Questionnaire on Environmental Problems
and the Survival of Humankind
15-Year Summary

July 2007 (Corrected Edition)

Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of the Survey Conducted.................................................................................................................. 2
Questionnaire Summary.................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Awareness of the Crisis of Survival of Humankind.................................................................................. 4
1.1 The Environmental Doomsday Clock................................................................................................ 4		
1.1.1 The Environmental Doomsday Clock..................................................................................... 4		
1.1.2 Main Environmental Issues of Concern in Determining the Doomsday Clock Time ............ 5
1.2 Agenda 21........................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Lifestyle Alteration............................................................................................................................. 7
2.

Environmental Problems and Their Priority.............................................................................................. 9
2.1 Environmental Problems and Their Priority—Global Environmental Problems............................. 10		
2.1.1 Global Warming..................................................................................................................... 10		
2.1.2 Energy Problems.................................................................................................................... 13		
2.1.3 Population and Food Problems . ........................................................................................... 15
2.2 Environmental Problems and Their Priority—Local Environmental Problems............................... 17		
2.2.1 Waste Materials/Recycling ................................................................................................... 17		
2.2.2 Poverty . ................................................................................................................................ 19		
2.2.3 Urbanization/Transportation Problems.................................................................................. 21
In Closing . ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

Introduction
The realization of sustainable development has never been more necessary than today for humankind to continue to prosper and develop. It requires mankind to resolve global environmental problems, in particularglobal warming, and calls for a collective effort on the part of human beings to gather their deepest wisdom.
Since the Earth Summit, which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Asahi Glass Foundation has conducted
an annual survey—“Questionnaire on Environmental Problems and the Survival of Humankind”—comprisedof questions to experts worldwide knowledgeable on the subject. The questionnaire solicits their knowledge
and diverse opinions and publishes the results in a report. The questions cover topics such as “the Environmental Doomsday Clock” and “Progress Toward Agenda 21,” both of which have been surveyed continuously todate, as well as those that focus on specific issues for a given year.
Following is a compilation of the results obtained from our survey showing a shift in “awareness of the crisisin the survival of humankind” over the past 15 years, drawn from the questionnaire items “the Environmental
Doomsday Clock” and “Progress Toward Agenda 21.” It also illustrates a change in awareness toward “lifestyle alterations” and questions on “global environmental problems requiring prioritization,” first asked in
2005, which show a new approach to addressing overall global environmental problems.
The Asahi Glass Foundation
July 20071

Overview of the Survey Conducted
The survey questionnaire is aimed at experts around the world who are knowledgeable and are involved inenvironmental issues, including government officials and those in nongovernmental organizations, universities
and research institutions, and within industry. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of the respondents according totheir affiliation, which includes, in descending numbers, government offices, universities and research institutions, corporations, and nongovernmental organizations. Questionnaires are sent out to approximately 4,000
respondents every April and then collected by June. After the responses are compiled, compared and analyzed,
the survey results are announced in September. As shown in Table 1, the questionnaire has been sent out to 199
countries (including Japan) since 1992 with responses returned from 156 countries.
Table 1:Number of Countries Surveyed/Number of Countries
that Responded

Asia
AfricaOceania
Western Europe
Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union
Middle East
U.S.A. & Canada
Central America
South America
Total

Number of countries Number of countries
surveyed
responded
25
23
53
43
15
9
24
19
27
20
16
11
2
2
24
16
12
12
198
155

Figure 1: Affiliation of Respondents
NPO
16%
35%

Industry

Government

19%
30%

University and research institute

Table 2 shows a shift in the number of questionnaire respondents over the past 15 years. Overall, it
shows there are more respondents from Asia, Western Europe, the United States and Canada, and Africa, thanfrom the Middle East, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and Oceania. The number of respondents
over the 15 years total approximately 10,000 people, with an average response rate of 19%. Of the respondents,
approximately 80% are men and approximately 15% are women.
Table 2: Shift in the Number of Respondents Over 15 Years
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th 13th 14th 15th
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
877
61
189
248
282
306
279
293
311
292
303
315
324
312
307
49
22
23
25
51
38
62
59
93
58
55
76
68
65
49
39
38
62
79
77
65
60
79
88
84
79
98
90
91
70
30
43
92
62
63
63
54
60
81
83
68
88
139
92
90
11
37
36
48
35
41
33
27
26
35
27
37
40
32
23
9*
40
53
62
32
52
51
39
53
55
41
55
44
39
37
9
22
22
22
21
18
21
13
17
30
24
39
32
26
22
13
13
17
14
16
15
18
14
19
22
29
66
57
42
36

Japan
U.S.A. & Canada
Western Europe
Asia (outside Japan)
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Estern Europe & former
Soviet Union
Middle East
9*
6
4
16
11
14
15
12
11
22
12
30
9
10
21
No response
17
0
6
0
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
0
0
0
Overseas Total
168
221
315
328
307
307
316
304
391
392
336
491
479
397
348
Total
1054
282
504
576
589
613
595
597
702
684
639
806
803
709
655
Response Rate
28.3% 11.0% 20.8% 21.7% 18.4% 19.1% 17.9% 18.5% 20.5% 17.3% 16.0% 18.0% 22.2% 19.5% 16.4%* Figure includes the total for Africa and the Middle East

2

Male
FemaleNo response
Total

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th 13th 14th 15th
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
995
195
390
444
470
470
475
486
552
540
530
658
680
592
549
44
61
110
119
108
132
109
95
126
119
89
119
107
91
94
15
26
4
13
11
11
11
16
24
25
20
29
16
26
12
1054
282
504
576
589
613
595
597
702
684
639
806
803
709
655

Note: Regions in the report are categorized as follows:
Developed regions: The United States and Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Asian Four (South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, andSingapore)
Developing regions: Rest of Asia, Latin America, Africa
Others: Oceania, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the Middle East3

Questionnaire Summary
1. Awareness of the Crisis of Survival of Humankind
1.1

The Environmental Doomsday Clock (Surveyed from 1992–2006)

1.1.1 The Environmental Doomsday Clock
What is the perception of the severity of the threat to survival of humankind caused by environmental degradation? In order to examine the respondents’ awareness of the crisis of survival of humankind brought on by thedeterioration of the Earth’s environment, this questionnaire has, since its inception, continuously asked people
each year to indicate the severity of the crisis using the needle of a clock.
Figures 2 and 3 show the average time on the environmental doomsday clock for each year. In the firstquestionnaire, conducted in 1992, the average time for all respondents was 7:49, which fell into the “fairly
concerned” quadrant. Since then, the needle on the clock advanced each year until 1996, when the average timefirst fell into the “extremely concerned” quadrant at 9:13, an advancement of one hour and 30 minutes in four
years. Since then, the time has hovered in the early phases of the “extremely concerned” quadrant, at a little
past nine o’clock, with the exception of the year 2000. In 2006, the needle advanced to 9:17, representing thehighest sense of crisis since the survey began. When comparing responses from Japan and abroad, overseas
respondents reported more advanced times on the doomsday clock until 1997; however, the differences haveleveled since 1998 with respondents reporting similar times, with the exception of 2002 and 2003 when the
average time for Japan moved further than the time from overseas respondents. Throughout the 15 years of thequestionnaire, the needle on the environmental doomsday clock has never fallen into the “barely concerned”
or “slightly concerned” quadrants.

9:01 – 12:00
Extremely concerned

0:01 – 3:00
Barely concerned

12

9
6

6:01 – 9:00
Fairly concerned

1992 (+84 min.) 1996 (-17 min.) 2000 (+12 min.) 2001
12

12

12

9

3
6

9

9

3

6

6

7:49

（N=1,054）

9:13（N=589）8:56（N=643）9

9:17（N=638）(-3 min.)2002 (+10 min.) 2003
12

3

9

6

9:08

(-7 min.)

2004

12
3

6

9:05

（N=650）(+12 minutes)

3:01 – 6:00
Slightly concerned

12
3

2006

3

（N=639）93（N=787）

12

9

3

6

9:15

2005

(-3 min.)

12
9

3

6

6

9:08

（N=776）

9:05（N=700）Figure 2: Changes in the Average Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock (1992–2006)

10:00
9:30

Extremely
concerned

9:00

Fairlyconcerned

8:30

Total
Japan
Overseas

8:00
7:30

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 3: Changes for Japan and Overseas (1992–2006)4

1.1.2 Main Environmental Issues of Concern in Determining the Doomsday Clock Time (Surveyed from2004 – 2006)
Table 3 indicates the results of the question on the main environmental condition of concern when determining
the time on the environmental doomsday clock, which was asked for three years from 2004 to 2006. Throughout the years, “global warming” was the most frequently cited environmental issue of concern, followed by“deforestation, desertification, and loss of biodiversity.” As the foremost environmental issue, respondents
from developed regions and other regions cited “global warming,” whereas respondents from developing regions cited “deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity.”
Table 3: Main Environmental Issues of Concern in Determining the Doomsday Clock Time (%)

General environmental problems
Global warming
Air pollution, water contamination, river/ocean pollution
Water shortage, food problems
Deforestation, desertification,
loss of biodiversity
Peoples’ lifestyles, waste releatedproblems
Environmental problems andeconomic/trade related activities
Population, poverty, status of women
Other
No response

2004
Devel- Developoped
ing
Other Total
Regions Regions[N=547]
158
98
803
27
21
28
26
63
33
45
55

2005
Devel- Developoped
ing
Other Total
Regions Regions
498
133
78
709
27
22
29
26
69
44
41
61

2006
Devel- Developoped
ing
Other Total
Regions Regions
463
113
79
655
27
23
24
26
73
49
54
66

29

44

40

33

27

48

37

32

26

49

47

32

37

37

36

37

43

35

33

40

40

47

35

41

47

65

45

50

40

60

40

44

52

51

46

51

33

28

41

33

25

29

33

26

23

28

30

25

16

15

19

16

16

12

31

17

19

14

18

18

23
8
1

39
2
4

23
8
3

26
7
2

23
8
2

34
2
3

33
8
3

26
6
2

20
7
1

35
3
0

23
3
0

23
6
1

Note: Figures enclosed by a double circle represent the answer with the highest number of replies.
A single circle is used for the answer with the second highest number of replies.
Please note that the totals for the various regions should add up to 300% since respondents were asked to select three
items. However, some respondents marked less than three items, causing the aggregate total to be less than 300%.

By comparison, global warming was not cited as the paramount issue in the questionnaire results for thesurvey conducted in the year 2000. Table 4 shows the results of the question on the “causes of environmental
degradation” from the year 2000. Respondents from most of the regions selected “explosive population growth”
and “economic development without consideration for the environment” as main environmental issues and“global warming” was not included in the three most often cited responses. This result suggests that it wasafter 2001 that the sense of crisis surrounding global warming heightened among respondents.
Table 4: Causes of Global Environmental Degradation (2000) (%)
U.S.A. Western&
Canada Europe[N=311]
93
88
43
59
49
Japan

Explosive population growth
Economic development that
disregards the environment
Human
Activities
Nuclear threats
Epidemics
Water and food shortages
Global warming
Abnormal climate
Atmospheric
Air pollution and acid rain
Destruction of the ozone layer
Destruction of forests anddesertification
Ecological
Reduction of genetic diversity
Pollution of oceans and rivers

MiddleEast

Overseas
Total

17
77

Eastern Europe& former
Soviet Union
19
37

11
55

3 91
51

Asia

Latin
America

AfricaOceania

81
57

26
42

53
34

46

47

51

54

54

66

71

68

55

55

11
0
18
41
5
4
8

3
7
23
20
10
3
3

5
1
18
36
5
1
2

11
3
21
28
12
21
19

4
0
27
12
12
4
4

4
9
26
30
6
6
11

12
12
6
18
12
6
12

0
11
5
32
11
5
16

18
0
9
18
0
9
0

6
3
20
27
9
7
8

24

13

19

52

50

55

29

32

46

33

9
9

5
12

10
6

16
19

8
27

11
9

6
29

11
5

9
18

10
13

Note: Figures enclosed by a double circle represent the answer with the highest number of replies.
A single circle is used for the answer with the second highest number of replies.
Please note that the totals for the various regions should add up to 200% since respondents were asked to select two items.
However, some respondents marked less than three items, causing the aggregate total to be less than 200%.
51.2

Agenda 21 (Surveyed from 1993 – 2006)“Agenda 21” was adopted in 1992 at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro as the “action plan for the environment and development.” “Agenda 21,” which often serves as a barometer when considering environmental
issues, was incorporated as a survey item from 1993, one year after it was announced. The item has since beensurveyed continuously each year, examining how respondents evaluate the progress or lack thereof in theircountries in the past year. Since 1998, the questions have been focused on 10 categories of Agenda 21.
Figure 4 shows the survey results for the year 2006. The categories in which more than 50% of respondents indicated progress had been made (combined total of “significant progress” and “some progress”) included “promotion of environmental education,” “activities by local governments and citizens’ groups,” “environmental measures by industry,” “scientific and technological contributions,” and “formation of recycling
systems.” On the other hand, in the five categories of “conservation of forest resources,” “greenhouse gas prevention measures,” “conservation of biodiversity,” “population and poverty problems,” and “lifestyle alteration,” the percentage of respondents who indicated there had been no progress (combined total of “almost no
progress” and “no progress”) surpassed those who stated progress had been made.

Significant progress
Promotion of environmental education
Activities by local governments andcitizens' groups
Environmental measures by industry

Some progress

13

61【Progress】

655

Scientific and technological contributions

1052

Formation of recycling systems

10

51

5

Greenhouse gas prevention measures
Conservation of biodiversity

Lifestyle alteration

2
1

100

4
10

1
13

4

31
33

8

【No Progress】

22

3

Population and poverty problems

12
14

27

12
8

34

16

34

15

14

36

80

60

40

(%)

12

1

25
3

No progress
1

63

7

Conservation of forest resources

Alomost no progress

18

20

0 (%)

Figure 4: Progress Toward Agenda 21 (2006)

Figure 5 and Table 5 show the state of progress from 1993 to 2006. Throughout the 14 years, the five
top-ranked items have consistently remained at the top, with respondents reporting the highest degree of progress in the “promotion of environmental education” each time, followed by “activities by local governments
and citizens’groups.” In contrast, the five bottom-ranked items have also consistently remained at the bottom
throughout the 14 years. With the exception of 1993, “lifestyle alteration” has consistently been seen as having
made the least progress, followed by “population and poverty problems.”(Percentage of respondents who indicated progress)(%)
90

Promotion ofenvironmental education

80
70

Activities by local governments
and citizens' groups

60

Environmental measuresby industry

50

Scientific and technologicalcontributions

40

Formation of recycling systems

30

Conservation of forest resources

20

Greenhouse gas
prevention measures

10

Conservation of biodiversity

0

Population and poverty problems

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
(Surveyed year)

Lifestyle alteration

Figure 5: The State of Progress in the 10 Categories of Agenda 21 Action Plan (1993-2006)
6

Table 5: The State of Progress in the 10 Categories of Agenda 21 Action Plan (1993-2006)
Promotion of environmental
education
Activities by local governments andcitizens’ groups
Environmental measures by industry
Scientific and technologicalcontributions
Formation of recycling systems
Conservation of forest resources
Greenhouse gas prevention
measures
Conservation of biodiversity
Population and poverty problems
Lifestyle alteration

1.3

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
70

61

64

64

57

68

70

73

76

79

76

73

75

74

63

60

62

63

55

65

65

73

73

77

70

70

69

69

58

49

49

53

55

57

59

66

60

62

56

54

59

62

56

47

53

55

46

50

59

57

59

69

61

58

64

62

48
44

41
39

46
37

51
33

44
34

47
31

45
26

54
29

57
34

66
33

58
37

56
33

61
32

61
30

38

27

26

25

25

29

26

29

29

34

29

26

32

29

50
23
26

35
30
22

32
25
23

35
20
20

34
24
18

25
19
11

28
19
11

28
18
14

33
23
13

33
22
14

33
20
15

27
18
12

31
18
13

25
18
15

Lifestyle Alteration (Surveyed from 1992 – 2003)

A review of lifestyle by each individual person and realizing a way of life that leaves as small an environmental footprint as possible are indispensable to building a sustainable and recycling-oriented society. This questionnaire probed respondents about their perceptions of lifestyle alteration continuously from 1992 to 2003.
Figure 6 shows the results of the question on the respondent’s own lifestyle: “whether or not it would bepossible to alter your current lifestyle based on disposable and excessive consumption and sustain that altered
way of living.” Respondents selecting “it would be possible to try but with difficulty” and “it would not be
possible” remained around 10% throughout the five years. On the other hand, the combined total of “it would
be possible” and “it would be possible to some degree” hovered around 80%, indicating that an overwhelming
majority considered lifestyle alteration possible. However, 14 years of combined results of the Agenda 21 answers showed the greatest criticism to be toward the lack of progress in “lifestyle alteration.” Given such conflicting results, it can be surmised that although respondents considered lifestyle alteration possible, implementation in real life was highly problematic.

26%

58%

1993

14%
0.4%

34%

1994

45%

1995

42%

44%

1996

44%

40%

2%
3%

Could adapt
to some extent

12%
1%

1%

Could adapt
with difficulty

13%

2%

Impossible to
adapt

18%

No response

18%
1%

1%
28%

1997

41%

11%
1%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Plan to adapt

1%90100 (%)

Figure 6: Whether or Not It Would be Possible to Alter Lifestyle (1993-1997)

Table 6 shows the results of the question regarding whether or not it would be possible for them to curb
their consumption in six areas including energy and food, and if so, how much of a reduction was possible
from current levels. Responses stating, “reduction is possible” exceeded those stating, “reduction is not possible” in every category among respondents from developed regions, indicating awareness of excessive consumption. In contrast, the difference was small among respondents from developing regions. In particular,7more respondents from Africa stated, “reduction is not possible” in food and water consumption, revealing theexistence of a significant issue in the fundamentals of life —food and water.
Table 6: Whether or Not it Would be Possible to Curb Consumption (2002) (%)

Japan
U.S.A. & Canada
Western Europe
Asia
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union
Middle East
Overseas Total
Developed Regions
Developing Regions

Electric
power
+86
+78
+71
+24
+22
+7
+88
+83
+42
+51
+83
+18

Gas/fuel Gasoline
oil
+79
+75
+82
+71
+62
+62
+38
+41
+19
+48
+20
+20
+71
+79
+55
+45
+42
+42
+51
+52
+76
+72
+29
+36

Water for daily life
(drinking water included)
+74
+69
+61
+22
+67
-17
+71
+69
+42
+46
+71
+19

Food

Paper

+75
+40
+49
+13
-37
-51
+58
+28
+50
+20
+65
-16

+88
+64
+66
+49
+59
+15
+92
+41
+75
+55
+81
+41

Average
value
+80
+67
+62
+31
+30
-1
+77
+54
+49
+46
+75
+21

Note: consumption reduction indicator = “Can reduce” response rate (%) -”Can’t reduce” response rate (%)

Comments from Respondents
The following is a sampling of comments from respondents about lifestyle alteration.
The great challenge we face is not technical or financial, but that of reforming the structure of our societies to value theenvironment and people, and stop sacrificing them both to greed and vested interests. Unfortunately, Australia has a long
way to go. We have won the struggle to change public attitudes so that they think and say that the environment is important, but now we face the much harder task of getting individuals, companies and governments to act as though it is. We
say the right words, but the lifestyles and methods have not changed to match them.
David Wanless, The Wilderness Society, AUSTRALIA 189 (2002)
Ecological wisdom does not consist in understanding how to live in accord with nature; it consists in understanding how
to get humans to agree on how to live in accord with nature. (Ken Wilber) Tell me how “global sustainable development”
for the developed world can mean anything other than to learn to shrink sustainably whilst enabling the rest of the world
to grow sustainably?
Nadia McLaren, Union of International Associations, BELGIUM 246 (2002)
The importance of nature and environmental conservation is taught through compulsory education. So must the adults betaught to behave and value the importance of the earth as an accepted part of society. To this end, I think that more space
and time in media, such as newspapers, TV and magazines, should be used for education. It would be ideal if society
would develop so that environmental topics are always topics in the community, households and schools.
Minoru Yoneda, Earther Co., Ltd., Japan 016J (2002)
Although general awareness of environmental problems continues to rise in Japan, the link between scientific understanding and concrete action is still lacking. There is a need to reform systems, promote environmental education and get citizens and NGOs to participate in securing understanding and action that is at least on par with the concern and concrete
efforts undertaken with respect to economic and social problems. As far as business is concerned, environmental management, environmental audits, environmental accounting, and environmental reporting are some means by which environmental considerations can be reflected in economic decision making. Even if we do not go so far as to suddenly impose
carbon taxes, there is a need to make greater use of environmental conservation methods linked to economic logic.
Koya Ishino, Automobile Environmental Countermeasures Section, Ministry of the Environment, Japan 015J (2002)
As Gandhi had said, “Earth has enough for everybody’s needs, but not for anybody’s greed.” Therefore, limiting humanneeds by changing our lifestyles is the only real way to preserve our deteriorating environment. All other effort is peripheral to this central remedy.
Rajesh Bhat, Ahmedabad Study Action Group, INDIA 402 (2004)
The root of all environmental problems lies in the question of whether or not people would be able to accept a decline intheir standards of living.
Nobuyuki Sekino, Senior Officer, Recycling-Oriented Society Promotion Division,
Gifu Prefectural Government, Japan 085J (2005)
8

2. Environmental Problems and Their Priority
In 2005, the questionnaire asked respondents about “Global Environmental Problems and Their Priority” and“Local Environmental Problems and Their Priority” in the region where the respondents resided.
As Table 7 indicates, the global environmental problems requiring prioritization were (in descendingorder) “climate change including global warming,” “energy problems,” “poverty,” and “population problems.”
Table 7: Global Environmental Problems to be Undertaken Globally and Their Priority (2005)
Area
Total
Overseas Total
Japan

1st priority
Global warming
Global warming
Global warming

%
66
53
83

2nd priority
EnergyPoverty
Energy%31
32
40

3rd priority
Poverty
Ecosystem
Population

%
26
30
28

Area
Japan

1st priority
Global warming%83

2nd priority
Energy%40%
28

U.S.A. & Canada

Global warming

62

Population

37

Western Europe
Rest of Asia
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Middle East
Asian Four
Eastern Europe &former Soviet Union

Global warming
Global warming
Global warming
Global warming
Global warming
Global warming
Energy

69
42
50
51
62
80
53

Ocean & fresh water
Ecosystem
Poverty
Poverty
Ecosystem
Population
Acid rain & air pollution

37
34
44
44
42
40
40

Poverty43

Global warming

41

3rd priority
Population
Ocean & fresh water
EnergyPoverty
Ocean & fresh water
Desertification
Waste management
Ocean & fresh water
Poverty
Ozone layer
EnergyEcosystem

31
34
29
34
26
35
40
40
29

On the other hand, as Table 8 shows, there were marked differences between developed and developing
regions in local environmental problems requiring prioritization. “Waste materials/recycling” and “urbanization/transportation problems” were cited as issues of high priority in parts of the world other than developing
regions, revealing a focus on the various difficulties that accompany urbanization and development as a local
problem. In contrast, “poverty” and “deforestation” were most frequently cited in developing regions.
Table 8: Environmental Problems Critical in the Region or Local Area Where You Reside (2005)
Area
Japan
Asian Four
Eastern Europe&former Soviet Union

1st priority
Waste management
Waste management

%
78
80

2nd priority
Urbanization
Urbanization%
3rd priority
49
Energy70 Acid rain & air pollution

%
35
40

Waste management

62

Urbanization

43

36

Middle East

Waste management

60

Urbanization

40

Western Europe
U.S.A. & Canada
AfricaRest of Asia
Latin America
Oceania

Urbanization
Urbanization
Poverty
Poverty
Deforestation
Global warming

63
57
51
32
50
50

Waste management
Global warming
Waste management
Waste management
Poverty
Ecosystem

42
34
31
31
44
46

Ecosystem
Poverty
Desertification
Ecosystem
Ecosystem
EnergyDesertification
Population
Ecosystem
Ocean & fresh water

30
41
31
28
29
31
31

Given these survey results, the following is a summary of results for the questions on “global warming,”“energy problems,” “population and food” from global priorities and “waste materials” “poverty” and “urbanization/transportation” from the local priority areas.
92.1 Environmental Problems and Their Priority—Global Environmental Problems
2.1.1 Global Warming (Surveyed from 1995–2006)
This survey has raised questions about “global warming” each year since 1996, the year after the first Conference of Parties (COP1) was held in Berlin. The questionnaire has solicited opinions of the respondents on theissue from various perspectives, including the COP and the Kyoto Protocol.
Figure 7 shows the results of the question on global warming. More than 70% of respondents from both
Japan and overseas selected “global warming is a serious and urgent environmental problem requiring an immediate response.”

1%

20%

Japan

79%

0%
21%
Rest of Asia

30%

28%
25%

9%

17%

71%

3%
0

10

20

Global warming isa serious andurgentenvironmental
problem requiring
an immediate response

47%

0%

Overseas Total

Because global
warming has thepotential to havean effect in the
future, responses
sholud beconsidered49%

0%
Eastern Europe &former Soviet
Union

Global warming is
not an urgent
environmental
problem

30

40

50

60

70

Unknown
90 (%)

80

Figure 7: Opinions about the Seriousness of Global Warming (2006)

The Kyoto Protocol took effect in February 2005. Figure 8 shows the results of how respondents evaluated the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. While an overwhelming majority of Japanese respondents indicated they evaluated the implementation of the treaty “favorably,” there was a small discrepancy, of 11 percentage points, among overseas respondents who evaluated the implementation of the treaty “favorably” fromthose who evaluated it “unfavorably.” Regional differences existed in the responses, with more respondents
from Oceania, Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union, and the United States and Canada, evaluating theimplementation “unfavorably” than those who evaluated it “favorably.”
Favorably

Unfavorably
64%

Total [N=709]

26%
85%

Japan [N=312]

13%

47%

Overseas Total [N=397]
Middle East [N=10]
Asian Four [N=30]
Africa [N=39]

51%

Latin America [N=32]

50%

36%

70%

30%

67%

33%
33%
13%

Western Europe [N=91]

49%

Rest of Asia [N=62]

44%

U.S.A. & Canada [N=65]
Eastern Europe & former
Soviet Union [N=42]
Ocenia [N=26]

42%

43%

40%

45%

38%
24%

31%

54%

Figure 8: Evaluation of Implementation of Kyoto Protocol (2005)
10

With the Kyoto Protocol going into effect, signatory countries are obligated to curb their emission ofgreenhouse gases. However, the road to meeting the objectives of the Protocol is an extremely difficult one; itis projected that the objectives will not be met with the implementation of emissions reduction measures andthe expansion of absorption quantities, and that it will be necessary to activate the Kyoto Mechanisms. In 1996,
the questionnaire asked the question, “Will developed countries be able to stabilize carbon emissions at 1990
levels by the year 2000?” As shown in Figure 9, a total of 54% of respondents selected either “Probably difficult to attain” or “Completely unattainable” then, indicating a critical view toward meeting the objectives evenin 1996.

Cannot comment 5%

No response 1%
Attainable

Completely unattainable
15%

15%

Partially attainable

25%
39%

Probably difficult
to attain

Figure 9: Developed Countries Achieving Carbon Emissions Target by 2000 (1996)

Table 9 shows the results of the question about an international framework to reduce greenhouse gases
after 2013, when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol comes to an end. Responses were divided
between “there should be an extension of the fundamental measures of the Kyoto Protocol,” and “a substantial
revision of the Kyoto Protocol is needed to address its numerous problems,” with many respondents from developed regions and other regions selecting the former, and many from developing regions selecting the latter.
Table 9: International Framework Beyond the Kyoto Protocol (2005)
s

s

n
io

n
io

g
Re

g
Re

There should be an extension of the fundamental
measures established in the Kyoto Protocol.
A substantial revision of the Kyoto Protocol isneeded to address its numerous problems.
A new framework that is completely separate
from the Kyoto Protocol should be developed.
No new framework should be established until atechnological solution is developed.

r

he

Ot

)

42

n(

io
Un

8) 3)
g
d
er ietin(49 (13
pe
m
p
v
r
o
)
s
)
l
o
o
)
s
fo S
el
97
(65 91ve
2)
on ione & (10) tal (3 egi Reg
da pe ( 30) Dev ca (3
De 2)
a
p
R
n uro r ()
1roast Toeri 9)Ca9)u
ed ing 8)
=3
)
(26 u
& ern E n Fo(N
62 n Am ca (3 nia ern E dle E seas elop elop r (7 l (70
.
(
n
t
r
e ta
t
a
A
a
i
a
i
v ev
d ve
s
.
A
s
i
e
t
r
h
i
e
p
e
s
f
a
t
o
S
c
a
o
D
M O
E
D
Ja
A
R
L
T
A
O
O
W
U.
(%)

43

29 41 43

23 34 23

23 40

50

33

41

26 36

37

37

38 33 30

29 38 44

31 24

20

33

36

35 26

35

12

23 14 17

6

6 10

27 12

0

14

14

8 15

13

3

3

9 10

29 13 18

4 14

10

13

4

22 10

8

Other

4

3

3

0

0

6

3

4

0

0

2

3

2

1

3

Unknown

2

3

0

0

13

3

3

12 10

20

5

2

8 12

4

Notes: Figures enclosed by a double circle represent the answer with the highest number of replies.
A single circle is used for the answer with the second highest number of replies.

11

Comments from Respondents
The following is a sampling of comments from respondents about global warming.
The US position regarding the Kyoto Protocol is a cause for concern and one hopes that allies of the US will be able topersuade her to adopt a more positive, constructive and cooperative approach for the good of humanity. The need for
closer cooperation between developed and developing countries and increased tangible financial and technical support todeveloping countries to build capacity and tackle the difficult problems we will all face is also a pressing concern.
Milton O. Haughton, Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism, BELIZE 268 (2003)
Forests in the tropics are carbon sinks. Developing countries should be assisted to establish more by developed countries
to combat global warming threatening humankind’s existence, now and in future.
Mr. Michael E. Sizomu-Kagolo, National Forestry Authority, UGANDA 300 (2005)
Climate change is a disease that has hit mother EARTH—like HIV-AIDS has humans. We don’t know the disease is worsening, we refuse to believe it, we have yet to find a cure, we don’t agree to a united change, and we rely on hope for ourcommon good. Entropy prevails unless we fight our very own environmental problems, which are ours domestically.
Mr. Peuianina Learai, Ministry Natural Resources, Env-Meteorology, SAMOA 222 (2006)
I constantly feel that the recent aberrations in weather and natural disasters are manifestations of the effects of global
warming. But I think that such recognition and a sense of crisis is lacking in society, which I question. It begs for moreaggressive publicity efforts and educational activities on the part of public institutions, educational institutions, and the
media.
Tsutomu Mizutani, Japan 195J (2006)
What efforts have the national and local government and citizens made in order to meet the greenhouse gas reduction
goals since Japan ratified the Kyoto Protocol? There were many people who welcomed the ratification of the protocol, but
it seems extremely difficult to meet the objectives. I surmise many people don’t even recognize what needs to be done inorder to meet those goals. We don’t even hear about specific recommendations to meet the goals from environmental experts who advocated loudly the ratification of the protocol. What does each individual citizen need to do in order to meetthe goals, and perhaps, we need to make some sacrifices and be ready to accept some inconveniences. Little time is left.
Relying on emissions trading is not a true answer.
Hiroshi Nasu, Japan 089J (2006)122.1.2 Energy Problems (Surveyed in 1998, 2000, 2003, and 2006)
Energy problems have an inextricable relationship to environmental problems, such as the intensifying of
global warming and the depletion of fossil fuels. Thus, the development and utilization of alternate sources ofenergy to replace fossil fuels is essential to environmental protection.
Table 10 shows the results of the question on the most effective source of alternate energy to replacefossil fuels in the country where the respondent resides. Results were tied among respondents from developed
regions, with 33% selecting “solar power” and 32% selecting “nuclear energy.” In contrast, whereas 42% of
respondents from developing regions selected “solar power,” only 7% of respondents selected “nuclear power,”which placed fourth after “hydraulic power” and “biomass,” reflecting recognition that nuclear power is not avery likely source of energy to replace fossil fuels there.
Table 10: Effective Energy Source to Replace Fossil Fuels (2006)

d
pe

s

on

gi

Re

g

n
pi

s

r

he

on

gi

Re

Ot

)

n
nio

(36

)
3)
lo
er et U
lo
63 11
ve
ve
) 0)
ormovi) ns (4 ns (
e
9
f
8
De
)
4
D
o
S
&
)
23
a ( (7(34 egio egi
pe
a(
7)
ad pe
(21 alR2) uro30 Can Euroric 7)
st Tot ed R ing 9) 5)
2
e
a
=
)
(
E
3
E
3 Am (
s op op5
N . & rn 7)
a
n
(7
(
a
5
i
e
r
(
e
l
a
s vel vel her tal (6an.A ste (3 oA atin fric cean aste
idd erR L
Jap U.S We A4
A
M Ov De De Ot To
O E

Nuclear energy

34 22 27 30

9

0

8

18 39 10 20 32

8

8

9

5

14

7 25 27Wind energy

6

Solar power

32 33 27 51 42 35 46 45 22 48 37 33 42 35 35

9

8

3 14

8

6

7

9

7

Biomass13

8 11

0 15 13 14

0 14 10 10 11 14

Hydraulic power

7

8 11

5 17 22 14

5

3

0 10

7 17

3

8

3

14

6

0

8

4

5

6

5

5 14 19

7

6

8 13

7

Other
Unknown

1 14 10

5

6

6

0

4 13 11

7

4

9

(%)

9 12

Notes: Figures enclosed by a double circle represent the answer with the highest number of replies.
A single circle is used for the answer with the second highest number of replies.

Figure 10 shows the results of the question on the supply of energy in their respective countries. Forty
five percent of respondents from developed regions stated the supply was “Excessive,” which, combined withthose who stated the supply was “appropriate,” totaled 84%. In contrast, 44% of respondents from developing
countries stated their energy supply was “deficient,” which, combined with an additional 23% who stated supply was “extremely deficient,” totaled two-thirds of the responses, revealing a contrast between the two regions.

It is extremely deficient (i.e., it is an
impediment for the economy)2%
It is deficient

Unknown
1% It is excessive2%
It is extremely deficient(i.e., it is an impediment
for the economy)

Unknown
1%

13%
It is
appropriate

23%

It is
excessive
45%

It is
appropriate
29%

It is deficient
44%

39%

Developed Regions[N=463]Developing Regions[N=113]Figure 10: Energy Supply (2006)
13

Figure 11 shows the results of what changes the respondents are prepared to make about their personalenergy consumption. Responses showed a strong determination to cut personal energy consumption levels.
Those stating they were prepared to reduce their personal energy consumption “to 20% less” or “to less thanhalf” of their current levels combined totaled more than 50% of respondents from all regions, including developed, developing, and all others. Respondents stating they would like an amount of energy comparable to current levels or more, by selecting “I would like a comparable amount,” “I would like to have two times moreenergy,” or “I would like to have 10 times more energy,” remained at 14% for developed regions. In contrast,
the percentage of respondents from developing regions was nearly three times higher, at 41%.

Desire current
levels or more

Unknown2%

14%Consumption can be cut
83%

Developed Regions[N=463]

Unknown
2%

Desirecurrent
levels ormore
41%

Consumption
can be cut
57%

Unknown
4%

Desirecurrent
levels or
more
32%

Developing Regions[N=113]

Consumption
can be cut
65%

Others[N=79]

Figure 11: Appetites for Personal Energy Consumption (2006)

Comments from Respondents
The following is a sampling of comments from respondents about energy.
For the purposes of conserving the global environment and securing sources of energy, I believe the world needs to proceed at the earliest opportunity to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy. Immediate utilization of existing
human knowledge and sense of responsibility is necessary to prevent the simultaneous occurrence of an environmental
disaster and energy shortage, a situation wherein human suffering cannot be overcome.

M. Kochi Prefecture, Japan 061J (2004)

Forms of energy that are gentler to the environment, such as solar power, wind power, temperature difference, and biomass should be more aggressively developed at an international level. We also need to rethink how we educate our children in that direction. The same can be said for food.

Minoru Yoneda, Executive Advisory Engineer, Earther Co., Ltd., Japan 024J (2005)

14

2.1.3 Population and Food Problems (Population Problems Surveyed from 1993 – 1995, Food Problems
Surveyed in 2005)
The world’s population, which was at 2.5 billion only half a century ago, more than doubled to 5.2 billion in
37 years, and has now reached 6.5 billion. If growth were to continue at this rate, the world’s population would
reach 9 billion by the year 2050, and significant effects to the global environment could be expected.
｀Table 11 shows the results of the questions on the effects of population growth. Respondents from all
regions except Japan selected “escalation of poverty” and “destruction of the natural environment” as the mostconcerning consequences of population growth. In contrast, respondents from Japan selected “food shortage”
as the most concerning effect, followed by “escalation of poverty.” On top of “escalation of poverty” and “destruction of the natural environment,” “proliferation of slums in urban areas” was cited comparatively frequently by respondents from developing regions.
Table 11: Consequences of Greatest Concern (2006) (%)

Escalation ofpoverty
Proliferation ofslums in urban
areas
Food shortage
Destruction of
the naturalenvironment
Air and watercontamination
Water shortage
Spreading of
epidemics
Decline ineconomic power
Other
Unknown

Eastern
U.S.A. Western Asian Rest of Latin
Europe & Middle Overseas
DevelopJapan&
Africa Oceania former
Total Developed
ing
Other
EuropeFour
Asia
America
East
Total
Regions
CanadaSovietRegions
Union
59

52

50

59

65

77

71

68

68

67

62

60

57

69

70

12

9

25

0

35

36

15

9

18

28

21

16

13

29

18

63

20

13

5

10

9

24

23

18

17

15

39

48

14

20

38

57

65

27

53

41

44

41

25

28

48

43

43

48

32

7

13

7

5

10

0

6

18

14

17

10

8

7

7

17

12

20

17

0

4

9

0

14

18

17

11

11

13

4

17

3

9

3

0

2

0

6

5

4

0

4

3

3

3

3

3

4

3

0

4

18

18

5

18

11

8

6

3

11

12

2
1

7
2

3
5

0
5

6
2

0
5

3
3

0
0

4
7

0
0

3
3

3
2

2
2

4
3

2
3

Note: Figures enclosed by a double circle represent the answer with the highest number of replies.
A single circle is used for the answer with the second highest number of replies.
Please note that the totals for the various regions should add up to 200% since repondents were asked to select 2 items. However, some respondents marked less than two items, causing the aggregate total to be less than 200%.

Figure 12 compares responses from developed and developing regions on the state of progress of measures to counter population growth. Responses showed opposite results. Four times as many respondents fromdeveloped regions stated no progress as those who reported progress, whereas twice as many respondents fromdeveloping regions indicated progress had been made as those who reported no progress.
Progress
Significant progress

No progressSome progress

1%
3%

52%

14%

Almost no progress

Developed Regions[N=463]Developing Regions[N=113]46%
16%

No progress
13%

7%

Figure 12: Progress of Measures (2006)

Population problems lead promptly to food problems, and in order to solve food problems, approaches
that incorporate both political strategies and scientific technology are essential.

15

Figures 13 and 14 show results of the questions examining political strategies and approaches based on
scientific technology, with regard to the solution of food shortage problems. As for opinions about politicalstrategies, a comparable percentage of respondents chose “the problem lies in over-consumption in developed
countries, and a goal should be established to curb consumption,” and “priority should be placed on population
control,” at 35 % and 34 % respectively.
Opinions on approaches based on scientific technology were divided. Nonetheless, the most frequently
cited response was “an international organization should be established to maximize effective land utilization,and developed countries should provide funds and technology,” followed by “biotechnology should be aggressively pursued to increase food production.”
Unknown
4%

The problem lies in over-consumption indeveloped countries, and a goal should beestablished to curb consumption

Other
Food production still has thecapacity to grow8%8%Education in both developed anddeveloping countries should encourage
the reduction of meat consumption

35%

11%

34%

Priority should be placed on population control

Figure 13: Political Strategies to Solve Food Problems (2005)
Unknown
Other
Establish international organization toprovide funds/technology to maximize
land utilization

5%
7%
26%

Increases cannot be expected throughtechnological innovations

18%

9%

Increase productivity by promoting
mechanization in developing countries

20%
15%

Increase food production by promoting
biotechnological methods

Increase agricultural productivity
researching multiple cropping

Figure 14: Technological Developments to Solve Food Problems (2005)

Comments from Respondents
The following is a sampling of comments from respondents about population problems.
The population pressure caused by the increasing populations in many countries (e.g., in Africa and in the Middle East,
but also in other countries) is a fundamental problem that causes most of the existing global environmental problems. By
taking wise and humane measures to stabilize the size of the population, at the national level, many environmental problems may be solved, and for sure will be easier to tackle. However, a huge problem that I see with any attempt to stabilize
the population of countries with increasing populations, is that it may require a drastically new approach and commitment
to this issue by the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions (and perhaps other religions too). Success to stabilize the national population could also address the opposite problem that has recently started to arise in some countries, which also
could have serious environmental implications, namely, the decline of the national population. The solution in both cases
is a change in life style. It goes without saying that such a change is extremely difficult to achieve, and in any case veryslow.
Dr. Michael Graber, Retiree, United Nations, ISRAEL 080 (2005)16

As the world’s population exceeds 6.5 billion and disparities emerge at a global scale, some say there would have to be
two more planet Earths, for a total of three, if all human beings are to equally have the same living standards as thoseprevailing in developed countries. Keeping this in mind, how we answer the question before all of us —“Can we be responsible for the state of the Earth in 100 years?”—is the essence of today’s environmental problems.
Hisashi Nitta, Japan 040J (2006)
The developed countries should help developing countries to control their population growth and provide them withenough funds to alleviate poverty, otherwise a severe crisis and unrest could happen that would destroy everything on thisplanet including the ordinary and normal life of the rich people. Unfortunately, the leaders of the rich people of the world
are blind to this threat.
Mr. Hamid, Managing Director, Management, Taravat Bahar Toos NGO, IRAN 265 (2005)

2.2 Environmental Problems and Their Priority—Local Environmental Problems
2.2.1 Waste Materials/Recycling (Surveyed in 2006)
When the 2005 questionnaire asked about local environmental problems requiring prioritization, respondents
from Japan, Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and the Middle East selected “waste
management and recycling” as the issue of highest priority.
Figure 15 shows the level of recycling activities in the countries surveyed. Respondents from most regions indicated that recycling has begun. Respondents from Western Europe had the highest rate of responses
for “recycling efforts are active,” at 34%, followed by Japan, at 21%. When combining the number of respondents who stated "recycling efforts are active," and "some efforts to recycle materials are in progress," the total
was close to 80% in Western Europe and Japan. Africa offered a different view, with 0% stating “recycling
efforts are active,” while “some efforts to recycle materials are in progress” also a mere 24%.

Recycling

No recycling

Recycling efforts are active Some efforts to recycle materials are in progress

All waste materials are thrown away
and there is no recycling
Japan[N=307]0%44%Western Europe[N=70]

0%

14%

38%

Asian Four
[N=37]

6%

40%

Rest of Asia
[N=53]

21%

56%
34%

0%
3%
0%

24%
39%
38%

Africa[N=37]
Eastern Europe &former Soviet Union[N=36]
Middle East
[N=21]

Figure 15: Levels of Recycling Activities (2006)

17

3%
19%
14%
8%
19%

Figure 16 shows the results of the questions on the state of progress of measures to counter waste problems. In most regions, there were more respondents who reported progress than those who stated progress had
not been made. An exception came from respondents in Africa, where respondents who stated progress had notbeen made far exceeded those who reported progress.
Progress

No progress

Significant progressSome progress

Almost no progress

3%

64%

Japan
[N=307]

11%

Western Europe[N=70]

61%
11%

4%

Asian Four
[N=37]

46%

Rest of Asia
[N=53]

58%
3%
58%

6%
0%

48%

Africa[N=37]

22%

Eastern Europe &former Soviet Union[N=36]
Middle East
[N=21]

No progress

9% 0%
10%

0%
0%

16%
23%

4%
38%

31%

3%
0%

38%

5%

Figure 16: Progress of Measures to Counter Waste Problems (2006)

Comments from Respondents
The following is a sampling of comments from respondents about waste materials/recycling.
In most African countries, the use of nonbiodegradable materials and pesticides without proper handling of the
toxic substances is very high. There is a pressing need to let the societies be aware of the outcomes of these
activities.

Mr. Leonard Jones Chauka, Institute of Marine Sciences, TANZANIA 043 (2006)

Oceania suffers from the global environmental impacts of industrialized countries, which pollute the air andthe sea with their chemicals. Climate change has caused massive sea-level rises, which has eroded small island
countries, and when the tide is low it is so low that the coral and water life is exposed to the sun.
Ms. Maria Kerslake, Dean, Faculty of Arts, Academic-Higher Institute, SAMOA 307 (2006)

18

2.2.2 Poverty (Surveyed in 2006)
Respondents from Africa and the “rest of Asia” cited poverty as the most pressing local environmental problem
requiring prioritization. It was also cited as the second highest priority among respondents from Latin America,
making poverty a local environmental problem across the developing region. Figure 17 shows the results of thequestion on the effects of poverty. Respondents from the rest of Asia and Latin America cited “poor living
environments” at 49% and 45% respectively as the most detrimental effect of poverty, whereas the most frequently cited effect in Africa was “famine and malnutrition,” at 41%, indicating a greater severity of the problem there.

Poor living environments
50%
40%

Unknown

Famine and malnutrition

30%
20%
10%
0%

Other

Rest of Asia [N=53]

Hindering economic
development

Latin America [N=23]
Africa [N=37]

Increases in crime
Figure 17: Detrimental Outcome of Poverty (2006)

The problem of poverty was also surveyed from a global perspective with respondents across all regions.
The following are the results comparing the responses from developed and developing regions. Figure 18
shows the results of the question on the future prospects of poverty. In developed regions, 47% of respondents
stated “poverty will worsen from the current situation,” surpassing the 25% who selected “significant improvements to the current situation are possible.” In contrast, 44% of respondents from developing regions selected“significant improvements to the current situation are possible,” which exceeded the 29% who stated “poverty
will worsen from the current situation, revealing a more optimistic perspective prevailing in developing regions
than in developed regions.
Significant improvements to the current
situation are possible
25%
44%

Poverty will worsen from the current situation
Developed Regions[N=463]Developing Regions[N=113]47%
29%

Figure 18: Future Prospects of Poverty (2006)

19

Further, Figure 19 shows the results of the questions about the measures to counter poverty. Four times
as many respondents from developed regions indicated there had been no progress compared to those whoreported progress. In contrast, responses were tied in developing regions, with respondents reporting progress
and the lack thereof each at 30%. Similarly, responses from the regions were divided on the question of progress of measures.
Progress
Significant progress

No progressSome progress

0%
3%

27%

15%

Almost no progress

Developed Regions[N=463]Developing Regions[N=113]52%
22%

No progress
12%

10%

Figure 19: Progress of Measures to Counter Poverty (2006)

Comments from Respondents
The following is a sampling of comments from respondents about poverty.
Without imaginative and effective programs to alleviate poverty, we cannot move forward in solving environmental problems in developing countries.
David P. S. Wasawo, University of Nairobi, KENYA 222 (2003)
In many African countries, forests provide basic needs including building materials, wood energy and employment avenues for households/community income. Political leaders should understand that “poverty is the cause and effect of deforestation”; hence, environmental education/awareness programs should be accompanied by opportunities for income
generating activities so that people stop looking at forests as the only viable source of livelihoods.
M. E. Sizomu-Kagolo, Forestry Department, UGANDA 409 (2003)
Environmental problems give rise to poverty. In Africa, particularly Ghana, there are many people living in poverty. They
have not been empowered to confront their poor status and they continue to degrade the environment. This is because theenvironment is their source of life; it is the wealth of the poor. The rich also degrade the environment but they are rich andcan find other sources for their livelihood. Empower the poor to confront their status and to use environmental resources
sustainably.
Mr. Redeemer Kowu, Director, Environmental Protection Agency, GHANA 236 (2006)
Although global environmental problems are an issue faced by all of mankind, I believe it will be difficult to resolve themunless the poverty in developing countries, particularly in Africa, is first alleviated. The problems of urban waste management and transportation, characteristic of developed countries, can be resolved by developed countries themselves where
financial resources abound and environmental awareness is high. On the other hand, although the problems within impoverished countries often spring from internal political causes, countries around the world need to aggressively support
nation-building efforts to allow these countries to sustain themselves economically. I believe it is important to build thebasis upon which developing countries will be able to pay heed to global environmental problems.
M., United Nations Environment Programme International Environmental Technology Centre, Japan 021J (2006)20

2.2.3 Urbanization/Transportation Problems (Surveyed in 2006)
Respondents from Western Europe, and the United States and Canada, cited “urbanization/transportation problems” as the most pressing local environmental problem requiring prioritization. The problem was also citedas having the second highest priority by respondents from Japan, Asian Four, Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union, and the Middle East.
Table 12 shows the results of the question on transportation problems requiring prioritization. Respondents from all regions most frequently cited “congestion and other transportation obstacles created by excessive concentration of automobiles” as the issue requiring prioritization, followed by “pollution caused bytransit vehicles,” cited by respondents from the Asian Four, Western Europe, and Japan. Whereas respondents
from the United States and Canada, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union often identified “insufficient/poor quality of public transportation and distribution infrastructure,” as the issue requiring
prioritization.
Table 12: Transportation Problems Requiring Prioritization (2006) (%)

Congestion and other obstacles to transportation createdby an excessive concentration of automobiles
Insufficient/poor quality of public transportation anddistribution infrastructure, e.g. networks of roads andrailways
Decline in convenience and comfort of public transportation due to overcrowded conditions
Environmental destruction, e.g. air and noise pollution
caused by transit vehicles
Frequent incidence of accidents and disasters caused byexcessive numbers of transportation vehicles
No transportation problems in particular
Other
Unknown

EasternEurope& Middle East
Asian Four
formerSoviet Union

Japan

U.S.A. &CanadaWesternEurope

75

57

66

59

53

43

33

78

46

24

64

71

17

10

10

11

8

14

46

31

57

78

36

24

13

2

6

14

25

14

1
6
1

0
10
2

0
4
4

0
0
0

0
6
0

0
5
5

Note: Figures enclosed by a double circle represent the answer with the highest number of replies.
A single circle is used for the answer with the second highest number of replies.
Please note that the totals for the various regions should add up to 200% since respondents were asked to select two items.
However, some respondents marked less than three items, causing the aggregate total to be less than 200%.

Table 13 shows the results of the question on the most pressing urban environmental problems requiring
prioritization. Each region has selected a different problem, revealing large differences with respect to the issues the regions face.
Table 13: Most Pressing Urban Environmental Problems (2006) (%)

Increase in waste
Air and noise pollution
Declining convenience and comfort caused bycongestion and overcrowded conditions
Disappearance of greenery and natural environments
Urban sprawl, and the deterioration of urban
environments with the spread of metropolitan areas
into suburbs
Maintenance of water supply, sewerage, andsanitation systems
Other
UnknownJapan

U.S.A. &CanadaWesternEuropeAsian Four

64
26

35
22

29
40

11
65

EasternEurope &former Soviet
Union
42
44

32

10

19

38

17

29

51

24

31

32

47

24

15

80

51

49

31

24

3

16

14

0

17

29

2
1

4
0

3
4

0
0

3
0

0
14

21

Middle East
38
24

In Closing
The Asahi Glass Foundation first conducted its survey “Questionnaire on Environmental Problems and theSurvival of Humankind” in 1992 and has continued to do so for the last fifteen years. It has attracted interestin Japan and overseas from the media, as well as newspapers and magazines specializing in environmental issues.
The survey’s questions on humanity in crisis, highlighted by its “Doomsday Clock,” have been prominently
featured in the media. The press also cites the survey’s findings on issues concerning individuals, such as lifestyle changes, and issues concerning nations, such as the Agenda 21 action plan. It appears the questionnaire
has come to be regarded as a reliable index of opinions on environmental topics.
The survey would not have been possible without the cooperation of the many respondents who have taken thetime to fill out the questionnaire, and to them we would like to express our sincere gratitude. Our gratitude also
goes to Professor Akio Morishima, who supervised the questionnaire’s formulation and administration for overten years and for his part in bringing it notability. In addition, we would like to thank the members of the media who have helped the questionnaire generate worldwide interest in environmental issues and their resolution.
The Asahi Glass Foundation is determined to continue conducting this survey to focus attention on the opinions of those working to solve environmental problems around the world.

22

2nd Floor, Science Plaza, 5-3, Yonbancho
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-0081, Japan
Tel.: +81 3 5275 0620 Fax: +81 3 5275 0871
E-Mail: post@af-info.or.jp
URL: http://www.af-info.or.jp
Printed on recycled paper