A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN DISSERTATION. the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate. School of The Ohio State University

Transcription

1 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee: Professor Kazimierz M. Slomczynski, Adviser Professor Edward M. Crenshaw Professor Pamela M. Paxton Approved by Adviser Sociology Graduate Program

2 ABSTRACT Although environmental issues are widely considered to be pressing social problems across national contexts, researchers have not developed an adequate understanding of the processes influencing the formation of environmental concern, the relative explanatory power of individual-level and contextual-level forces, and the extent to which similarities or differences can be noted across countries with this respect. In my dissertation, I address these issues in a cross-national study of the social forces influencing environmental concern. I am interested in uncovering similarities and differences within and between countries in environmental concern noted globally in recent years. To address these issues, I use data from a cross-national study that includes twenty countries (ISSP Environment Module) and apply appropriate methodological techniques, structural equation modeling and hierarchical linear modeling in particular. Results indicate striking similarities across countries with regard to the effects of social structure and social psychological predictors. Education, knowledge, and having a biospheric (environment-centered) orientation increase general environmental concern, pro-environmental behavioral intentions, and activism. Extending these results to an investigation of the relationships among general environmental concern, proenvironmental behavioral intentions, and environmental activism again points to some consistencies across countries in the pathways to environmental activism. Results point to strikingly similar general trends: that pro-environmental attitudes influence intended ii

3 behaviors and activism in many cases, that intentions often translate into political actions, and that efficacy is important to consider in explanations that seek to address the attitudebehavior nexus. The effects of individual-level variables, noted in previous research, largely work through other variables. The role of contextual influences receives some support, as the effects of political and economic arrangements influence the relationships of the individual-level variables on environmental concern. In general, my dissertation contributes to the growing literature on environmentalism as a global phenomenon and to research on democratization processes and environmental issues cross-nationally. I consider my dissertation to be the first step in a larger project in the social sciences that seeks to understand the sources of environmental concern and support for environmental policies in order to describe relationships among individual-level and contextual-level factors as responses to environmental conditions. iii

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have been fortunate to work with a number of outstanding scholars at The Ohio State University. Maciek Slomczynski, Ed Crenshaw, and Pam Paxton have each instilled in me a commitment to excellence in scholarship. I first wish to thank my adviser, Maciek Slomczynski, for his intellectual support and encouragement of this dissertation, as well as for his sense of humor during times when it was most needed. Maciek s support of independent scholarship is extraordinary and his dedication to quality research unmatched. I would like to thank Ed Crenshaw for his unwavering enthusiasm about what makes good social science. His critical insights and conceptual challenges were crucial in my graduate studies and undoubtedly improved the quality of my dissertation. I would also like to thank Pam Paxton who has had an indelible impression on my development as a researcher and scholar. Pam s passion for social science is amazing, her energy unfaltering, and her commitment to excellence unparalleled. She has been a key influence methodologically as well as conceptually and always had time to discuss issues that emerged during the completion of my dissertation. I would also like to thank my husband, Pat, for his support of my graduate studies and for insights into my work. Pat demonstrated incredible patience throughout this process. I also wish to acknowledge the support of my family members my parents, siblings, and grandparents who, despite being convinced that I would always be in iv

5 school, nevertheless encouraged my selected route. Thanks to my family for keepin it real. My mom deserves special recognition for rescheduling various occasions and holidays in order to accommodate my dissertation work. Finally, I would like to thank my dog, Kodiak, without whose persistence I would not have taken breaks every now and then. v

6 VITA March 13, 1971 Born Madison, Wisconsin B.A. English Literature, Miami University. B.S. English Education, Miami University Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University M.A. Sociology, The Ohio State University Graduate Teaching Associate and Independent Instructor, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University Independent Instructor, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University Presidential Fellow, Graduate School, The Ohio State University. PUBLICATIONS 1. Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra T A Cross-National Investigation of Deforestation, Debt, State Fiscal Capacity, and the Environmental Kuznets Curve. International Journal of Sociology 34(1): Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra Measuring Environmental Concern Across Countries, in the 17 th Annual Hayes Research Forum Proceedings. Columbus, OH: Council of Graduate Students. 3. Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra How the Public Evaluates the Political and Economic System: Past, Present and Future in the Social Consciousness, in Social Structure: Changes and Linkages, edited by Kazimierz M. Slomczynski. Warsaw: IfiS Publishers. vi

7 4. Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra Mental Adjustment to the Post-Communist System in Poland by Kazimierz M. Slomczynski, with Krystyna Janicka, Bogdan W. Mach, and Wojciech Zaborowski. Sisyphus 13-14: Major Field: Sociology FIELD OF STUDY vii

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii Page Abstract ii Acknowledgments.. iv Vita..vi List of Figures.xi Chapters: 1. Introduction Defining Environmental Concern....4 Environmental Concern Within Sociology Previous Research on Environmental Concern Plan of my Dissertation Theories of Environmental Concern.. 11 Frameworks for Explaining Environmental Concern Socio-demographic Predictors of Environmental Concern...14 Value-Based Research Part One The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Approach.. 20 Postmaterialism and Postmaterialist Values.. 21 Value-Based Research Part Two...23 Norm-Activation Approach The Value Orientation Perspective The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)...33 Explaining Environmental Concern.. 34 Endnotes Data, Measurement, and Methods Data Description and Characteristics: Individual-Level Data...43 Missing Data Environmental Concern: Establishing Functional Equivalence of Measurement Confirmatory Factor Analysis..47 General Environmental Concern..49 Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions Pro-Environmental Actions

9 Country Differences in Environmental Concern...62 Individual-level Predictors of Environmental Concern. 65 External Weights for Survey Data Socio-demographic Variables Social Structure Covariates Social Psychological Predictors Path Model Analyses Data Description and Characteristics: Country-Level Data Hierarchical Linear Modeling: Considering Multiple Levels of Data One-Way ANOVA with Random Effects One-Way ANCOVA with Random Effects The Random-Coefficients Regression Model Slopes-As-Outcomes Model Endnotes Socio-demographic, Social Structural, and Social Psychological Sources of Environmental Concern Defining Environmental Concern...91 Sources of Environmental Concern: The Influence of Social Structure Socio-demographic Sources of Environmental Concern Social Psychological Sources Research Hypotheses.. 99 Data, Measurement, and Methods.. 99 Results Part One: Environmental Concern By Country Regression Results for General Environmental Concern By Country.103 Regression Results for Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions and Political Activism By Country..106 Results Part Two: Pooled Models.111 Discussion Conclusion Path Model Analysis of the Sources of Environmental Activism Path Model Analysis of Environmental Concern. 121 Explaining Environmental Actions: The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). 122 The Theory of Reasoned Action..122 The Theory of Planned Behavior. 124 Data, Measurement, and Methods Pathways to Environmental Activism. 129 Results of Path Model Analyses..130 Discussion Conclusion Endnotes..143 iii

10 6. Cross-Country Variation in Environmental Concern: A Multilevel Modeling Approach Hierarchical Data Structures. 145 Multilevel Research on Environmentalism Data, Measurement, and Methods Results Random Coefficient Regression Models Slopes-as-Outcomes Models Discussion and Conclusion Conclusion Methodology and Previous Research on Environmental Concern Explaining Differences Within Countries in the Sources of Environmental Concern Similarities and Differences in the Pathways to Environmental Activism Multilevel Modeling: Cross-Country Variation Directions for Future Research 179 Bibliography 183 Appendix A. Figures and Tables..195 Appendix B. Additional Methodological Considerations..242 iv

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Competing Paradigms Related to Environmental Concern Theory of Reasoned Action Abbreviated Theory of Planned Behavior Theoretical Model of Environmental Concern ISSP 2000 Data: Comparisons of Samples, Questionnaires, and Sampling Information Frequencies for Environmental Concern Items for the Common Model Frequency Distributions for Environmental Concern Questionnaire Items for Twenty Countries Measurement Model of General Environmental Concern Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for General Environmental Concern for Common (Pooled) and Country-Specific Models Measurement Model of Pro-Environmental Intentions Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions for Common and Country-Specific Models Measurement Model of Environmental Activism Confirmatory Factory Analysis Results of Pro-Environmental Actions for Common and Country-Specific Models Correlations Between Common and Country-Specific Latent Variables. 212 v

12 15. One-Way ANOVA Results for Environmental Concern Measures Descriptive Statistics for Demographic, Social Structure, and Social Psychological Predictors for Common (pooled) Models and Twenty Countries (Country-Specific) Correlations for Age, Education, and Income with Environmental Concern Measures Pooled and By Country Correlations Between Measures of Environmental Concern as Latent Constructs Regression Results for Social Structure and Social Psychological Predictors of Environmental Concern by Country Regression Results for Social Structure and Social Psychological Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions by Country Regression Results for Social Structure and Social Psychological Predictors of Environmental Activism by Country Regression Results for Environmental Concern for Pooled Sample Pathways to Environmental Activism in West Germany Path Model Coefficients by Country Bivariate Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Country-Level Variables One-Way ANCOVA with Random Effects Models: Regression of Environmental Concern On Individual-level Variables Random Coefficient Models for the Individual-Level Variables on Environmental Concern Slopes as Outcomes: Country Differences in the Effect of Education on Environmental Concern Slopes as Outcomes: Country Differences in the Effect of Age on Environmental Concern Slopes as Outcomes: Country Differences in the Effect of Biocentric Value Orientation on Environmental Concern vi

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Recent research demonstrates a growing recognition that environmental issues are of enduring sociological significance. Industrial growth leads to environmental degradation such as pollution, urban expansion and congestion, and increased consumption of material goods. The global expansion of capitalist growth and resulting processes of social differentiation and environmental degradation are central issues for sociological research. As rates of consumption increase around the globe, environmental issues like pollution and waste production are emerging as pressing social problems for governments and international organizations. However, these issues are not often theoretically linked with environmentalism, which advocates preserving or improving the natural environment through altering environmentally damaging human activities. A major reason for condoning the links between environmental issues and environmental concern is the absence of cross-national research examining the social forces underlying these processes. There is thus something of a theoretical impasse environmental concern is a global phenomenon, but is not adequately explained with existing theoretical frameworks. While scholars have identified key individual characteristics that influence environmental concern, the cross-national comparability of these forces has not been rigorously assessed within the framework of comparative 1

14 research in the social sciences. In addition to individual-level phenomena, structural (i.e. country-level) processes have also been advanced as influential in explaining the emergence of environmental concern, yet are not often empirically assessed as potential causal influences. This conventional wisdom approach, simply stated, asserts that affluent nations, and by extension, individuals within these nations, express greater environmental concern. These formulations often rely on one-country studies to buttress these claims, with cross-national studies offering some support. Thus, we have not developed an adequate understanding of processes influencing the formation of environmental concern, the relative explanatory power of individual-level and contextuallevel forces, and the extent to which similarities or differences can be noted across countries in accounting for these relationships. My dissertation seeks to uncover some of these relationships, relying fundamentally on a comparative framework and data from twenty countries to accomplish this task. Theoretically, I investigate socio-demographic, social structural, and social psychological sources of environmental concern in order to establish whether there are similarities or differences across twenty countries with regard to within-country sources of variation. Following recent work, I define environmental concern broadly, as the degree to which people are aware of problems regarding the environment and support efforts to solve them and/or willingness to contribute personally to their solution (Dunlap and Jones 2002). As a reflection of its broad conceptualization in the literature, I consider three different measures of environmental concern general ecological consciousness, pro-environmental behavioral intentions, and environmentally-relevant political activism. Relying on theories of social learning, value orientation, and rational 2

15 action, I formulate and test a series of hypotheses that predicts similarities across countries with regard to the expression of environmental concern (i.e. how it can be measured), yet differences in the social forces influencing it. I then address the issue of pathways to environmental concern, expressed as political activism, where I find considerable cross-national similarities in how environmental attitudes and proenvironmental behavioral intentions translate into actions geared toward the environment. After investigating these relationships at the individual-level and uncovering within country sources of variation, I explore contextual factors as influences on environmental concern and the individual-level forces driving environmental concern. Beyond theoretical difficulties apparent in cross-national studies, methodological limitations of existing research further impedes our understanding of the social forces underlying environmental concern. Thus, a major task of my dissertation is to address these issues by using appropriate methodological techniques and a comparative framework, which contributes to our understanding of cross-national similarities and differences in the sources and consequences related to environmental concern. I use structural equation modeling (i.e. confirmatory factor analysis and path model analysis) in uncovering similarities and differences in the effects of individual-level influences in a sample of twenty countries. I use hierarchical linear modeling techniques to examine how contextual variables lead to country differences in the effects of these individuallevel variables on environmental concern and country differences in environmental concern. My dissertation seeks to understand similarities and differences across countries in the sources of environmental concern. The analyses focuses on individuals embedded 3

16 within different social contexts, and how national-level factors affect the level and sources of environmental concern. My dissertation will contribute to the growing literature on environmentalism as a global phenomenon and to research on democratization processes and environmental issues in a cross-national setting. I consider my dissertation to be the first step in a larger project in the social sciences that seeks to understand the sources of environmental concern and support for environmental policies in order to describe relationships among individual-level and contextual-level factors as responses to environmental conditions. Identifying links between environmental concern and democracy at the level of mass public values permits an investigation of how internalizing democratic norms can foster an active public, create democratic citizens, and affect the policy-making process. Defining Environmental Concern Environmentalism is widely regarded as a belief about the connection between humans and the physical environment, in particular advocating the preservation or improvement of the natural environment through altering environmentally harmful human activities. As noted earlier, in defining environmental concern, I draw from a recent work that proposes the following definition, where environmental concern can be considered as the degree to which people are aware of problems regarding the environment and support efforts to solve them and/or willingness to contribute personally to their solution (Dunlap and Jones 2002). This definition encompasses a range of attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behaviors that can be construed as environmental concern. Examples include agreeing that environmental issues are important to address, recycling, expressed willingness to pay higher prices for consumer goods if part of the 4

17 proceeds go to environmental protection efforts, being a member of an environmental organization, and signing a petition pertaining to an environmental issue. Environmental Concern Within Sociology Within the social sciences, and particularly, sociology, research on environmental issues has expanded remarkably since the first Earth Day in Environmentalism was considered a major topical subfield within environmental sociology for those interested in understanding the genesis of the environmental movement and the degree to which public opinion underlies the success of their programs or endeavors. Much of the credit for this is due to the development of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) (Catton and Dunlap 1978). As a pivotal construct in the inception of environmental sociology as a subfield of sociological inquiry, the NEP has had long-standing effects on how environmental sociologists study environmental concern. Originally formulated to demonstrate how the core of sociology, and especially the foundational readings (Durkheim, Marx, Weber), effectively glossed over the impact society has on the natural environment, the NEP has been theoretically and empirically scrutinized in scores of studies (see Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, and Jones 2000 for a review). Catton and Dunlap (1978) contend that traditional sociology focused on understanding the relations of modern society and their impacts on individuals, which they labeled the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP), but did not necessarily then demonstrate a simultaneous concern with understanding human impacts on the biophysical environment. A summary of propositions of the NEP, contrasted with the DSP, is shown in Figure 1. In brief, their approach suggests that broad-scale attitudinal 5

18 changes are emerging, with individuals rejecting the idea that human society exists apart from the biophysical environment. Previous Research on Environmental Concern Cross-national research on environmental concern constitutes an emerging area of inquiry within environmental sociology. Early on, investigations were hampered by the limited availability of data for addressing issues of theoretical importance. Originally consisting only of general publics in Western, advanced industrial countries, recent surveys have expanded substantially and now include countries in all geographic regions of the globe (Inglehart 1999; ISSP 2003). Initial investigations of these cross-national surveys pointed to an unexpected result namely, that environmental concern was not restricted to general publics in advanced industrial nations in Western Europe and North America, for example, as previously suggested in what has been called the conventional wisdom approach (Inglehart 1977, 1990). In seeking to explain this anomaly, researchers recast the conventional wisdom approach as an affluence hypothesis, and explored how national wealth influences environmental concern. Though research findings are largely unsupportive of this conventional wisdom approach, primarily as a function of data limitations, the issue of whether environmentalism might be considered a cross-national phenomenon has been recast as the subjective values/objective conditions thesis (Brechin and Kempton 1994, 1997; Dunlap and Mertig 1995; Inglehart 1995; Kidd and Lee 1997). In brief, while on the one hand, environmental concern might be the result of value change in some contexts and therefore subjective, in other contexts its roots are likely harsh, objective environmental conditions like water and air pollution. Subsequent empirical explorations of this framework, however, do not provide definitive evidence 6

19 largely because cross-national applications are limited and in only a few cases considers surveys of general populations (Diekmann and Franzen 1999; Franzen 2003; Kemmelmeier, Krol and Kim 2002). Further, there are methodological limitations inherent in these investigations. Our understanding of the social forces underlying environmental concern, therefore, is not only limited but decidedly one-sided. My dissertation thus attempts to overcome the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of previous research in a comprehensive investigation of the sources of environmental concern that includes twenty countries and appropriate methodological techniques for addressing issues of comparability across national contexts. An assessment of within-country variation is important for understanding how social structure influences the genesis of environmental concern, while translating that into a between-country framework provides a different way of addressing the question of whether or not the underpinnings of environmental concern in fact resonate across national contexts. Certain stages are thus necessary in this research. I first consider common models to investigate similarities and differences in the sources of environmental concern, considered as three separate measures, to potentially elucidate general patterns affecting attitudes, intended behaviors, and actions. Identifying general patterns is an essential first step to facilitate cross-national comparison. I consider both within and between country variation, in terms of similarities and differences, in environmental concern in chapters 4 and 5, utilizing appropriate methodologies and techniques to accomplish this task. This foundation sets the stage for multilevel analyses seeking to uncover contextual forces influencing environmental concern within and between countries, the topic of chapter 6. 7

20 Social science perspectives generally and sociological frameworks specifically serve as an important foundation for research examining the relationship between democracy and the environment. With careful attention to the level of interaction, these perspectives are able to specify the nature of the relationship between societies and the biophysical environment, and include explorations of organizations and individuals embedded within social structures. As an extension of this framework, my dissertation focuses on individuals embedded within different social contexts, and how national-level factors affect the level, sources, and consequences of environmentalism. My dissertation research seeks to make the nature of these relations more explicit across a diverse sample of democracies, including both established and newer democracies. My dissertation will contribute to the growing literature on environmentalism as a global phenomenon and to research on democratization processes and environmental issues across countries. Plan of my Dissertation I discuss the theoretical frameworks that inform my dissertation research in chapter 2. I classify existing research into two broad camps: largely atheoretical studies and those that seek to incorporate social psychological theories that rely on value-based explanations. Social learning and value orientation frameworks inform my research on the sources of environmental concern. Rational choice approaches, especially the theory of reasoned action and its corollary, the theory of planned behavior, inform my research that seeks to explain pathways to environmental activism. Finally, political economy approaches inform my investigation of contextual forces influencing environmental concern. 8

21 In chapter three, I provide an overview of the data utilized in analyses presented here, including individual-level data, which form the core of the analyses in chapters four, five and six, and country-level data, which are integral components of chapter six. I include background information regarding structural equation modeling (e.g. path model analysis) and hierarchical linear modeling. I also discuss the importance of using multiple levels of data in cross-national, comparative research, like that undertaken in my dissertation. In chapter 4, I examine the relative influence of socio-demographic, social structural and social psychological sources of environmental concern in twenty countries, with attention to both within country and between country variation. I present results from analyses that consider countries separately (i.e. focusing on within-country variation) with respect to three measures of environmental concern. I also examine variation among countries in a series of pooled regressions as a baseline for establishing differences between countries in environmental concern. Building on results presented in chapter 4, in chapter 5 I consider a path model that addresses relationships among socio-demographic, social structural, social psychological, and attitudinal and behavioral aspects of environmental concern. Specifying the relationships between these aspects of environmental concern relies on a long tradition in social psychological scholarship on the attitude-behavior nexus. This chapter of my dissertation provide the first cross-national assessment of environmental concern relying on the framework of the theory of reasoned action and its corollary, the theory of planned behavior. 9

22 In chapter 6, I build on earlier chapters and shift the focus to contextual forces as possible sources of variation between countries in environmental concern. Multilevel modeling techniques are used in an exploratory framework that relies on political economy approaches in uncovering structural factors driving environmental concern. Finally, in chapter 7, I provide a summary of previous chapters, discussing the results from analyses presented within each of them. I then discuss the implications and limitations of my findings. I conclude by providing suggestions for future research. 10

23 CHAPTER 2 THEORIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN In this chapter, I provide a general overview of the literature on environmentalism, with particular attention to studies that seek to identify the sources of environmental concern. I first classify the literature on environmental concern following the pattern widely acknowledged in environmental research a division into indicatorbased, largely atheoretical research and an emerging line of inquiry relying on the social psychological literature on values. I then move to a discussion of comparative research on environmental concern that drives my dissertation research. In reviewing the diverse literature on environmentalism, significant gaps in our existing knowledge of the social forces underlying environmental concern can be discerned. For example, our knowledge of mass publics perspectives is limited and decidedly one-sided, as most cross-national studies consider only Western, industrialized countries. In addition, few studies consider environmental concern as multidimensional in order to more adequately reflect how these attitudes, intentions, and actions cluster together. By most accounts, environmental concern is defined broadly, as anything from supporting the notion that modern life harms the environment, to being a member of an environmental group, to recycling. Empirical investigations often focus on a subset of these issues, and typically have an even narrower focus, such as energy conservation, 11

24 buying organic produce or engaging in an environmental protest. The emergence of global environmentalism in recent decades necessitates a comprehensive assessment of environmental concern: one that considers a range of countries and a range of ecological attitudes and behaviors. The current state of research suggests that general publics around the globe demonstrate concern for the environment, yet reasons for this trend have not been rigorously examined (i.e. using standards from the comparative tradition in social science research). Therefore, as it stands currently, we cannot be certain whether the sources of environmental concern that have been identified at the individual-level, such as age and education, have similar effects across countries. Further, explanations for why these relationships exist, if they in fact do, have also not been advanced through systematic investigations of public opinion surveys that include a sufficiently broad range of countries. To date, researchers suggest that global environmentalism exists, but results from qualitatively different sources: as a result of subjective values in industrialized countries, and due to harsh, objective environmental conditions in industrializing or nonindustrialized countries (Brechin and Kempton 1994, 1997; Inglehart 1995; Kidd and Lee 1997). This theoretical stance implies causation at multiple levels, including regionaland country-level factors in addition to individual-level factors. Typically, however, research focuses on one level of analysis (i.e. either the individual or the country-level), though recent research demonstrates a recognition to include multiple levels of analysis. To develop an understanding of environmental concern, cross-national research that seeks to identify similarities and differences among countries is essential, as are investigations that include both micro-and macro sources of variation in order to 12

25 appropriately consider how social contexts influence certain individual-level outcomes. Understanding individuals actions requires a consideration of contextual forces potentially shaping behaviors in addition to attitudes, beliefs, and intentions. Frameworks for Explaining Environmental Concern General consensus on the driving forces of environmentalism, even after more than thirty years of empirical research, is not yet apparent. Cross-national comparisons regarding environmentalism as a universal value are especially limited. Though there are a number of reasons for this, including the wide disciplinary appeal of environmental topics, a glaring critique is that research on environmentalism has been atheoretical and, as a result, not cumulative (Stern and Oskamp 1987; Dunlap and Jones 2002; Heberlein 1981). In attempting to uncover the social bases of environmental concern, studies focused on either on demographic sources or social psychological foundations of environmentalism (Dietz, Stern and Guagnano, 1998; Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig and Jones, 2000). Though studies overall point to mixed results, it is generally accepted that age, education, sex, political ideology, and postmaterialist values stand out as predictors, particularly of studies conducted of the U.S. general population. In this section, I first provide a brief assessment of indicator-based research on environmentalism, with particular attention to age, education, and knowledge. In the next section, I discuss theoretical frameworks for explaining environmental concern: the new ecological paradigm framework (Catton and Dunlap 1978) and theory of postmaterialist values (Inglehart 1990, 1997), the norm-activation approach (Schwartz 1977,1992) and value 13

26 orientation framework (Stern and Dietz 1994; Stern et al. 1998), the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1980), and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991). Socio-demographic Predictors of Environmental Concern Socio-demographic indicators have received considerable attention in research exploring the genesis of environmental concern. While age and education stand out as the most consistent predictors, research has also investigated income, place of residence, and sex, along with measures of political ideology like liberalism and postmaterialist value orientation. In general, though certainly not without caveats, research demonstrates that more highly educated, younger, and female respondents, and individuals exhibiting postmaterialist and liberal (or egalitarian) ideals tend to express more pro-environmental attitudes and engage in fewer environmentally damaging behaviors (Dunlap and Jones 2002). In this section, I highlight three of these: position in the social structure (education and income), age, and knowledge. Prior research investigating the relationship between stratification position and environmental concern emphasizes education, with some attention to income. The proposed relationship between environmental concern and education is positive, with higher levels of education leading to greater expressed concern for the environment. Underlying research exploring this relationship is the idea that educational systems impart principles that either directly lead to or indirectly foster concern for the environment. In this sense, concern for the environment is learned, akin to explanations underlying social learning theory (Bandura 1969; Sniderman 1975). Educational systems socialize individuals, instilling norms and values, which can include, for example, environmental awareness. 14

27 Education is also proposed to influence individuals psychological attributes, essentially making them more open to new ideas and values, including postmaterialism and, correspondingly, environmentalism. As an extension of Allport s (1954) contact hypothesis, students, through interaction with other individuals, come into contact with diverse ideas, perspectives, values, and worldviews that may in fact differ remarkably from their own. The influence of education likely extends to other aspects of social life, including those encompassing environmental concern as considered here (i.e. broad attitudes, intended behaviors, and environmentally-motivated political activism). Guber (2003) provides the following explanation: higher levels of education increase cognitive skills and support an awareness of public affairs, both of which give individuals a greater interest in and ability to comprehend complex environmental problems. Respondents with higher levels of education also seem better able to translate concern into effective action because of the availability of resources, the likelihood of organizational affiliation, or a heightened sense of personal and political efficacy (73). Income, as a second component of stratification position, has also been advanced as a source of environmental concern, though the precise nature of the relationship has not been explained in considerable detail. Income is often considered as another dimension of social class that is entangled in discussions of postmaterialist values. Relying on resource-based explanations, simply stated, lower-income individuals are more likely to be preoccupied with obtaining material needs and are thus less likely to be concerned with environmental issues. This relationship is posited to hold across a range of general environmental attitudes, behavioral intentions, and environmentally-relevant actions. With regard to specific issues, such as pollution or health threats in local 15

28 communities, the relationship between income and environmental concern is likely to be less pronounced. That is, class-based awareness and activism are evident in some facets of the environmental movement (i.e. environmental justice), which could produce a nonsignificant effect of income on environmental concern, depending on the issue being addressed. The influence of age on environmental concern, like that of education, has links to theories of value change and opinion formation, including Inglehart s (1977, 1990, 1997) postmaterialist perspective. As noted previously, age has been identified as one of the more consistent predictors of environmental concern (along with education) (Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach. 1998). A few explanations have been advanced, including an integration hypothesis, a cohort effect, and an intercohort replacement process. An integration hypothesis posits that environmental issues may be more salient for younger individuals because they may be less integrated into the existing social order and respond more favorably when confronted with issues that threaten existing patterns of social organization (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). The cohort explanation suggests that individuals who share certain life experiences, such as socialization during a period of heightened environmental awareness or economic prosperity, will be more apt to express similar views, like concern for the environment (Hays 1987; Inglehart 1977, 1990, 1997). Others contend that both a period effect and an intercohort replacement process contribute to a growth in environmental concern in the United States (Kanagy, Humphrey and Firebaugh 1994). The natural aging of a population that had environmental values instilled at a young age, which is asserted in a broad sense within general publics of Western advanced industrialized countries in Western Europe and North America, is 16

29 another possibility. Such a cohort replacement process could be apparent in studies where an effect of age on environmental concern is absent. However, many age-specific effects cannot be discerned in cross-sectional investigations, such as that undertaken in my dissertation research. The general expectation that knowledge about environmental issues will lead to higher levels of environmental concern has received mixed results in research to date. Overall, studies suggest that scientific and environmental knowledge is limited among mass publics (Bord, O Connor and Fisher 2000; Dunlap 1998; Hunter and Brehm 2003; Kempton 1993; Kempton et al, 1995; Stamm, Clark and Eblacas 2000), and, in addition, exhibits quite remarkable cross-national inaccuracies and differences (Brechin 2003; Smith 1996a, 1996b). Some evidence of inaccuracy regarding the causes of global warming has also been noted across countries (Brechin 2003), which reinforces earlier assessments of the lack of accurate knowledge about global environmental issues among the general public (Bord, O Connor and Fisher 2000; Dunlap 1998; Hunter and Brehm 2003; Kempton 1993; Kempton et al, 1995; Smith 1996a, 1996b; Stamm, Clark and Eblacas 2000). Knowledge has also been recognized as a potential mediator between attitudes and behavior, serving in some instances to spur actions and in others as a barrier to performing certain behaviors (Stern 1992; Simmons and Widmar 1990). A brief note regarding gender is warranted here because it is included in analyses in my dissertation. Stern et al. (2002), in seeking to uncover gender differences in value orientation, determined that there were small gender differences in value structure.of little substantive importance (360). Similarly, Blocker and Eckberg (1997) put forth that, While there appear to be a few gender differences in environmental orientations, 17

30 these are not strong or consistent, and they do not extend to actions (841). Findings regarding gender are therefore considered to be inconclusive. The most compelling explanation that has been empirically assessed regarding the inconclusive results of research on environmental concern deals specifically with methodological underpinnings that motivate my dissertation research. That is, the predictive power of the same demographic variables differed when different measures of environmental concern were considered as dependent variables. Using a core set of eight demographic variables (age, education, gender, ethnicity, household income, size of town, political ideology, and religiosity), Klineberg et al. (1998) examined their influence on four measures of environmental concern: the first considered trade-offs related to economic costs and government intervention; the second, assessments of pollution; the third, three pro-environmental behaviors; and the fourth, an ecological worldview, or what is also commonly referred to as the NEP. Taken as a whole, results show that education (+) and age (-) are the most consistent predictors of environmental concern, with more highly educated and younger respondents exhibiting both greater concern for the environment and higher willingness to engage in pro-environmental actions. In terms of other demographic variables, the patterns are more inconsistent, though some general patterns can be discerned between demographic measures and the content of the question (i.e. political ideology for questions that involve government intervention, size of town for local environmental quality, income for willingness to pay questions). 1 Interestingly, Klineberg et al. (1998) note no definitive patterns for ethnicity, religiosity and gender with regard to the type of question begin posed. As they conclude, data reported here show that it really does make a difference how environmental 18

31 concern is measured (Klineberg et al. 1998:752). Their findings echo a summary statement from Gardner and Stern (1996), which states as follows, It has been suggested that younger, more educated individuals with liberal political ideologies living in urban areas are the most environmentally concerned. However, such a statement must be made with great caution. The relationships between socio-demographic factors and environmental concern are generally weak. (56) The common explanation for this trend is that environmental concern is increasing among all segments of the population, thereby producing attenuated or no effect of sociodemographic predictors on environmental concern (Frannson and Gaerling 1999; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). Thus, from previous research it is imperative to account for the sociodemographic and social structural bases of environmental concern. For comparative research like that conducted in my dissertation, establishing these factors as predictors serves as springboard for additional investigations. It essentially provides a baseline in order to facilitate cross-national comparisons. Value-Based Research Part One: The New Ecological Paradigm and Postmaterialism Though widely considered to be atheoretical, socio-demographic and social structural factors previously addressed in studies of environmental concern have implicit and explicit links to the theoretical frameworks discussed in this section. In this section, I discuss the following theoretical frameworks for explaining environmental concern: the new ecological paradigm framework (Catton and Dunlap 1978) and theory of postmaterialist values (Inglehart 1990, 1997), the norm-activation approach (Schwartz 1977, 1992) and value orientation framework (Dietz and Stern 1994; Stern, Dietz and Guagnano 1998), and the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1980) and the 19

32 theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991). I have paired them in order to demonstrate their conceptual linkages. The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Approach Environmentalism is widely associated with the acceptance of the new ecological paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap et al. 2000; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980, 1981). At its core, the NEP approach suggests that broad-scale attitudinal change is emerging, with individuals rejecting the idea that human society exists apart from the biophysical environment (Catton and Dunlap 1978). A summary of the NEP compared with the dominant social paradigm (DSP), or the predominant ideology that explains how modern societies view the natural world, is provided in Figure 1. Though originally advanced as a theoretical framework, research on the NEP has primarily centered on how as a scale it captures a sense of environmental concern or ecocentrism, as one way in which humans view their interdependence with nature. The NEP has broad implications, therefore, beyond its theoretical importance within environmental sociology, as a methodological tool. This scale (and a number of approximations) has been incorporated in countless studies of environmental concern in recent years. Broadly, the NEP consists of three components tapping environmental concern: balance of nature, limits to growth, and human exceptionalism. 2 There are theoretical and empirical links with regard to indicator-based research previously discussed. For example, individuals who endorse the NEP scale tend to be younger, less authoritarian, more educated, liberal, and have greater environmental knowledge (Dunlap et al. 2000). Until recently, due to the limited availability of large, cross-national survey data on environmental issues (addressed in more detail in chapter six), empirical investigations of 20

33 the NEP scale had been largely confined to the United States. Recent assessments of the NEP outside of the US have examined Canada (Edgell and Nowell 1989), Sweden (Gooch 1995; Widegren 1998), the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia (Gooch 1995), Turkey (Furman 1998), Japan (Pierce et al. 1987), Russia (Dalton et al. 1999), and Brazil and Mexico (Bechtel, Verdugo and Pinheiro 1999). Dekker et al. (1997), Schultz and Zelezny (1999), and Weaver (2002) consider modified versions of the NEP in crossnational investigations of eighteen, fourteen and five countries. 3 Widespread application of this measure calls attention to the scale s consistency over the past two and a half decades and serves as a preliminary basis for uncovering cross-national patterns in the sources of environmental concern (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap et al., 2000). 4 Postmaterialism and Postmaterialist Values A related approach utilizes Inglehart s (1978, 1990, 1997) theory of postmaterialism in examining the distribution of pro-environmental attitudes (Dalton, Gontmacher, Lovrich and Pierce 1999; Dunlap and Mertig 1995; Inglehart 1995; Kidd and Lee 1997). This theory of intergenerational value change (e.g. the postmaterialist theory) argues that generations growing up in the post WWII decades of prosperity experienced conditions where postmaterial values such as belonging, self-expression, and intellectual and aesthetic satisfaction became more of a focus than physical and material security concerns. Essentially, younger cohorts will have higher levels of postmaterialism because they were born into and socialized during a period of economic prosperity (Inglehart 1990, 1997). Having material security during one s formative years enables individuals to move beyond a preoccupation with material needs and move higher up the hierarchy of needs (Maslow 1954) to concerns related to self-actualization. 21

34 This affluence hypothesis proposes that basic needs like economic security must be met before populations can be concerned with environmental quality. In support of this proposition, Inglehart (1995) notes that more affluent countries tend to have higher postmaterialism and, correspondingly, higher expressed support for environmental protection. Subjective values thus influence environmental concern. Subsequent studies both extend and challenge this postmaterialism thesis, seeking to account for relative explanatory power of subjective values and objective conditions in fostering pro-environmental sentiment. Proponents of the subjective values/objective conditions thesis note that while mass support for environmental protection is evident in both advanced industrial and industrializing nations, it tends to be greatest in countries that have severe objective environmental problems like high levels of water and air pollution (Inglehart 1995). Subjective values then influence support for environmental protection independently of environmental dangers like air and water pollution. Seeking to move beyond this objective-subjective framework, Brechin and Kempton (1994) offer potential explanations for the failure of conventional wisdom to explain widespread environmental concern around the globe. In poor countries specifically, environmental values and environmental movements could be the result of concerns with environmental justice and related protest, mass media channels diffusing pro-environmental sentiment, direct experience with environmental problems, and a materialist shift in environmentalism itself (Brechin and Kempton 1994). Essentially, environmental concern is growing globally largely independent of value change in a strict postmaterialist framework (i.e. affluence during the formative years of socialization) (Brechin 1999; Brechin and Kempton 1994, 1997). 22