dissatisfied). Another topic that has become increasingly important in recent years is that of consumer education and competence. Currently, Estonian consumers are still relatively passive with regard to standing up for their rights. This conclusion can be made both on the basis of our survey and on the basis of the aforementioned Eurobarometer study (Consumer Protection… 2008). This pertains to submitting official complaints to the providers of goods and services when problems occur, but also to using consumers’ rights arising from warranties. According to the same Eurobarometer study, 50% of the respondents in Estonia feel that they receive enough protection as a consumer from existing regulations – a level almost equal to the EU average (51%). Most Estonian respondents (68%) also feel that sellers and service providers generally respect their rights as consumers, thus displaying a level of confidence twice as high as that of Lithuanian respondents (36%). It is not clear whether Estonia’s relatively high consumer satisfaction indicators point to the adequacy of consumer protection and the regulations upholding the interests of the consumer, or are a product of the passive and undemanding nature of Estonian consumers. Though this is a subject best explored by future studies using qualitative analysis, Table 5.2.2. provides an overview of Estonian indicators in comparison with those of other countries. The matter of consumer education is relatively undeveloped in Estonia today, both in terms of discussion and actual activities. The successful education of Estonian consumers remains an issue requiring the cooperation of several parties. Although we can be satisfied with our results in comparison with Lithuania’s indicators, Estonia still has a long way to go if we want to achieve the level of consumer protection available, for example, in Sweden or the Netherlands. The environment and consumption People’s relationship with nature can be divided into three broad categories: relationship with nature and the realization of interest in nature, environmentally friendly consumption, and civic initiatives that benefit nature (collecting signatures, organizing cooperative initiatives, etc.). The following subsection concentrates on the two latter categories. Accession to the European Union brought about a significant change in the environmental awareness of Estonian people as the example of the old member states and the effect of several EU regulations challenged us to develop our consumption behaviour along a more environment-conscious path. Estonians who have often defined themselves as a nation with a traditional relationship with nature had to act quickly in order to adopt activities (separate collection of waste, eco- | 106
friendly consumption) hitherto experienced only on occasional trips abroad. Estonians’ relationship with nature is also being influenced increasingly by the manner in which the environmental issues are approached globally. While only 34% of respondents considered climate change to be an important environmental problem at the time of Estonia’s accession to the EU, by 2007 the percentage of respondents agreeing with this statement had increased to 43% (Eurobarometer 2004 and 2007). There has also been an increase in people’s civic engagement with regard to protecting their environment. The survey Mina. Maailm. Meedia (2002, 2005 and 2008) covers both environmentally friendly consumption and civic engagement in the protection of the environment, combining the indicators used for measuring these phenomena into two separate indexes 26 . The following subsection focuses on environmentally friendly consumption practices. Environmentally friendly consumption The data from the Eurobarometer surveys allows the environmental behaviour of the Estonian population to be compared to that of other EU nations. Eurobarometer 2007 (hereafter EB) indicates that Estonian respondents, like those in other Baltic countries and new EU member states, considered their personal opportunities for protecting the environment to be significantly lower than the EU27 average. According to EB2004 and EB2007, our personal contribution to the protection of the environment was considerably smaller than the input of the residents of other EU countries. In terms of personal environmental behaviour, Estonian respondents, compared to the EU27 average, had focused less on separate waste collection (46% compared to EU27’s 59%), saving energy (41% compared to EU27’s 47%) and sustainable transportation. At the same time, Estonian respondents had been considerably more environmentally conscious in terms of buying locally grown products (47% compared to EU27’s 21%). Estonian respondents (similar to the residents of the other Baltic States) identified the latter, along with separate waste collection and preferring organic products, as one of the most important environmentally friendly activities, which they will be prepared to engage in to a greater degree in the future. However, the willingness of Estonian residents to decrease energy use (34% compared to EU27’s 47%) or waste production (20% compared to EU27’s 30%) is significantly lower than the EU27 average. Estonia’s comparison with other countries shows that we are mostly prepared to act in an environmentally friendly manner if we do not have to give up our recently adopted consumerist lifestyle in the process. Yet a higher than average percentage of Estonian respondents (18% compared to the EU average of 11%) view contemporary consumption habits as a danger to the environment. It is noteworthy that during the last three years, Estonian residents have begun to see their consumption practices as less environmentally conscious (in 2008, 50% of the respond- Table 5.2.3. Ranking of environmentally friendly consumption practices Activity % 1 Their family sorts returnable packaging subject to a deposit 77 Considers environmentally friendly principles important in buying 2 and using household chemicals 76 3 Uses organic foodstuffs or eco-friendly products 66 Considers environmentally friendly principles important in buying 4 and using household appliances 65 5 Their family sorts paper and cardboard 64 Follows product labelling (eco-labels, quality marks, etc.) when 6 buying foodstuffs 63 Considers environmentally friendly principles important in buying 7 and using cars 60 8 Wears used clothes purchased from a second-hand shop 55 9 Their family sorts hazardous waste 55 10 Their family sorts biodegradeable waste 47 11 Pays attention to the GMO content of products when buying foodstuffs 46 Is ready to contribute to the environment by participating in 12 campaigns requiring an input of labour (e.g. the Teeme ära 42 campaign of 2008) Is ready to contribute to the environment by reducing consumption 13 and giving up benefits related to consumption 40 14 Their family sorts mixed packaging 39 Is ready to contribute to the environment by buying environmentally 15 36 friendly products even if they cost more than regular products Is ready to contribute to the environment by making financial 16 donations to environmental projects 12 17 Is ready to contribute to the environment by paying higher public taxes 5 18 Buys foodstuffs from shops that sell organic products 3 Source: Mina. Maailm. Meedia 2008 ents considered themselves mostly or very environmentally conscious, as opposed to 65% of the respondents in 2005) 27 . Although it is difficult to interpret this change, it is probable that the respondents’ self-assessments were affected by their new experiences with the practices of sustainable consumption, especially the introduction of recycling, as well as the extensive criticism of “green” activities that are accompanied by an overflow of contradictory information and recommendations. According to EB2007, for example, the percentage of Estonian respondents who thought that the current product labelling system was successful in helping them discern which products are actually environmentally friendly was just a little higher than the percentage of respondents who felt that the current system did not help them. The 2008 survey Mina. Maailm. Meedia indicates that more than 40% of all respondents felt that the widespread separate collection of waste was hindered by the poor organization of waste collection. Table 5.2.3. provides an overview of the respondents’ primary environmentally friendly activities and people’s selfassessments regarding their environmentally conscious behaviour according to the Mina. Maailm. Meedia survey published in 2008. In calculating the importance of the given activities, we have added up the percentages of people who agree with a given statement in part or in full, are sometimes or often engaged in a given activity and consider a given aspect or phenomenon to be rather important or very important. 26 The environmentally friendly consumption index combines the following responses: “I use organic foodstuffs, environmentally friendly products”, “I wear second-hand clothes”, “I consider myself to be an environmentally conscious consumer”, “My family separates waste according to types” (returnable packages subject to a deposit, mixed packaging, paper and cardboard, hazardous and biodegradeable waste), “I consider environmentally friendly principles important in buying and using cars/household appliances/household chemicals”, “I actively monitor what and how I consume, as my consumption habits influence the state of the environment”, “I am ready to contribute to the environment by decreasing consumption” and “I am ready to contribute to the environment by buying environmentally friendly products even if they cost more”. The environmental protection-related civic activity index combines the following responses: “I participate in or am a member of environmental protection or heritage conservation associations”, “I have participated in waste clean-up activities, cleaning campaigns, etc. during the past year”, “I am willing to contribute to the environment by making financial donations to environmental projects, participating in campaigns requiring an input of labour (e.g. Teeme ära 2008) or paying higher public taxes”. 27 Both surveys used an identical question: “How environmentally conscious do you consider yourself as a consumer?” 107 |
Page 1 and 2:
Estonian Human Development Report
Page 3 and 4:
Estonian Human Development Report T
Page 5:
4.2. Ethnic differentiations in sat
Page 9:
Preface This year, the Estonian Hum
Page 12 and 13:
CHAPTER 1 Estonian Human Developmen
Page 14 and 15:
Figure 1.1.3. Life expectancy in co
Page 16 and 17:
Figure 1.2.2. Life expectancy at bi
Page 18 and 19:
to reality. The greatest inaccuracy
Page 20 and 21:
Figure 1.2.9. Internal migration ev
Page 22 and 23:
12. Marksoo, A. 1992. “Dynamics o
Page 24 and 25:
Table 1.3.1. PISA 2006 study result
Page 26 and 27:
Table 1.3.2. Number of students in
Page 28 and 29:
1.4. The gross domestic product and
Page 30 and 31:
Figure 1.4.3. Estonian GDP (right a
Page 32 and 33:
1.5. Changes in the Estonian Human
Page 34 and 35:
2.2. Health of Estonian residents i
Page 36 and 37:
Table 2.2.4. Differences in life ex
Page 38 and 39:
Figure 2.4.1. Healthy life years of
Page 40 and 41:
Figure 2.4.4. Various accidents, tr
Page 42 and 43:
2.5. Lifestyle and behaviour as a s
Page 44 and 45:
Figure 2.5.5. Smoking in Estonia in
Page 46 and 47:
Figure 2.6.1. Overview of the compo
Page 48 and 49:
Table 2.6.2. Use of specialized med
Page 50 and 51:
dren. The majority of services are
Page 52 and 53:
Figure 2.8.2. How much a health dis
Page 54 and 55:
2.10. Policy recommendations aimed
Page 56 and 57:
CHAPTER 3 Quality of life and life
Page 58 and 59: Table 3.2.1. Characteristics of liv
Page 60 and 61: Table 3.2.4. An assessment of the e
Page 62 and 63: Figure 3.2.4. Difference in the job
Page 64 and 65: Table 3.2.6. Agreement with stateme
Page 66 and 67: Figure 3.3.1. Satisfaction with lif
Page 68 and 69: Figure 3.3.4. Percentage of people
Page 70 and 71: Figure 3.4.1. Types of quality of l
Page 72 and 73: Figure 3.5.1. Percentage of teenage
Page 74 and 75: Figure 3.5.4. Percentage of respond
Page 76 and 77: Arieh A., Conti C., Kutsar D., Nicg
Page 78 and 79: Figure 3.6.2. Subjective quality of
Page 80 and 81: Pieper, A. Sixsmith, Care related q
Page 82 and 83: Figure 3.7.1. The placement of Euro
Page 84 and 85: Figure 4.2.1. Life satisfaction by
Page 86 and 87: Table 4.2.1. Factors forming genera
Page 88 and 89: Annexes Annex 4.2.1. Socio-demograp
Page 90 and 91: Figure 4.3.1. Changes in the assess
Page 92 and 93: Figure 4.3.4. Attitudes of the Esto
Page 94 and 95: olds considered themselves to be pa
Page 96 and 97: Table 4.4.3. Agreement of the Russi
Page 98 and 99: Table 4.5.2. The prospects of non-E
Page 100 and 101: Figure 4.5.4. Certainty of Estonian
Page 102 and 103: mote equal opportunities. At the (e
Page 104 and 105: CHAPTER 5 Quality of life in a cons
Page 106 and 107: Figure 5.2.1. GDP and AIC per capit
Page 110 and 111: Figure 5.2.4. Indexes of environmen
Page 112 and 113: Table 5.3.1. Comparison of countrie
Page 114 and 115: Figure 5.3.3. Comparison of types o
Page 116 and 117: Table 5.3.5. Connections between po
Page 118 and 119: Table 5.4.1. Who and what are the f
Page 120 and 121: Table 5.4.3. Young people’s asses
Page 122 and 123: Figure 5.4.6. Time spent on the con
Page 124 and 125: Table 5.4.6. The perception of prob
Page 126 and 127: 5.6. Summary To briefly summarize t
Page 128 and 129: Table 6.2.1. Objective and subjecti
Page 130 and 131: Figure 6.2.4. Relationship between
Page 132 and 133: Figure 6.2.7. Difference between th
Page 134 and 135: Figure 6.3.1. GDP, government secto
Page 136 and 137: Figure 6.3.3. Employed 15-74-year-o
Page 138 and 139: Figure 6.3.8. Percentage of social
Page 140 and 141: References 1. Aaviksoo, A., G. Paat
Page 142 and 143: Figure 6.4.1. Labour market flexibi
Page 144 and 145: Figure 6.4.3. Creations of jobs ind
Page 146 and 147: Figure 6.4.5. Public expenditures o
Page 148 and 149: Figure 6.4.6. Ratio of the particip
Page 150 and 151: 6.5. Cities as development engines
Page 152 and 153: Table 6.5.2. Existence of developme
Page 154 and 155: have been underfinanced or are not
Page 156 and 157: Table 7.1. Factors that favour and
Page 158 and 159:
Table 7.2. Potential economic devel
Page 160 and 161:
Authors Chapter 1 Ene-Margit Tiit,
Page 162 and 163:
Margit Keller (PhD) is a Senior Res
Page 164 and 165:
Special prizes Estonian Human Devel
Page 166 and 167:
Estonian Human Development Report H
Page 168 and 169:
Estonian Human Development Report H
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Honorable mentions Estonian Human D
Page 174 and 175:
Estonian Human Development Report P
Page 176 and 177:
Estonian Human Development Report A
Page 178:
show all

Estonian Human Development Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?