Environmental Responsibility Under Stress and War: The Commitment of Environmentally Engaged Individuals to Environmental Protection Decreases During Periods of Stress and War

Abstract

In recent years, awareness of environmental issues has grown significantly. This awareness is evident in the increase in academic research on this topic, social initiatives that focus on environmental issues, and programs promoting environmental literacy. At the same time, there is growing recognition of the accumulating environmental damage caused by individuals’ choices and habits and the threat this poses to ecosystems and sustainability. Numerous studies have explored various facets of environmental literacy to promote pro-environmental behavior, which is essential for tackling the environmental challenges of the 21st century. Over the past few decades, research in the social sciences has investigated the influence of war on crime and delinquency rates. Additionally, studies have measured the impacts of war, terrorism, and stress on mental health and social relationships. Ecological research has also examined the relationship between war and environmental degradation, highlighting the impact on ecosystems, infrastructure destruction, and the long-term environmental consequences. To the best of our knowledge, however, no research has examined how stress and war influence individuals’ sense of environmental responsibility. The aim of this qualitative research was to examine the influence of stress and war on both environmentally engaged individuals and those indifferent to the environment, focusing on their sense of environmental responsibility and its practical expressions. Twenty-four participants were categorized into two groups: environmentally engaged and environmentally indifferent. The findings indicate that the commitment of environmentally engaged individuals to environmental protection decreased during periods of stress and war. This decline can be attributed to more immediate concerns for survival. The participants reported that this change was temporary; as calm returned, their level of commitment reverted to its previous state. Among the environmentally indifferent, no change occurred in their level of commitment to environmental protection, which was consistently low before, during, and after situations of stress and war. Additional findings indicate that the social environment plays a crucial role in fostering environmental responsibility and protection. A supportive social environment has a positive influence on individuals, while indifference or opposition can harm their sense of environmental responsibility. Our research findings also suggest that both environmentally oriented and environmentally indifferent individuals primarily focus on recycling and waste separation when they refer to pro-environmental behavior.

1. Introduction

1.1. Environmental Responsibility

The 21st century is marked by a multitude of environmental challenges confronting humanity, alongside efforts to promote pro-environmental behavior [1].

In recent decades, many studies have sought to isolate the influential variables that lead to pro-environmental behavior [2]. Environmental behavior is complex and very difficult to define. Individuals behave differently in response to various environmental issues [3].

A recent study found a difference in perceptions between older adults and young people [4]. Young people view climate change as significantly more important than older adults. This younger cohort shows greater concern for the environment and possesses more environmental knowledge. These factors positively influence people’s pro-environmental behaviors.

In this context, it is important to clarify that when we refer to the concept of environmental responsibility, we mean the attitudes or perceptions of individuals that define their personal commitment to the issue. By environmental behavior, we refer to all the actions an individual performs or avoids to protect the environment.

1.2. Environmental Solidarity

Social solidarity is a sense of unity that reflects social bonds that connect people. It is one of the essential phenomena related to a person’s participation in the fabric of life around them, incorporating their ability to act for the benefit of others. The basis for social solidarity is a person’s ability to empathize with what others are going through. Social solidarity is often described as a collective group occurrence, intended to connect individuals for a purpose, for an idea, and for themselves [5]. Broadly, the concept relates to the collective responsibility of a group or society for the well-being of its members and the mutual support that exists within a community, based on the idea that a group or society is willing to be accountable for and committed to the needs of its individuals.

According to this perspective, the strength of a group or society is often measured by the intensity of its internal solidarity, that is, the extent to which the group is committed to its members and the degree of mutual support among them [6]. Solidarity is directed toward the community closest to an individual and is primarily based on a sense of “we.” It describes a person’s ability to act for the benefit of others who belong to their immediate community. Communities may be defined socially, culturally, or by values, identity, geography, history, and so forth [7].

Solidarity is based on an individual’s ability to understand, feel, and participate in what others are experiencing. Solidarity is a bridge that connects people and provides an infrastructure of security and partnership. The solidarity infrastructure can help someone in need alleviate feelings of pain and suffering. Solidarity exists within the community close to an individual, where closeness can extend beyond physical proximity. Closeness can also be based on a sense of belonging due to shared interests, needs, or identity. This solidarity is based on reciprocity, meaning a sense of mutual obligation between individuals [6]. Thus, the well-being of citizens in a shared society is enabled [8].

Through social communication, the individual develops to the point of receiving social recognition, which helps them build a positive identity grounded in emotional giving within close social relationships, as well as recognition of their abilities and achievements. This recognition serves as a source of self-esteem and fosters the development of solidarity [9]. Pfattheicher et al. found that compassion is positively associated with pro-environmental values and intentions [10]. Kormos and Gifford similarly suggested a connection between environmental responsibility, pro-environmental behavior, and a person’s identity and emotions [11].

1.3. Environmental Concern in Situations of Stress and War

Even in extreme situations, a person may continue to act for the sake of others. A political prisoner who survived nine months in a concentration camp reported that in life-threatening situations, a source of strength may arise from a deep shared fate with others who unite in a community and demonstrate solidarity toward one another. In such situations, community members act together in a spirit of mutual responsibility [5].

Two central, albeit opposing, theoretical approaches address the connection between the sense of security and the level of crime in a society. One theoretical perspective posits that a security threat fosters social cohesion and reduces internal conflicts, leading to a temporary decrease in crime levels. Once the threat subsides, the crime rate is expected to revert to its previous level. In contrast, Archer and Gartner suggested that loss and killing diminish the value of human life, which results in the legitimization of violent acts and their integration into societal reality [12]. Linsky et al. added that studies examining the impact of compromised security and other stressful circumstances on crime levels showed that violent crime and property crime are the primary responses to such stressful situations [13]. A study comparing the influence of stressful life events on crime in fifty US states found higher crime rates in states with elevated stress indicators [13]. Based on this, we also expect that situations of stress and war impact the level of social solidarity and its expressions in environmental protection.

War and terror impact society in various areas, creating a constant sense of insecurity and affecting crime rates. Studies show significant differences between tense periods and calm periods, indicating that terror and war correlate with increased violent crime [12]. Archer and Gartner demonstrated the connection between stress, war, and crime rates, suggesting that stress and war also affect other areas of life, such as environmental responsibility [12]. A recent study on the environmental impact of war found that enforcing environmental laws, particularly those related to pollution and environmental destruction, becomes challenging during wartime [14]. According to the researchers, one reason is that security needs take precedence, and environmental enforcement is considered a low-priority luxury. Security decisions prioritize survival over sustainability, and the article provided an important theoretical basis for research on environmental responsibility in crises, particularly regarding the decline in the enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. Social psychology theories may explain these mechanisms. For example, Hobfoll’s conservation of resources theory posits that humans strive to maintain, protect, and accumulate resources—material, emotional, social, and cognitive [15]. In stressful situations, individuals enter a “survival mode”, focused on self-protection, at the expense of communal or moral goals. Indeed, Hamama-Raz and Shinan-Altman found a decrease in concern for climate change among adults during an armed conflict [16]. The present study investigates the impact of stress and war on individuals’ environmental responsibility and its expressions. We hypothesize that during times of stress and war, an individual’s sense of environmental responsibility will decline, and their environmental activity will decrease, at least until normalcy returns.

2. Method

The present study is grounded in the principles of qualitative–constructivist research, specifically the phenomenological, narrative, and interpretive (hermeneutic) streams of inquiry.

2.1. Research Principles

Traditional phenomenological research is grounded in the principles of the qualitative–constructivist paradigm, characterized by its holistic approach to phenomena [17]. It focuses on exploring the fundamental meaning of human experience and concentrates on specific phenomena as they are perceived in an individual’s consciousness [18,19,20]. Phenomenological research views the reality under investigation as a set of interactions and examines the phenomenon holistically, striving to interpret it by reconstructing reality from participants’ perspectives [21]. The qualitative–phenomenological methodology aims to understand a phenomenon as subjective and relative to the worldview within which it is constructed. Therefore, individuals’ descriptions of their experiences and perceptions regarding the environment and the locus of control in environmental responsibility represent broad narrative data. The present study aims to investigate the impact of stressful situations and times of war on environmental responsibility. At its core, phenomenological research focuses on understanding individuals and their life experiences through their language, perspectives, and perceptions [21]. Even when changes are not consciously articulated, body language, the repeated use of certain words, tone of voice, and the general manner of the interviewee can be observed in phenomenological interviews. All these can indicate the impact of a situation on the sense of environmental responsibility.

This study’s participants lived for about one year in a multi-front war of varying intensity, under psychological pressure that led to a significant increase in post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety symptoms. About 42–44% of the population presented these symptoms, nearly double the rate before the war. Although some citizens evacuated their homes for safety reasons, the study participants were not required to do so and continued living in their original environment. Throughout the war, resource availability remained stable. Despite the overall increase in psychological symptoms caused by the war, the mental impact can only be fully assessed after the war [22].

2.2. Participants

This study included 24 adults situated along a spectrum of environmental responsibility, from complete disconnection at one end to full engagement at the other. Half of the participants were classified as environmentally engaged and half as environmentally indifferent. This classification was based on the functionalist theory of volunteering, which suggests that people volunteer for various psychological reasons. According to this theory, volunteering is not solely an altruistic act but also fulfills different needs for different individuals, and even for the same person at different times. The theory proposes six primary functions that volunteering can fulfill: values, understanding, social, career, ego-protective, and enhancement [23]. For grouping purposes, four of the categories were used. We examined the participants’ attitudes toward each of the four selected categories until a clear position was established. The participants who expressed a positive attitude toward all four categories were classified as environmentally engaged, while those who expressed neutral or negative attitudes toward all or some of the categories were classified as environmentally indifferent. For each category, we asked the following questions: Values—Do the participants express interest in sustainability values and environmental preservation? Understanding—Do the participants demonstrate knowledge about sustainability and environmental protection? Social—Do the participants have social connections within environmental communities and relationships with others interested in these issues? Ego-protective—Do the participants gain satisfaction from volunteering or participating in environmental initiatives? Those who responded positively were classified as environmentally engaged, while those who did not were considered environmentally indifferent.

First Group (N = 12): Environmentally engaged individuals. This group’s participants reported a broad inclination for environmental protection during routine times. This protective inclination was expressed through care for the environment and taking practical action, such as teaching and education, studying environmental issues and sustainability, and membership in organizations working to protect the environment.

Second Group (N = 12): Environmentally indifferent individuals. The participants in this group reported that during routine times, they do not have a broad inclination for environmental protection and do not personally act to promote the issue. However, they also do not actively oppose environmental protection. Their inclusion in this group was based on the impression that the topic was not close to their hearts and that they did not invest time or thought in promoting environmental protection.

Of the 24 participants in this study, 14 were women and 10 were men. All resided in urban environments. The participants varied in age, with the youngest being 18 and the oldest 59. We collected the participants’ demographic characteristics, including ethnicity, marital status, religiosity, education, income, and employment. However, no connection was found between any of these variables and the sense of environmental responsibility.

It is important to note that after conducting the interviews, it became clear that the participants who were indifferent about the environment did not definitively reject environmental responsibility; rather, they were not involved in any pro-environmental activity. Therefore, according to the research groups, we classified the environmentally indifferent participants as those who did not express particular interest in environmental protection and were not members of any initiative promoting environmental responsibility. The participants were classified into one of the two groups before the interviews began: environmentally engaged or environmentally indifferent. It should be emphasized that during the interviews, all the participants’ classifications matched the group to which they were assigned. The interview findings supported the participants’ self-classifications as environmentally engaged or indifferent.

2.3. Tools

Data were collected using semi-structured, in-depth interviews, which integrated guiding questions and open-ended questions (Appendix A). The interviews served as a primary research tool, allowing for the direct collection of information from the participants. This method enabled the interpretation of emotions, thoughts, intentions, and behaviors in the interviewees’ lives from their perspectives [24]. As mentioned, the chosen tool was a semi-structured, open-ended interview designed to facilitate data collection in a manner mimicking natural conversation, rather than a series of structured, formal questions. This approach encouraged the participants to share their stories and express their perspectives freely, with minimal intervention or direction from the interviewer [25,26].

2.4. Research Process

The study participants were citizens of a country that experienced civilian-front war conditions for over a year. They navigated their daily lives, shaped by these circumstances and engaged in basic protective actions, occasionally being instructed to seek shelter to ensure their safety.

All the participants were interviewed at least one year into the war situation; however, some experienced stressful situations of insecurity for an even longer period.

The participants were recruited through various methods. Some were reached through official bodies concerned with environmental protection, while others were contacted independently by acquaintances and friends. Some participants referred us to others, allowing us to recruit further participants through snowball sampling. We also contacted individuals through various WhatsApp groups. These methods enabled us to recruit the number of participants we aimed to include in this study. All interviews were analyzed to obtain the findings.

2.5. Data Collection, Analysis, and Coding

The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, following the principles of qualitative research. Qualitative content analysis is a systematic process of organizing and structuring information to interpret and understand the meanings that emerge from texts, interviews, and documents [27]. The analysis involves dividing the information into distinct parts, comparing them to identify similarities and differences, processing their meaning, grouping them into clusters of meaning, and organizing them into general categories and themes. In this study, the data collected throughout the research process were analyzed in relation to the participants’ perspectives. During the interviews, particular attention was devoted to understanding aspects related to the sense of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war. As the interviews progressed, additional categories emerged that were later analyzed.

The data collection process evolved during the interviews themselves, based on the participants’ responses. Although an interview guide was used, the conversations often branched into other topics beyond the environment. Throughout the interviews, a wealth of information was gathered, some of which initially appeared unclear or, in some cases, unrelated to the overall framework of this study, as the participants were given the freedom to express themselves on topics of their choosing.

After the interview phase was completed, all the interviews were organized according to the defined groups. We read each interview several times, noting the main, significant, and interesting topics that emerged. The participants referred to the sense of environmental responsibility during the interviews, and central categories began to emerge from themes that consistently recurred in conversations with the same group. In this process, we identified that many participants repeated several prominent expressions that reflected the views of others in similar positions; these were cataloged into meaningful content units, that is, into shared themes.

Nonetheless, to avoid premature conclusions, we refrained from finalizing the themes until more advanced stages of the analysis. During the analysis, we emphasized grouping similar data segments into the same information unit. Direct quotations from the interviewees were used to organize each information unit. In the categorization process, we sought to uncover the underlying meaning of the data, focusing on the essence of the experience as it pertained to most participants, to gain an understanding of both the common core and the unique aspects of the participants’ perspectives.

When analyzing the data, we sought overlapping similarities in the participants’ descriptions, with each quotation intended to support a particular idea. Each category represents the core of a phenomenon or perception, rather than the singular opinion of one participant. In the categorization process, we searched for words such as “affinity,” “environmental responsibility,” “environmental protection,” and “social solidarity.” In the final stage, we organized the various themes with similar conceptual bases into main categories.

2.6. Validity and Reliability

In this study, the term validity does not refer to its conventional quantitative research meaning. Instead, it describes how well the findings support the emerging theoretical argument and indicates whether the argument is well-grounded and backed by solid evidence [27]. In this study, the validity of the interviews was ensured by maintaining a chain of evidence for every step in the research process. This enabled us to check how well the themes represented the data provided by the participants. The Section 3 includes direct quotations from interviewees to assist readers in evaluating the interpretation, its accuracy, and its basis in the collected material. No linguistic changes were made to the interviewees’ statements. To strengthen the validity, three researchers analyzed the findings independently. Additionally, colleagues were consulted by presenting the data and obtaining their feedback on research validity. To ensure reliability, we provided a detailed description of the categories and criteria used to analyze the interviews, allowing readers to assess their plausibility.

3. Findings

The present study included two participant groups, categorized by level of concern for the environment: those who are environmentally engaged and those who are environmentally indifferent. We present the findings thematically, discussing both research groups within each theme. This approach was taken because the participants in both groups addressed the same topics, often presenting different perspectives on the same issues. Presenting the voices of both groups together helps to illustrate and substantiate the identified themes. We debated whether to present the findings separately for each group—providing a clear view of each group’s perspectives—or to combine the findings from both groups, organized by the themes we identified, which we ultimately chose. This decision was based on the significant similarity in the data from both groups. We believe that presenting the voices together better supports the conclusions in the Section 4. Additionally, organizing the results strictly by group and repeating the same themes in each would likely have been cumbersome for the reader.

We organized the interview findings into themes that were common to both groups. As part of our methods to ensure validity and reliability, we included selected quotes from the participants’ statements under each theme. Wherever a separate reference to the participants of one group was required, we addressed it separately. Nonetheless, we generally believe that presenting the findings according to themes shared by both groups best demonstrates their research applicability. Presenting the findings in this way also enabled us to summarize them in the Section 4 from an integrated and comprehensive perspective, providing the reader with a fuller understanding of the issue of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war.

We identified three central themes in the findings: the sense of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war (which includes three sub-themes), the social context of environmental responsibility, and the expressions of environmental responsibility in these situations. This section includes direct quotes from the participants. It should be noted that no changes were made to the participants’ words; however, in some cases, parts of the statements were omitted when they contained personal details that could potentially identify the participant. Additionally, when we determined that a specific part of a participant’s statement did not add meaningful support to the theme or main idea, we omitted it to provide a smoother and more concise reading of the findings. Any material omitted did not affect the understanding of the content or its relevance to the presented theme.

The findings are presented below, supported by interview excerpts. By organizing this section around the themes identified during analysis, we aimed to assist readers in connecting the reported findings to the corresponding conclusions. The results are summarized in

Table 1. Summary of conclusions.

Theme Number	Theme	Sub-Theme	Environmentally Inclined	Environmentally Indifferent
1	The sense of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war	Changes in the sense of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war	Significantly decreased in priority or ceased	Unchanged or decreased in priority
		Reasons for change in the sense of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war	Attention shifts to survival concerns	Attention shifts to survival concerns
		Consistency of change in the sense of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war	The sense of environmental responsibility will restore once routine resumes	The sense of environmental responsibility will remain low, as it was before the extraordinary situation
2	The social context of environmental responsibility		Positive influence of an environment that promotes and fosters environmental responsibility	Negative influence of an environment that neglects and hinders environmental responsibility
3	Expressions of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war		Environmental responsibility is primarily associated with recycling and keeping public spaces clean	Environmental responsibility is primarily associated with recycling and keeping public spaces clean

following the Section 4.

3.1. The Sense of Environmental Responsibility in Situations of Stress and War

The first and central theme concerns an individual’s sense of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war, which is the focus of the present study. The idea that stress and war affect social aspects is not new. As early as the 1950s, it was found that a country’s social and security conditions directly or indirectly influence youth involvement in crime [28,29,30]. Therefore, we hypothesize that stress and war also affect individual environmental responsibility and that varying levels of this responsibility are expressed in different situations.

3.2. Changes in the Sense of Environmental Responsibility in Situations of Stress and War

The first sub-theme addresses changes in environmental responsibility during times of stress and war. Regarding the environmentally engaged and indifferent participants in the present study, the findings indicate that in these situations, the environmental responsibility and concern of the environmentally engaged participants significantly decreased or even ceased, while that of the indifferent participants remained mostly unchanged.

One environmentally engaged participant stated the following: “I probably polluted more since the war began. I bought more things that I didn’t need, even though I am against unnecessary purchases. Also, regarding my purchasing habits, I preferred having items delivered rather than picking them up myself; in normal circumstances, I would think this a waste of paper and packaging that could be avoided. At the beginning of the war, there was some environmental conference abroad that I would have been very keen to hear more about if this were any other year, but during the war, it did not engage me.”

Another environmentally engaged participant stated the following: “War affects commitment to the issue, there is no doubt about it. Commitment to protecting the environment is much lower. The war made every other concern seem small in comparison, like nothing matters except one’s health. The environment is an issue that has been pushed aside because it is not an immediate, life-threatening situation. I would want to protect the environment, seriously, but it is less important; right now, my commitments are minimal.”

Regarding the environmentally indifferent participants, one stated the following: “The war did not affect me in terms of environmental concern; I was affected in various ways unrelated to that. I continued doing what little I had been doing before the war, mainly separating bottles. I do not think there is a connection between recycling and the current situation. Someone who doesn’t recycle daily won’t recycle during wartime. For me, there was no change. The issue is not on my mind, even though I now recognize its importance. Yes, it’s an important issue that does not receive enough attention, certainly not during wartime. Even before the war, there was not much awareness of the matter.”

A second environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “The war made me think about what I can contribute, where I can volunteer, but in the context of environmental protection, the war did not affect me, my behavior, and my habits did not change. The war affected me in other ways, obviously, it affected all of us one way or another, put everything into proportion, but it did not change anything regarding my connection to the environment. The environment was not a central concern for me before nor during the war.”

Another environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “I was not doing much before this whole situation began, and now the issue is even more neglected. I have not even thought about it. In such a state, any long-term issue is pushed aside and becomes less interesting. I believe this happened to most people, if not everyone. Even those who were very passionate probably pushed it aside. Personally, I feel no change with this ongoing situation, I was and remain completely indifferent to the issue.”

Finally, another environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “I do not see a connection between the war and protecting the environment. I continued to do everything I was doing before; nothing really changed. In war, people are in a state of panic, do not see the long term, and can forget how important it is. If there is a war going on and people are dying, then they do not think about what will happen to the environment in fifty years. People are concerned with what is happening now; it is hard to see the long term. Who cares about the environment when there is a war raging?”

3.3. Reasons for Changes in the Sense of Environmental Responsibility in Situations of Stress and War

The second sub-theme examines why environmental responsibility tends to diminish during periods of stress, such as war. This decline is largely associated with a heightened emphasis on immediate survival needs. The results suggest that this shift is temporary, as reduced commitment to environmental protection typically occurs only during times of crisis. It appears that individuals have limited emotional resources, with most of their emotional attention diverted to survival during such challenging periods.

For example, an environmentally oriented participant stated the following: “From my perspective, there were more urgent things to worry about, such as survival during wartime, even if this ultimately translates into a decrease in my sense of environmental responsibility. I was less patient regarding the environment as an issue. I think the environment is perceived, albeit incorrectly, as an issue that can wait–a medium- and long-term issue–whereas the war was something that required immediate attention, here and now. It felt a little less important; what felt more important to me was to make sure everyone around me was okay, to follow the course of the war. I became less expressive about anything not directly related to the war, such as culture, field trips, and leisure activities in general. It was not just environmental issues that dropped in priority, but every other unrelated issue as well, in one way or another.”

Another environmentally oriented participant stated the following: “If I could say that until now it was not high on people’s priority list, then now it has hit bottom. We are living through a terrible situation, so no one thinks about the environmental cost. Due to this situation, you reduce your commitment to the environment; there are other matters on the agenda.”

Regarding the environmentally indifferent participants, one stated the following: “The situation had a negative impact—it made environmental issues seem less important to me. Other things, like my very existence, became more of a priority than protecting the environment. It was a year focused on immediate survival. As long as this is our reality, the main concern is simply staying alive.”

A second environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “Because of the war, this abnormal situation, we regressed. More important things became the legitimate concern, and the environment was understandably neglected. Took a step back.”

Another environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “The war made it worse. Realizing that some things are much more important, like life itself. I completely disconnected from the issue. If before I did not feel engaged, now I was absolutely detached.”

3.4. Consistency of Change in the Sense of Environmental Responsibility in Situations of Stress and War

The third sub-theme concerns the consistency of changes in environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war. The participants noted that the changes in their perception of environmental protection in stressful and wartime situations were not permanent; therefore, the environmentally engaged individuals will likely regain their level of environmental concern after returning to their routines. However, the level of concern among the environmentally indifferent individuals is likely to remain unchanged, as it was initially low.

For example, one environmentally engaged participant stated the following: “As the war draws to an end, I find myself interested again in environmental issues and environmental protection. I have already picked up on some of the topics I neglected, regaining my level of interest, again following environmental developments and the agreements being signed. I went back to reusing plastic bags and taking a shopping trolley when I go to the supermarket. At the beginning of the war, I was afraid to leave the house, so I would order grocery deliveries to my door, which caused pollution from the packaging and transportation.”

Another environmentally engaged participant stated the following: “For me, it is a habit, it has not changed, but for others, there was likely an impact. At the beginning of the war, I believe there was a decrease in concern for the environment. However, as long as we learn how to live with the situation, I hope people will resume their activities from before the war and start recycling again. Maybe what seemed insignificant in the first months of the war can later regain people’s attention. When you no longer fear for your life and you can think about the big picture, the future of your children, the environment comes back to mind. But as long as there is a war on, who cares about the environment? It’s okay to think like that. As long as people fear for their lives, they will be less concerned with the environment; when calm returns and the quality of life improves, they will have time to worry about the environment.”

Regarding the environmentally indifferent participants, one stated the following: “In a few years, things may go back to the way they were. In any case, I remain indifferent to the issue, and I do not think that with or without the war I would relate any differently to the environment. It is either in your heart or not, regardless of the war.”

Another environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “Even after everything calms down, I don’t see anything changing in the future. Whatever I was already doing, like recycling, is the limit; I will not do more than that. I am positive that others behave in the same way. There are more urgent matters, and I think this topic is less important right now, not on people’s minds.”

3.5. The Social Context of Environmental Responsibility

The second theme addresses the social context that promotes environmental responsibility. This study’s findings indicate that the social context influences individuals’ sense of environmental responsibility both during periods of stress and war and in times of routine; therefore, we do not attribute the findings reported here exclusively to stressful or wartime situations. Dekker and Fischer [31] identified two types of social contexts that foster group motivation in learning processes: a cohesive social environment, where skills can be demonstrated and socially recognized, and an egalitarian environment, which supports the development of intrinsic motivation. The present study’s findings also indicate that the immediate social environment has a significant effect on an individual’s level of environmental responsibility. This principle works in both ways: a supportive environment that encourages environmental responsibility positively shapes one’s personal sense of responsibility, while a neglectful or discouraging environment has a negative impact.

For example, one environmentally engaged participant stated the following: “I believe that protecting the environment is a very important issue. I feel completely responsible for the environment in which I live, as do others around me. Environmental protection is a passive concept; I think we need to be active, that is, also on a national level. If you want environmental responsibility on a personal level, you need to cultivate environmental responsibility on a national level, to spark a deeper interest.”

A second environmentally engaged participant stated the following: “I live in a green neighborhood, which means that waste is not in bins on the street; it goes through an internal system, so there is an obligation to recycle. I am surrounded by environmental responsibility because I live in this green neighborhood, and it clearly affects me. If I had time, I would be willing to do more.”

Finally, a third environmentally engaged participant stated the following: “I think that concern for the environment is very important. I wouldn’t be able to be with people who don’t care about the environment. When they are into it, it draws me in too, it’s contagious.”

An environmentally oriented social setting has a positive influence on individuals in this respect, while an environmentally indifferent social setting discourages individuals and hinders pro-environmental behavior.

For example, an environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “If everyone says ‘little old me does not make a difference’, if everyone refuses to take personal responsibility, the world is not going to get any better. It is important that everyone becomes involved; that would help a lot. I have friends who have a kiddush with disposables and then throw everything in the trash because it is more convenient—fewer dishes and less mess. Make an effort, invest another half hour for the sake of the environment! This is a responsibility we all share for the planet. What is so complicated about washing dishes for half an hour?”

A second environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “Most people around me behave the same, my entire close environment. The only thing they do is separate bottles, and even that, not on a daily basis.”

Another environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “My social environment is similar; none of us recycle, and we have no connection to this issue of the environment. It may be an important topic, but it does not resonate with me. If there are no recycling bins nearby, why should I bother? My friends don’t either.”

3.6. Expressions of Environmental Responsibility in Situations of Stress and War

Expressions of environmental responsibility encompass various practices, including resource conservation, the use of renewable energy, recycling, waste reduction, sustainable transportation, and biodiversity protection. Efforts to enhance environmental awareness, participate in international treaties, and implement laws and regulations have also become vital components of this commitment [32]. Sustainability fosters connections between humans and nature, as well as among individuals, aiming to blend intelligence with emotions and knowledge through a multidimensional approach grounded in extensive, long-term understanding [33]. Despite advancements and the acknowledgment that humans and the environment function as an Earth system, necessitating careful preservation of the planet’s resources to avoid harm, [34] the predominant commitment among the participants to environmental protection is recycling. Notably, our analysis revealed no significant differences in this theme between routine circumstances and those of stress and war, indicating that recycling is the primary means by which the participants express their environmental commitment.

For example, one environmentally oriented participant stated the following: “In my house, everyone uses a reusable bottle; this is the main thing we do to protect the environment. In some instances, we donate items we no longer use instead of throwing them away; we give them to those in need. I am somewhere in the middle, the average, I care, but it doesn’t disrupt my daily routine. It’s not all I do on a daily basis, but if I see litter on the ground, I’ll pick it up, especially when I’m out in nature. You wouldn’t believe how much trash people leave behind.”

A second environmentally oriented participant stated the following: “We recycle at home; there are three separate bins. From a young age, we always have. We don’t use disposables at home, we all recycle. We have a bin for packaging, a glass bin, a bin for cardboard, and a regular trash bin for anything that doesn’t fit into one of the other bins.”

Finally, a third environmentally oriented participant stated the following: “You could say that I am environmentally inclined; I recycle. I worked on a project in high school where we reorganized the entire recycling system. We noticed that even people who normally recycle sometimes throw everything in the trash when they’re unsure where a piece of waste should go. For example, if a piece of plastic waste is even slightly dirty, they throw it away in the general bin. So, we set out to improve efficiency and taught others how to recycle; we did a lot for the environment.”

Regarding the environmentally indifferent participants, one stated the following: “I am not environmentally inclined, even though you could say it is an important issue. I do not recycle. As part of service learning, I once collaborated on a joint project with Taiwan to raise environmental awareness between countries. Each side prepared a presentation about what environmental protection means to them. I don’t recycle, but I try to reduce my consumption proactively. It’s important to me. I just refill my reusable bottle.”

A second environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “The topic is not of interest for me; it’s a distant concern. I’m busy with my day-to-day life, my leisure time, and my livelihood. The environment is a topic pushed aside. I have never been in touch with it. At home, I set aside bottles and recycle them if I get to it, but I wouldn’t make an extra effort just to take them to the recycling bin. In short, the topic is very far from me.”

Finally, a third environmentally indifferent participant stated the following: “The topic does not concern me and does not interest me. At home, we recycle bottles by collecting them and giving them to our cousins, who then return them to get the deposit. The point is for them to learn how to manage their finances, giving them a sense of responsibility. So, we store the bottles over the week, and when they come by, we hand over the bundles for them to recycle.”

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Several studies have examined the connection between wars and their impact on the environment from ecological perspectives [35]. Some surprisingly note that military conflicts may be beneficial to the environment, at least in the short term and under certain conditions [36]. The present study focused on the attitudes of individuals regarding environmental responsibility during times of stress and war, examining both environmentally engaged and indifferent participants. The emphasis was on participants’ subjective perceptions of changes in their sense of environmental responsibility. The findings presented here reinforce the idea that situations of stress and war harm the sense of environmental responsibility. This effect was observed among environmentally engaged individuals, and to a lesser degree among those indifferent to environmental issues, as their level of environmental responsibility was already low.

Numerous studies have highlighted the environmental impact of human activities, [37] and many have acknowledged the interrelationships with the economy, society, politics, and the environment. These studies encourage individuals to acquire knowledge, values, awareness, commitment, and skills necessary to protect and preserve the environment [38,39]. Although these publications effectively acknowledge that situational factors influence an individual’s attitudes toward the environment, the present study is the first to investigate the impact of stress and war situations on an individual’s sense of environmental responsibility. Three central themes emerged in the results: the sense of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war, the social context of environmental responsibility, and the expressions of environmental responsibility in situations of stress and war. The findings indicate that during such crises, the commitment of environmentally engaged individuals temporarily decreased, though it is expected to be restored once the crisis has passed. Meanwhile, the commitment level of environmentally indifferent individuals remained low, despite the possibility that it might increase alongside other aspects of social solidarity in response to the crisis.

The participants attributed their declining commitment to environmental protection to a shift in focus toward survival concerns. The findings suggest that psychological resources are finite, and during times of stress and war, these resources are directed toward maintaining personal resilience.

A study by Goldman, Ben Zvi Assaraf, and Shaharabani examined the impact of informal education programs on the development of environmental literacy among middle school students [40]. Their research focused on an environmental education program implemented in schools by an external conservation organization, which introduced ecological concepts and provided tools to enhance students’ sense of efficacy in taking environmental action. Although the program’s contribution to fostering environmental responsibility was limited, the students demonstrated increased sensitivity to human impact on the environment and developed a more environmentally oriented worldview. However, when the students were required to make personal financial trade-offs, their willingness to do so remained limited and unchanged. These conclusions again align with the findings of the present study regarding individuals’ finite resources. When faced with personal economic compromises or the need to allocate emotional resources to other challenges, commitment to the environment often diminishes.

Nonetheless, while the environmentally engaged participants exhibited a decrease in commitment during stress and war, this decline appears to be temporary. As stability returns, their commitment levels are likely to revert to previous standards. Among those indifferent to environmental issues, the level of commitment is expected to remain low, similar to that before the onset of stress and war.

This study’s findings highlight the social context of environmental responsibility. When the social environment encourages and supports environmental responsibility, individuals are positively influenced and are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behavior. Conversely, when the social environment discourages or neglects environmental responsibility, individuals are negatively affected and tend to reject pro-environmental actions.

A recent study by Kirbiš found that parents of adolescents play a crucial role in shaping pro-environmental attitudes [41]. Tamar et al. argued that environmental education should focus on strengthening collective responsibility toward the environment, rather than strictly on behavioral change, which has not yet yielded the expected results in developing environmental responsibility [42]. All of the above reinforce our conclusion that a supportive social context, including its intergenerational aspect, significantly contributes to the development of environmental responsibility.

The present study indicates that the average person’s expressions of environmental responsibility are limited, primarily associating such responsibility with recycling waste and keeping public spaces clean. Addressing the complex environmental challenges facing humanity necessitates broad environmental literacy [1] and fostering pro-environmental behavior rooted in a sense of responsibility, rather than merely modifying individual habits [43]. According to Arnon et al., a lack of awareness, interest, and involvement is an obstacle to sustainability [44]. They argued that promoting sustainability requires sparking students’ interest in environmental issues and emphasized that exposure to environmental literacy should include a wide range of its expressions. They also highlighted that environmental literacy is not a binary state, but rather a continuum, progressing from low to high levels, which aligns with our present findings that both the environmentally oriented and indifferent participants largely focused on limited, practical aspects of environmental commitment.

Environmental education encompasses any educational effort, whether conducted within or outside the school setting, that seeks to impart knowledge about the physical and human social environment. Its purpose is to foster care and respect for the environment, society, and individuals, while also developing skills to take action. The concept emerged in the 1960s, during an era of social and environmental awakening in the Western world, establishing a crucial connection between environmental degradation and education for environmental responsibility as a response [45]. We believe that diversifying expressions of environmental responsibility is vital for the future of environmental education. As Stapp et al. stated, such education seeks to foster a society where individuals are informed about environmental challenges, recognize possible solutions, and are inspired to take action to address those challenges [46].

These findings suggest significant practical applications, particularly regarding educational initiatives. Programs should aim to enhance the environmental solidarity that exists notwithstanding security, economic, or psychological crises. By firmly anchoring this solidarity, it becomes more independent of external pressures. Additionally, the research highlights the need for resilient environmental systems within community institutions. Resilient structures like these must remain operational and generally available during times of war and stress, regardless of fluctuations in individual solidarity.

It is difficult to generalize the findings of this qualitative study, partly because of the relatively small number of participants overall and within each group. Nevertheless, the data collected from the interviews appeared to show the effects of stress and war on people’s environmental behavior. We also recognize that some participants may have reported changes in their environmental responsibility due to social desirability or for other reasons. To minimize the potential influence of social desirability bias, we explained the research context and data collection process at the beginning of each interview to discourage the participants from trying to please the researcher. The interviews were conducted after clarifying that there were no correct or expected answers, and the participants were assured of complete anonymity, which likely reduced the chance of researcher-pleasing behavior. The fact that the participants also expressed indifference toward environmental responsibility suggests that their responses were not motivated by a desire to satisfy the researchers. As mentioned in the Section 2, three researchers analyzed the data to verify the consistency of the findings. Although the potential for social desirability bias exists, as in any qualitative study, several methodological steps were implemented to minimize it, and the results do not suggest its systematic presence.

The findings are rooted in a specific local context, where residents experienced over a year of prolonged civilian-front war conditions that caused significant psychological stress and a persistent feeling of insecurity. This situation encouraged a societal focus on immediate crisis management, which led to a decline in environmental commitment due to the prioritization of security needs. Recognizing that environmental responsibility and the challenges of conflict vary culturally and geographically, and understanding that other global regions also face the effects of war, the general applicability of these qualitative findings is limited. However, this study is innovative and unprecedented because it is the first to explicitly examine the link between stress, war, and an individual’s sense of environmental responsibility. This foundational work provides important groundwork for future research. We recommend that future studies carefully explore cultural and geographical differences by conducting additional research in various settings to better understand how stress and war shape perceptions of environmental responsibility.

The present study examined the impact of stress and war on the sense of environmental responsibility by dividing the participants into groups of environmentally oriented and indifferent individuals. Despite this study’s limitations and sample size, it represents an important initial step toward understanding the phenomenon. Future research can gain further insight by examining how such conditions influence a group’s collective sense of environmental responsibility. A valuable follow-up study can quantitatively examine the impact of stress and war on environmental responsibility, enabling future research to evaluate the degree to which these factors affect environmental commitment. Furthermore, the present study included only adult participants aged 18 and older; expanding this study to include adolescents may yield additional findings, as stress and war presumably affect different age groups in various ways.