A multidimensional analysis of public environmental concern in Canada.
Zhou, Min
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IS recognized as one of the top
challenges facing the world today (IPCC 2007; UNDP 2010; World Bank
2010). In Canada, environmental issues have drawn considerable public
attention. (1) Recent surveys indicate that 26.5 percent of Canadians
view environmental degradation as the most or second most serious
problem in today's world and that 70.6 percent of Canadians state
that environmental protection is more important than economic growth
(WVS 2009). (2) Moreover, 66.0 percent of Canadians think that the
government is paying too little attention to the environment (ARPO
2010). This public concern for the environment is important as it
provides a much-needed first step toward better environmental protection
(Dietz, Dan, and Shwom 2007; Leiserowitz, Kates, and Parris 2006;
McCright and Dunlap 2011). As Giddens (2009) has noted, policies
designed to solve environmental problems are unlikely to work
effectively unless they enjoy broad public support.
A wealth of cross-national research shows that environmental
concern is rooted in a complex combination of social, economic,
ecological, political, and demographic factors (Brechin 1999; Brechin
and Kempton 1994, 1997; Diekmann and Franzen 1999; Dietz, Stern, and
Guagnano 1998; Dunlap and Jones 2002; Dunlap and Mertig 1995, 1997;
Dunlap and York 2008; Franzen 2003; Franzen and Meyer 2010; Gelissen
2007; Haller and Hadler 2008; Hayes 2001; Jones and Dunlap 1992;
Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998; Knight and Messer 2012;
Marquart-Pyatt 2012; Xiao and Dunlap 2007). Still, although considerable
attention has been given to cross-national differences in environmental
concern, few such studies exist on the Canadian case. The exceptions
have focused on environmental activism (McFarlane and Hunt 2006;
Tindall, Davies, and Mauboules 2003), on specific environmental behavior
(Kennedy et al. 2009), on a single province (McFarlane and Hunt 2006;
Tindall, Davies, and Mauboules 2003), on a single geographic area (Wall
1995a, 1995b), or are limited to group comparisons such as urban-rural
differences (Huddart-Kennedy et al. 2009) and ethnical group differences
(Deng, Walker, and Swinnerton 2006). In contrast, this study
systematically examines a wealth of factors associated with
Canadians' environmental concerns, including affluence, local and
global environmental degradation, education, consumption of mass media,
political orientation, gender, and age.
Moreover, in this study I treat environmental concern as
multifaceted and examine several specific dimensions of this concept
(Daniels et al. 2012; Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998).
Previous research has tended to both conceptualize environmental concern
as a single dimension and to assume that a diverse variety of measures
can be used to operationalize that dimension. Researchers' tendency
to apply omnibus measures and term various types of perceptions as
environmental concern has frequently resulted in misspecification of
models. Different dimensions within environmental concern may be related
to various factors in different ways. For instance, Diekmann and Franzen
(1999) in a cross-national study find that wealth and awareness of
environmental threat are negatively correlated, whereas willingness to
sacrifice personally to protect the environment is positively associated
with wealth. The contradictory findings in the existing literature
partly arise from this measurement problem, which "hinders the
process of the cumulative development of scientific knowledge"
(Ferraro and LaGrange 1987:70). Using the Canadian segment of the 2006
World Values Survey (WVS) data, I examine four dimensions of
environmental concern--environmental threat awareness, priority of
environmental protection, willingness to pay for environmental
protection, and participation in environmental organizations. I consider
how key social, economic, ecological, political, and demographic factors
shape these aspects of environmental concern in Canada.
THE CORRELATES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
In this section, I review the literature on the correlates of
environmental concern. Although I specify hypotheses about environmental
concern as a general concept, in the analyses I test how it could
reflect four different outcomes. The correlates of environmental concern
can be roughly grouped into five groups denoting economic (affluence),
ecological (local and global environmental degradation), social
(education and consumption of mass media), political (political
orientation), and demographic (gender and age) characteristics.
Affluence
The level of environmental concern has long been assumed to be
higher among those with more income (Diekmann and Franzen 1999; Franzen
2003; Franzen and Meyer 2010; Jones and Dunlap 1992; Klineberg,
McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998). This affluence argument is consistent
with the postmaterialist thesis developed by Inglehart (1990, 1995,
1997). Those with more wealth are able to value postmaterialist values
such as self-expression, individual rights, and quality of life rather
than worrying about material economic and physical security.
Environmental concern is often cited as a key example of postmaterialism
(Inglehart 1995) because with economic security citizens are then able
to shift their attention to the quality of the environment. Affluent
citizens display more pro-environmental attitudes because of this shift
from materialist to postmaterialist values.
H1: Income has a positive effect on the level of environmental
concern in Canada.
Local Environmental Degradation
A typical "challenge-response" model suggests that direct
experience of environmental problems triggers environmental concern.
Citizens become concerned about the environment when they perceive
deleterious effects of environmental degradation in their surroundings
(Brechin and Kempton 1994; Dunlap and Mertig 1995; Franzen 2003; Knight
and Messer 2012; Marquart-Pyatt 2012). Some environmental problems are
perceived more directly than others. In general, a cleavage can be
observed between local and global environmental degradation. For
instance, local water and air pollution are more directly felt than
global problems, such as global warming and biodiversity loss. Because
local environmental degradation is often directly experienced,
environmental concern is therefore affected by the perception of local
environmental problems.
H2: Perceived local environmental degradation has a positive effect
on the level of environmental concern in Canada.
Interaction between Affluence and Local Environmental Degradation
Inglehart (1995, 1997) formulates the "objective problems and
subjective values" (OPSV) thesis in order to bridge the affluence
thesis and the "challenge-response" model. The OPSV thesis
provides an explanation of why there are different sources of
environmental concern for people with different levels of wealth
(Brechin 1999). Although postmaterialist values generate environmental
concern in affluent individuals, for less well-off individuals,
environmental concern is a response to harsh local environmental
conditions, such as water and air pollution. Therefore, the OPSV thesis
is that there is a negative interaction effect between affluence and
perceived local environmental degradation. Local environmental problems
are a major source of environmental concern among less well-off
citizens, but they are less important for affluent citizens who already
embrace postmaterialist values.
H3: Income and perceived local environmental degradation have a
negative interaction effect on the level of environmental concern in
Canada.
Global Environmental Degradation
The world society (or world polity, world culture) perspective
emphasizes the construction and diffusion of cultural models in the
world society (Boli and Thomas 1997, 1999; Meyer et al. 1997). According
to the world society framework, a world model that emphasizes
interdependency between human society and the environment has become
pervasive, legitimized, and even fashionable across the globe (Frank,
Hironaka, and Schofer 2000; Frank, Longhofer, and Schofer 2007; Schofer
and Hironaka 2005). The rapid rise in public environmental concern is
the result of the expansion of this pro-environmental world model. The
diffusion of the environmentalist model is justified and
"rationalized" by scientific findings about global
environmental problems. Knowledge about global environmental degradation
is constructed as the foundation of the world model. If people are aware
of problems as global climate change and biodiversity loss then they are
more likely to sympathize with and adopt the pro-environmental world
model.
H4: Perceived global environmental degradation has a positive
effect on the level of environmental concern in Canada.
Social Institutions (Education and Mass Media)
Scholars have long emphasized the importance of social institutions
in spreading public concern about the environment. In particular, the
expansion of higher education and mass media has greatly extended the
cognitive horizons of the public regarding environmental issues (Dalton
1984; Nevitte and Kanji 1995). Citizens become more concerned about the
environment "because they are more interested, informed, and
educated about the relevant issues" through education and mass
media (Nevitte and Kanji 1995:88).
Various studies find that education fosters environmental concern
(Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano 1998; Dunlap and Jones 2002; Jones and
Dunlap 1992; Kemmelmeier, Krol, and Kim 2002; Klineberg, McKeever, and
Rothenbach 1998; Marquart-Pyatt 2012). Schools are considered as major
agents that diffuse progressive knowledge. Both the postmaterialist
thesis (Inglehart 1990, 1997) and world society theory (Drori 2000;
Drori et al. 2003; Schofer, Ramirez, and Meyer 2000) view education,
especially higher education, as the conduit through which
pro-environmental social ideas are instilled. More education increases
an individual's contact with these ideas.
H5: Education has a positive effect on the level of environmental
concern in Canada.
The other social institution that has a great impact on public
environmental concern is the mass media, including newspapers,
television, and the Internet. The mass media spreads scientific findings
and popularizes environmentalist ideas among the public. Many
environmental problems, especially those global ones, are not easily
observed. Knowledge about them is disseminated mainly by mass media. The
positive relationship between consumption of mass media and
environmentalism has been studied extensively (Ahern 2012; Boykoff and
Boykoff 2007; Holbert 2005; Holbert, Kwak, and Shah 2003; Major 2000;
Major and Atwood 2004).
H6: Exposure to mass media has a positive effect on the level of
environmental concern in Canada.
Political Orientation
Environmental concern implies changing the existing social,
political, and economic system, so it is often highly politicized. In
particular, a political divide is observable between liberals and
conservatives. Conservatives champion small government and free-market
capitalism. Their "system-justification tendency" makes them
supportive of the existing societal system (Feygina, Jost, and Goldsmith
2010; Jost, Nosek, and Gosling 2008; McCright and Dunlap 2011). In
contrast, liberals support the government's role in promoting
public goods, providing social services, and regulating markets.
Environmental protection typically invites more governmental
intervention into free markets, which is inconsistent with conservative
values. In contrast, since liberals generally believe that it is a
proper role of the government to protect collective welfare,
environmental protection should be better embraced by liberals (McCright
and Dunlap 2011:160). Hence, environmental concern is related to
individuals' political orientation.
A similar ideological division is discernible within the Canadian
political landscape. Scholars have observed appreciable and systematic
liberal/conservative (or so-called "left/right") differences
in the opinions of Canadian citizens (Benoit and Laver 2006; Cochrane
2010; Cross and Young 2002; Nevitte and Cochrane 2007; Nevitte et al.
2000). Self-identified liberals are more likely to express environmental
concern than their conservative counterparts (Hamilton 2008, 2011;
McCright and Dunlap 2010, 2011; Wood and Vedlitz 2007).
H7: A politically conservative identity has a negative effect on
the level of environmental concern in Canada.
Interaction between Political Orientation and Education
Recent scholarship has observed an interesting interplay between
political orientation and education in their effects on environmental
concern (McCright and Dunlap 2011). Environmental science directly
connects to policy formation and regulation of private interests. This
regulatory nature of environmental science accounts for
conservatives' growing distrust of scientific findings about
environmental degradation, particularly given this group's general
opposition to government regulation (Gauchat 2012). Better educated
conservatives are more suspicious of environmental science's
connection with regulatory policies and are more involved in political
debates about environmental issues (Gauchat 2012; Yearley 1994). They
are more likely to deny environmental problems and are less concerned
about the environment. In contrast, education reinforces liberals'
beliefs in environmental science (McCright and Dunlap 2011). Hence,
education has a positive effect on the level of environmental concern
for self-reported liberals, while it has a weaker or negative effect on
the level of environmental concern for self-reported conservatives.
H8: There is a negative interaction between education and
self-reported political conservativeness on the level of environmental
concern in Canada.
Demographics (Gender and Age)
Demographic features including gender and age are considered as
relevant predictors of environmental concern. First, there is a gender
gap in environmental concern. Gendered socialization theory suggests
that men and women experience different socialization processes. Women
are socialized to play the role of nurturers and care providers and they
value health and safety more than men (Davidson and Freudenburg 1996;
Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000). Thus, women often express stronger
concern about the environment than men (Bord and O'Connor 1997;
Kemmelmeier, Krol, and Kim 2002; Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993; Zelezny,
Chua, and Aldrich 2000).
H9: Men have a lower level of environmental concern than women in
Canada.
Second, young individuals are more likely to express
pro-environmental attitudes than older people (Jones and Dunlap 1992;
Kanagy, Humphrey, and Firebaugh 1994; Klineberg, McKeever, and
Rothenbach 1998). The postmaterialism thesis contends that, as a result
of the postwar era's unprecedented economic and physical security,
younger generations are more exposed to postmaterialist values. Younger
people are also more influenced by the recent diffusion of the
pro-environmental world cultural model. (3)
H10: Age has a negative effect on the level of environmental
concern in Canada.
DATA AND METHOD
I use the 2006 Canadian data from the recent wave of the WVS, the
WVS Wave 5, collected by the World Values Survey Association. (4) A
total of 2,164 individuals were asked to state their opinions and
attitudes about environmental issues.
Dependent Variables: Environmental Concern
I examine four variables, each of which is designed to indicate a
particular dimension of environmental concern. The first dimension,
environmental threat awareness, captures citizens' awareness of the
severity of environmental problems in today's world. It is measured
by a binary variable denoting whether an individual views environmental
degradation as a top threat for the world as a whole. The second
dimension, priority of environmental protection, asks respondents to
consider the trade-off between economic growth and environmental
protection. It is measured by a binary variable denoting whether an
individual considers environmental protection more important than
economic growth. The third dimension, willingness to pay for
environmental protection, measures citizens' willingness to make
personal financial sacrifices in order to protect the environment. It is
measured by an interval variable about an individual's willingness
to give part of the income or pay more taxes for environmental
protection. The fourth dimension, participation in environmental
organizations, looks into direct engagement in environmentalist
activities. It is measured by a binary variable denoting whether an
individual is a member of environmental organizations. The first two
dimensions cover the cognitive aspect of environmental concern, whereas
the third and fourth dimensions capture its behavioral aspect. Table 1
provides a summary of variables used to measure each of the four
dimensions.
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and correlations among the
four dimensions. Twenty-seven percent of Canadians view environmental
pollution as the top challenge facing the world. Seventy-one percent of
Canadians consider environmental protection more important than economic
growth. Canadians on average show modest willingness to pay for
environmental protection. The average score is 3.46 on a 7-point scale
that ranges from strong unwillingness (0) to strong willingness (6).
Only 15 percent of Canadians have ever participated in any environmental
organizations. The correlations among these dimensions are positive but
moderate indicating that the dimensions are conceptually different.
Independent Variables
The explanatory variables used in the analysis include age, gender,
the level of education, the level of income, perceived environmental
degradation, mass media usage, and political orientation. Table 3
displays the measurement for each variable.
Table 4 shows basic descriptive statistics and correlations of
these variables. None of the correlations are alarmingly high,
indicating that multicollinearity is not a concern in the regression
analysis. (5)
Method
Two types of models are used in the analysis, depending on the
nature of the dependent variables. Environmental threat awareness,
priority of environmental protection, and participation in environmental
organizations are binary variables and are analyzed using logistic
regression models. I define p as the probability of the binary dependent
variable equal to 1 (in this case, the probability that the respondent
expresses environmental concern) and let p be modeled using a logit link
function. The model is specified as follows:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], (1)
where LEnvi and GEnvi stand for perceived local and global
environmental degradation, respectively, and Poli denotes political
orientation. Other variables are self-explanatory, [beta] is the
coefficient and [epsilon] is the error term.
Willingness to pay for environmental protection is measured on a
7-point scale from 0 (strong unwillingness) to 6 (strong willingness),
so I use the ordinary least squares (OLS) model. I define Y as the level
of willingness to pay, and specify the model as follows. The explanatory
variables are the same as those in Equation (1).
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (2)
To ascertain the best fitting model, I estimate a series of nested
models and then use stepwise (forward) modeling to select the final
model. (6) I also use the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the
Bayesian information criterion (BIC) as the indicator of the goodness of
fit across models (Akaike 1974; Raftery 1995) where smaller values of
the information criterion indicate a better fit to the data.
RESULTS
I apply regression models to the four dimensions of environmental
concern individually and present the results in four separate tables.
The model specification follows a similar procedure. For all four
dimensions, I begin with the baseline Model 1 that only includes
individuals' basic sociodemographic characteristics--age, gender,
education, and income. Building on Model 1, Model 2 investigates the
effects of perceived local and global environmental degradation. Model 3
incorporates mass media consumption into the modeling. Then, political
orientation is added into Model 4, which is a complete model containing
all explanatory variables except interaction terms. Models 5 and 6
further bring in the interaction between income and local environmental
degradation and the interaction between education and political
orientation, respectively. Finally, I use the stepwise (forward) model
selection procedure to select significant explanatory variables into the
model while dropping insignificant variables. Model 7 shows the final
model resulting from this selection procedure. For all dimensions, Model
7 generates the smallest AIC and BIC values, suggesting the best model
fit. (see Tables 5-8)
Environmental Threat Awareness
What types of Canadians are more likely to view environmental
problems as a serious threat? The results from a series of logistic
models designed to answer this question are provided in Table 5. Among
all explanatory variables, age, gender, perceived global environmental
degradation, and conservative orientation are significantly associated
with the level of environmental threat awareness. Specifically, younger
people and men are more likely to recognize environmental problems as a
serious problem facing the world. More knowledge about global
environmental degradation tends to make people more aware of the
seriousness of environmental threat. Self-identified conservatives are
less likely to report environmental threat awareness than their liberal
counterparts.
Priority of Environmental Protection (Environment-Economy
Trade-Off)
What types of Canadians are more likely to choose the environment
when facing the potential trade-off between environmental protection and
economic growth? The results from logistic models designed to answer
this question are shown in Table 6. Among all explanatory variables,
education, local and global environmental degradation, and political
conservativeness have significant effects on priority of environmental
protection.
Specifically, more educated individuals are more likely to choose
environmental protection over economic growth. People who perceive local
environmental problems actually prefer economic growth to environmental
protection. This result contradicts the "challenge-response"
model. Bad local environmental conditions do not necessarily make
environmental protection more appealing than economic growth. It is
possible that people living in bad local environmental conditions
actually see more need for economic development and thus tolerate
environmental degradation in their local communities. Knowledge about
global environmental problems helps people attach higher priority to
environmental protection relative to economic growth. Self-reported
conservatives are more apt to give higher priority to economic growth
when facing the environment-economy trade-off.
Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection
What types of Canadians are more willing to make financial
sacrifices (income or tax) for the purpose of environmental protection?
Table 7 presents the OLS models examining what variables affect
people's willingness. Significant effects are found in such
variables as gender, education, perceived global environmental
degradation, political conservativeness, and the interaction between
education and political conservativeness.
Specifically, men are more willing to make financial sacrifices for
environmental protection than women, and more educated people express a
higher level of willingness. Knowledge about global environmental
problems promotes this willingness. Self-reported conservatives are less
willing to make financial contributions to environmental protection in
comparison with self-reported liberals. Moreover, the effect of
education is contingent on the political orientation of the respondent.
Education promotes environmental concern more effectively among liberals
than among conservatives. Although the effect of education decreases for
conservatives, it has a consistently positive effect overall. Even for
those stalwart conservatives (with a score of 10 in conservativeness),
the effect of education remains positive (i.e., .301 - .026 x 10 = .041
in Model 6, or .304 - .026 x 10 = .044 in Model 7).
It is worth noting that after including the interaction term
between education and political conservativeness, the main coefficient
of political conservativeness does not reach statistical significance
(as seen in Models 6 and 7). It does not mean that political
conservativeness has no significant effect, however. It simply indicates
that when education is zero, the effect of political conservativeness is
not significant. This is not a meaningful interpretation, since
education cannot take the value of zero in the current scale (it is
measured on a scale from 1 to 9). I further estimate Model 8 that uses
the centered education and political conservativeness variables. Through
centering (i.e., subtracting the mean value from the original value) the
two variables, the main coefficients of education and political
orientation become more interpretable. Now the main coefficient of
education is the effect of education for people with the average
political orientation, and the main coefficient of political
conservativeness is its effect for those with the average educational
level. According to Model 8, gender, education, perceived global
environmental degradation, political conservativeness, and the
interaction between education and political conservativeness all have
significant effects on willingness to pay for the environment. (7)
Participation in Environmental Organizations
What types of Canadians are more likely to participate in
environmental organizations? Results from logistic models are shown in
Table 8. Education, income, and local and global environmental
degradation have significant effects on civic participation.
Specifically, more educated and affluent citizens are more likely to
join environmental organizations. If people perceive local or global
environmental problems, they are more likely to join environmental
organizations in hopes of making a difference for the environment.
DISCUSSION
Table 9 summarizes the hypotheses and actual results regarding the
effects of various variables on environmental concern along four
dimensions. These hypotheses receive different degrees of support from
the empirical evidence. Most of the hypotheses do not apply to all
dimensions of environmental concern, but can only explain particular
dimensions. Below, I discuss how each variable and its related
hypothesis perform for each dimension of environmental concern.
H1 (income): The affluence and postmaterialist theories stress the
positive effect of wealth, as affluent individuals are assumed to be
more concerned about the quality of the environment. The evidence from
Canadian society is mixed. Income has no relationship to environmental
threat awareness, and affluent individuals are hot necessarily more
willing to sacrifice economically for the environment. Nevertheless,
affluent citizens are more likely to participate in environmental
organizations. Even though wealth does not matter for people's
awareness and willingness, it facilitates actual action, such as
participation in environmentalist activities.
H2 (local environmental degradation): The
"challenge-response" model predicts that local environmental
degradation increases environmental concern. This prediction receives
support only in the case of engagement in environmental organizations.
Local environmental problems generate more participation in
environmentalist civic activities. Contrary to the hypothesis, local
environmental degradation has a negative effect on the priority of
environmental protection relative to economic growth. People living in
places with local environmental problems emphasize economic growth even
more. In places with local environmental degradation, people see their
rate as more tied to economic development regardless of environmental
consequences, and they fear unemployment more than local environmental
problems. Local environmental degradation has no effect on environmental
threat awareness and willingness to pay for environmental protection.
H3 (interaction between income and local environmental
degradation): The "OPSV" thesis indicates a negative
interaction effect between income and local environmental degradation.
However, this hypothesis gets no support from any of the four
dimensions. Contrary to the "OPSV" thesis, the effect of local
environmental conditions does not differ between affluent and less
well-off individuals.
H4 (global environmental degradation): The world society
perspective suggests that knowledge of global environmental degradation
is constructed as the foundation of the environmentalist world model.
Thus, perceived global environmental degradation should have a positive
effect on environmental concern. This hypothesis is supported by
empirical evidence from all four dimensions. Perceived global
environmental degradation is a consistent predictor of environmental
concern across all four dimensions.
H5 (education): Both the postmaterialist thesis and world society
theory view education as the institutional link between broader
pro-environmental social values and individual environmental concern.
The results here echo the importance of education. It matters for three
of the four dimensions, except for environmental threat awareness. More
education does not necessarily make people more likely to view
environmental degradation as a top threat facing the world. However,
education significantly elevates the importance of environmental
protection relative to economic growth, and increases people's
willingness to make material commitments to environmental protection.
More educated people are more willing to make financial contributions
and more likely to directly engage in environmentalist activities.
H6 (mass media): Consumption of newspapers, television, and the
Internet is supposed to spread environmental concern. However, this
hypothesis is not supported for any of the four dimensions. (8) Frequent
access to mass media does hot necessarily generate more concern, but may
produce apathy about environmental issues (Shanahan and McComas 1997;
Shanahan, Morgan, and Stenbjerre 1997). The content of the media
nowadays is multifaceted. Environmentalist messages may be inundated or
even offset by the massive amount of information carried in the media.
For instance, consumerism is prevalent in the content of today's
mass media (Good 2007). Those who are more exposed to mass media can
become more materialistic, an attitude that inhibits the development of
environmental concern.
H7 (political orientation): Environmental concern calls for changes
to the current societal system and more governmental involvement. As a
result, environmental concern is often politicized. This politicization
thesis argues that compared with liberals, conservatives are less likely
to develop environmental concern due to their opposition to regulatory
policies and a greater role of the government. This hypothesis is found
to be true for environmental threat awareness, priority of environmental
protection over economic growth, and willingness to pay for
environmental protection. Self-reported conservatives are less likely to
consider today's environmental problems as a major threat. They
also tend to prefer economic growth over environmental protection, and
are less willing to make financial contributions to environmental
protection. Nevertheless, in terms of participation in environmental
organizations, conservatives and liberals do not differ.
H8 (interaction between education and political orientation): The
politicization thesis further argues that the effect of education
varies, depending on whether the person is liberal or conservative.
While more education makes liberals develop a higher level of
environmental concern, the effect of education is weaker or even
negative for conservatives. The findings here suggest that this negative
interaction effect applies to the willingness to pay for environmental
protection, but not the other dimensions. While more education makes
liberals more willing to make financial contributions to environmental
protection, this willingness-promoting effect of education is not so
salient among conservatives. Nevertheless, although education has a
smaller effect on conservatives, its effect is generally positive, even
for those staunch conservatives. Hence, it is not well-educated
conservatives who are the most resistant to environmental concern. If is
actually poorly educated conservatives who demonstrate particularly low
concern.
H9 (gender): Gendered socialization theory implies that women are
more environmentally concerned than men. The results here, however,
indicate that in Canada it is men who are more aware of environmental
threat and more willing to make financial sacrifices for environmental
protection. Nevertheless, when it comes to the trade-off between
environmental protection and economic growth, men are not more likely to
choose environmental protection. There is no significant gender gap in
participation in environmental organizations either.
H10 (age): Both the postmaterialist thesis and world society theory
propose that young people are more environmentally concerned than older
people. The results show that this age difference only applies to
environmental threat awareness. While young citizens are indeed more
aware of the danger of environmental problems, they are not more willing
to sacrifice economic growth or financial resources for environmental
protection than older people. Nor are they more active in participation
in environmental organizations. In other words, more awareness among
young people does not translate into more actual commitment to
environmental protection.
CONCLUSION
This study leads us to two important conclusions. First, it reveals
which Canadians are most concerned about the environment. Second, it
confirms that environmental concern in Canada is multidimensional. I
elaborate on the two conclusions below.
Which Canadians are most concerned about the environment? The
existing literature is mainly based on cross-national studies and finds
that affluence, perceptions of local and global environmental
degradation, education, consumption of mass media, political
orientation, gender, and age are all potentially related to
environmental concern (Brechin 1999; Brechin and Kempton 1994, 1997;
Diekmann and Franzen 1999; Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano 1998; Dunlap and
Jones 2002; Dunlap and Mertig 1995, 1997; Dunlap and York 2008; Franzen
2003; Franzen and Meyer 2010; Gelissen 2007; Haller and Hadler 2008;
Hayes 2001; Jones and Dunlap 1992; Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach
1998; Knight and Messer 2012; Marquart-Pyatt 2012; Xiao and Dunlap
2007). Canada's public concern for the environment displays
interesting patterns, some of which deviate from those revealed in
cross-national settings.
The results here show that not all these individual-level
characteristics are consistently associated with environmental concern
in Canada. Education, knowledge about global environmental problems, and
political orientation are three most reliable predictors. More education
and knowledge of global environmental reality raise public concern.
Environmental concern in Canada is also politicized, and is associated
with people's political orientation. Liberals are more concerned
about the environment than conservatives. These findings confirm the
general applicability of world society theory (Frank, Hironaka, and
Schofer 2000; Frank, Longhofer, and Schofer 2007; Schofer and Hironaka
2005) and the politicization perspective (Hamilton 2008, 2011; McCright
and Dunlap 2010, 2011; Wood and Vedlitz 2007) to environmental concern
in Canada. Taken together, they reflect two important forces that impel
Canadian society to confront environmental degradation--scientific
knowledge and liberal politics. Accordingly, in order to promote public
environmental concern, we need to better inform people of environmental
science and promote liberal policies. On the other hand, lack of
environmental knowledge and conservative politics remain two obstacles
toward a more environment-friendly society emerging in Canada.
Instead of employing a general measure of environmental concern, I
distinguish four distinctive dimensions in the analysis. They capture
both cognitive and behavioral components of environmental concern, and
also reflect differing aspects of commitment to environmentalism. The
results show that the four dimensions are shaped by different
combinations of variables, and that some variables are only associated
with certain dimensions. They generate more nuanced understanding of
existing theories about environmental concern. First, the affluence
argument derived from postmaterialist theory (Diekmann and Franzen 1999;
Franzen 2003; Franzen and Meyer 2010; Inglehart 1995; Jones and Dunlap
1992; Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998) only applies to
participation in environmental organizations. While wealth facilitates
environmentalist civic activities, affluent people do not show more
awareness of environmental threat or more willingness to pay for
environmental protection. Second, the "challenge-response"
model (Brechin and Kempton 1994; Dunlap and Mertig 1995; Franzen 2003;
Knight and Messer 2012; Marquart-Pyatt 2012) performs well only for
participation in environmental organizations. Local environmental
degradation does not stimulate more demand for environmental protection,
although it does generate more participation in environmentalist
activities. Third, the age or generation effect implied by
postmaterialist theory (Jones and Dunlap 1992; Kanagy, Humphrey, and
Firebaugh 1994; Klineberg, McKeever, and Rothenbach 1998) only holds for
the awareness of environmental threat. Young people indeed show more
awareness of environmental threat than older people, but they are not
more likely to take actions for environmental protection. Last, gendered
socialization theory (Bord and O'Connor 1997; Kemmelmeier, Krol,
and Kim 2002; Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993; Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich
2000) does not explain well gender differences of environmental concern
in Canada. On average it is actually Canadian men who display a higher
level of environmental threat awareness and willingness to pay for
environmental protection than women. Nevertheless, there is no gender
gap in participation in environmentalist activities.
In light of the revealed differences among different dimensions, we
should avoid making sweeping theoretical claims about environmental
concern in general. Environmental concern is multidimensional and must
be approached through a multidimensional lens. Future studies should pay
attention to the nuances among different dimensions and more precisely
theorize the mechanisms underpinning various dimensions of environmental
concern.
References
Ahern, L. 2012. "The Role of Media System Development in the
Emergence of Postmaterialist Values and Environmental Concern: A
Cross-National Analysis." Social Science Quarterly 93(2):538-57.
Akaike, H. 1974. "A New Look at the Statistical Model
Identification." IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19:716-23.
Angus Reid Public Opinion (ARPO). 2010. "Canadians Want More
Action on the Environment." Angus Reid Public Opinion Poll Archive.
Retrieved July 15, 2012 (http://www.angus-reid.
com/polls/39308/canadians_want_more_action_on_the_environment/).
Benoit, K. and M. Laver. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies.
New York: Routledge.
Boli, J. and G.M. Thomas. 1997. "World Culture in the World
Polity." American Sociological Review 62(2):171-90.
Boli, J. and G.M. Thomas, eds. 1999. Constructing World Culture:
International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Bord, R.J. and R.E. O'Connor. 1997. "The Gender Gap in
Environmental Attitudes: The Case of Perceived Vulnerability to
Risk." Social Science Quarterly 78:830-40.
Boykoff, M.T. 2009. "We Speak for the Trees: Media Reporting
on the Environment." Annual Review of Environment and Resources
34:431-57.
Boykoff, M.T. and J.M. Boykoff. 2007. "Climate Change and
Journalistic Norms: A Case-Study of US Mass-Media Coverage."
Geoforum 38(6):1190-204.
Brechin, S.R. 1999. "Objective Problems, Subjective Values,
and Global Environmentalism: Evaluating the Postmaterialist Argument and
Challenging a New Explanation." Social Science Quarterly
80(4):793-809.
Brechin, S.R. and W. Kempton. 1994. "Global Environmentalism:
A Challenge to the Postmaterialism Thesis." Social Science
Quarterly 75(2):245-69.
Brechin, S.R. and W. Kempton. 1997. "Beyond Postmaterialist
Values: National Versus Individual Explanations of Global
Environmentalism." Social Science Quarterly 78(1): 16-20.
Cochrane, C. 2010. "Left/Right Ideology and Canadian
Politics." Canadian Journal of Political Science 43:583-605.
Cross, W. and L. Young. 2002. "Policy Attitudes of Party
Members in Canada: Evidence of Ideological Politics." Canadian
Journal of Political Science 35:859-80.
Dalton, R.J. 1984. "Cognitive Mobilization and Partisan
Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies." Journal of
Politics 46:264-84.
Daniels, D.P., J.A. Krosnick, M.P. Tichy and T. Tompson. 2012.
"Public Opinion on Environmental Policy in the United States."
Pp. 461-86 in The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy, edited
by S. Kamieniecki and M. Kraft. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, D.J. and W.R. Freudenburg. 1996. "Gender and
Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available
Research." Environment and Behavior 28:302-39.
Deng, J., G.J. Walker and G. Swinnerton. 2006. "A Comparison
of Environmental Values and Attitudes between Chinese in Canada and
Anglo-Canadians." Environment and Behavior 38(1):22-47.
Diekmann, A. and A. Franzen. 1999. "The Wealth of Nations and
Environmental Concern." Environment and Behavior 31(4):540-49.
Dietz, T., A. Dan and R. Shwom. 2007. "Support for Climate
Change Policy: Some Psychological and Social Structural
Influences." Rural Sociology 72:185-214.
Dietz, T., P.C. Stern and G.A. Guagnano. 1998. "Social
Structural and Social Psychological Bases of Environmental
Concern." Environment and Behavior 30(4):450-71.
Downs, A. 1972. "Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue Attention
Cycle." The Public Interest 28:38-50.
Drori, G.S. 2000. "Science Education and Economic Development:
Trends, Relationships, and Research Agenda." Studies in Science
Education 35:27-57.
Drori, G.S., J.W. Meyer, F.O. Ramirez and E. Schofer. 2003. Science
in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Dunlap, R. and R.E. Jones. 2002. "Environmental Concern:
Conceptual and Measurement Issues." Pp. 482-524 in Handbook of
Environmental Sociology, edited by R. Dunlap and W. Michelsen. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Dunlap, R.E. and A.G. Mertig. 1995. "Global Concern for the
Environment: Is Affluence a Prerequisite?" Journal of Social Issues
51:121-37.
Dunlap, R.E. and A.G. Mertig. 1997. "Global Environmental
Concern: An Anomaly for Postmaterialism." Social Science Quarterly
78(1):24-29.
Dunlap, R.E. and R. York. 2008. "The Globalization of
Environmental Concern and the Limits of the Postmaterialist Values
Explanation: Evidence from Four Multinational Surveys."
Sociological Quarterly 49:529-63.
Ferraro, K.F. and R. LaGrange. 1987. "The Measurement of Fear
of Crime." Sociological Inquiry 57(1):70-101.
Feygina, I., J.T. Jost and R.E. Goldsmith. 2010. "System
Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of
System-Sanctioned Change." Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 36:326-38.
Frank, D.J., A. Hironaka and E. Schofer. 2000. "The
Nation-State and the Natural Environment over the Twentieth
Century." American Sociological Review 65(1):96-116.
Frank, D.J., W. Longhofer and E. Schofer. 2007. "World
Society, NGOs, and Environmental Policy Reform in Asia."
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 48:275-95.
Franzen, A. 2003. "Environmental Attitudes in International
Comparisons: An Analysis of the ISSP Surveys 1993 and 2000." Social
Science Quarterly 84(2):297-308.
Franzen, A. and R. Meyer. 2010. "Environmental Attitudes in
Cross-National Perspective: A Multilevel Analysis of the ISSP 1993 and
2000." European Sociological Review 26(2):219-34.
Gauchat, G. 2012. "Politicization of Science in the Public
Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to
2010." American Sociological Review 77(2):167-87.
Gelissen, J. 2007. "Explaining Popular Support for
Environmental Protection: A Multilevel Analysis of 50 Nations."
Environment and Behavior 39(3):392-415.
Giddens, A. 2009. The Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
Good, J. 2007. "Shop'til We Drop? Television, Materialism
and Attitudes about the Natural Environment." Mass Communication
and Society 10(3):365-83.
Haller, M. and M. Hadler. 2008. "Dispositions to Act in Favor
of the Environment: Fatalism and Readiness to Make Sacrifices in a
Cross-National Perspective." Sociological Forum 23(2):281-311.
Hamilton, L.C. 2008. "Who Cares about Polar Regions?"
Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 40:671-78.
Hamilton, L.C. 2011. "Education, Politics, and Opinions about
Climate Change: Evidence for Interaction Effects." Climatic Change
104(2):231-42.
Hayes, B.C. 2001. "Gender, Scientific Knowledge and Attitudes
toward the Environment: A Cross-National Analysis." Political
Research Quarterly 54:657-71.
Holbert, R.L. 2005. "Television News Viewing, Governmental
Scope, and Postmaterialist Spending: Assessing Mediation by
Partisanship." Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media
49(4):416-34.
Holbert, R.L., N. Kwak and D.V. Shah. 2003. "Environmental
Concern, Patterns of Television Viewing, and Pro-Environmental
Behaviors: Integrating Models of Media Consumption and Effects."
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 47(2):177-96.
Huddart-Kennedy, E., T.M. Beckley, B.L. McFarlane and S. Nadeau.
2009. "Rural-Urban Differences in Environmental Concern in
Canada." Rural Sociology 74(3):309-29.
Inglehart, R. 1990. Cultural Shift in Advanced Industrial Society.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. 1995. "Public Support for Environmental
Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43
Countries." PS: Political Science and Politics 28:57-72.
Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural,
Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate
Change: Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Jones, R.E. and R. Dunlap. 1992. "The Social Bases of
Environmental Concern: Have They Changed over Time?" Rural
Sociology 57(1):28-47.
Jost, J.T., B.A. Nosek and S.D. Gosling. 2008. "Ideology: Its
Resurgence in Social, Personality and Political Psychology."
Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(2):126-36.
Kanagy, C.L., C.R. Humphrey and G. Firebaugh. 1994. "Surging
Environmentalism: Changing Public Opinion or Changing Publics?"
Social Science Quarterly 75:804-19.
Kemmelmeier, M., G. Krol and Y.H. Kim. 2002. "Values,
Economics, and Pro-Environmental Attitudes in 22 Societies."
Cross-Cultural Research 36(3):256-85.
Kennedy, E.H., T.M. Beckley, B.L. McFarlane and S. Nadeau. 2009.
"Why We Don't 'Walk the Talk': Understanding the
Environmental Values/Behaviour Gap in Canada." Human Ecology Review
16(2):151-60.
Klineberg, S., M. McKeever and B. Rothenbach. 1998.
"Demographic Predictors of Environmental Concern: It Does Make a
Difference How It's Measured." Social Science Quarterly
79(4):734-53.
Knight, K.W. and B.L. Messer. 2012. "Environmental Concern in
Cross-National Perspective: The Effects of Affluence, Environmental
Degradation, and World Society." Social Science Quarterly
93(2):521-37.
Leiserowitz, A.A., R.W. Kates and T.M. Parris. 2006.
"Sustainability Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors: A Review of
Multinational and Global Trends." Annual Review of Environment and
Resources 31:413-44.
Major, A.M. 2000. "Correlates of Accuracy and Inaccuracy in
the Perception of the Climate of Opinion for Four Environmental
Issues." Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77(2):223-42.
Major, A.M. and L.E. Atwood. 2004. "Environmental Risks in the
News: Issues, Sources, Problems, and Values." Public Understanding
of Science 13(3):295-308.
Marquart-Pyatt, S.T. 2012. "Contextual Influences on
Environmental Concerns Cross-Nationally: A Multilevel
Investigation." Social Science Research 41:1085-99.
McCright, A.M. and R.E. Dunlap. 2010. "Anti-Reflexivity: The
American Conservative Movement's Success in Undermining Climate
Science and Policy." Theory, Culture and Society 27(2-3):1-34.
McCright, A.M. and R.E. Dunlap. 2011. "The Politicization of
Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public's Views of
Global Warming, 2001-2010." The Sociological Quarterly 52:155-94.
McFarlane, B.L. and L.M. Hunt. 2006. "Environmental Activism
in the Forest Sector: Social Psychological, Social-Cultural, and
Contextual Effects." Environment and Behavior 38: 266-85.
Meyer, J.W., J. Boli, G.M. Thomas and F.O. Ramirez. 1997.
"World Society and the Nation State." American Journal of
Sociology 103(1):144-81.
Nevitte, N., A. Blais, E. Gidengil and R. Nadeau. 2000. Unsteady
State: The 1997 Canadian Federal Election. Toronto: Oxford University
Press.
Nevitte, N. and C. Cochrane. 2007. "Value Change and the
Dynamics of the Canadian Partisan Landscape." Pp. 255-75 in
Canadian Parties in Transition, edited by A. Gagnon and A.B. Tanguay.
Peterborough, ON: Broadview.
Nevitte, N. and M. Kanji. 1995. "Explaining Environmental
Concern and Action in Canada." Applied Behavioral Science Review
3(1):85-102.
Raftery, A.E. 1995. "Bayesian Model Selection in Social
Research." Sociological Methodology 25:111-63.
Schofer, E. and A. Hironaka. 2005. "The Effects of World
Society on Environmental Protection Outcomes." Social Forces
84(1):25-47.
Schofer, E., F.O. Ramirez and J.W. Meyer. 2000. "The Effects
of Science on National Economic Development, 1970 to 1990."
American Sociological Review 65(6):866-87.
Shanahan, J. and K. McComas. 1997. "Television's
Portrayal of the Environment: 1991-1995." Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly 74(1):147-59.
Shanahan, J., M. Morgan and M. Stenbjerre. 1997. "Green or
Brown? Television and the Cultivation of Environmental Concern."
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 41(3):30523.
Soroka, S.N. 2002. "Issue Attributes and Agenda-Setting by
Media, the Public, and Policymakers in Canada." International
Journal of Public Opinion Research 14(3):264-84.
StataCorp. 2011. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College
Station, TX: Stata Corporation.
Stern, P.C., T. Dietz and L. Kalof. 1993. "Value Orientations,
Gender, and Environmental Concern." Environment and Behavior
25(5):322-48.
Tindall, D.B., S. Davies and C. Mauboules. 2003. "Activism and
Conservation Behavior in an Environmental Movement: The Contradictory
Effects of Gender." Society and Natural Resources 16:909-32.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2010. Human Development
Report 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wall, G. 1995a. "General versus Specific Environmental
Concern: A Western Canadian Case." Environment and Behavior
27(3):294-316.
Wall, G. 1995b. "Barriers to Individual Environmental Action:
The Influence of Attitudes and Social Experiences." Canadian Review
of Sociology 32(4):465-89.
Wood, B.D. and A. Vedlitz. 2007. "Issue Definition,
Information Processing, and the Politics of Global Warming."
American Journal of Political Science 51:552-68.
World Bank. 2010. World Development Report 2010: Development and
Climate Change. Washington, DC: World Bank Publishers.
World Values Survey (WVS) Association. 2009. WVS 2005-2008 Wave
Official Data File. Retrieved July 15, 2012
(http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/).
Xiao, C. and R.E. Dunlap. 2007. "Validating a Comprehensive
Model of Environmental Concern Cross-Nationally: A US-Canadian
Comparison." Social Science Quarterly 88(2):471-93.
Yearley, S. 1994. "Understanding Science from the Perspective
of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: An Overview." Public
Understanding of Science 3:245-58.
Zelezny, L.C., P.-P. Chua and C. Aldrich. 2000. "Elaborating
on Gender Differences in Environmentalism." Journal of Social
Issues 56(3):443-57.
MIN ZHOU
University of Victoria
Min Zhou, Department of Sociology, University of Victoria, Cornett
Building A359, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3P5. E-mail:
[email protected] or
[email protected]
(1.) Environmental concern can be defined as "the awareness or
insight of individuals that the natural state of the environment is
threatened through resource overuse and pollution by humans"
(Franzen and Meyer 2010:220). It is "a suite of values, worldviews,
attitudes, and behaviors that reflect respondents' concern for the
environment" (Huddart-Kennedy et al. 2009:311).
(2.) Table 1 provides the survey questions and response categories.
The strong support for environmental protection shown by Canadians might
reflect concerns about Canada's abandonment of the country's
commitment to the Kyoto Protocol in 2006. In January of that year, when
the Conservative government took office, it announced that Canada would
no longer abide by its Kyoto obligations.
(3.) Some scholars, however, contend that the relationship between
age and environmental concern takes on an inverted-U shape (Franzen and
Meyer 2010). Levels of concern related to public affairs are usually the
highest during middle age, whereas young people and the elderly are more
concerned with private affairs. I used the squared age variable in the
analysis and found no evidence that there is a curvilinear relationship.
(4.) Available at http://www.wvsevsdb.com]wvs/WVSData.jsp
(retrieved July 15, 2012).
(5.) Correlations above .6 are cause for concern about
multicollinearity. None of the correlations in the data were above .5.
Also, the correlation between perceived global environmental degradation
and environmental threat awareness is very weak at. 12. This indicates
that these two variables capture different concepts and that perception
of global environmental degradation does not necessarily imply a sense
of serious threat.
(6.) The stepwise modeling was conducted with StataCorp's
(2011) sw logit, pe(.05) and sw reg, pe(.05) commands.
(7.) Centering does hot change the estimated results substantively,
and Model 8 is essentially the same as Model 7. It only makes the main
coefficients of the variables used in the interaction term more
interpretable. Centering is only necessary for models with significant
interaction terms, so it is not necessary for the other three dimensions
whose models do not have significant interaction terms.
(8.) The influence of mass media on environmental concern is
complex. Although consumption of mass media shows no significant effect
in this study, mass media may have a less direct impact on environmental
concern via, for example, public discourse, agenda setting, and issue
attention cycles (Boykoff 2009; Downs 1972; Soroka 2002).
Table 1
Measurement of Environmental Concern by the World Values Survey
(WVS): Four Dimensions
Dimension Survey question
(1)
Environmental Indicate which of these problems you consider the
threat most and the second most serious problem for
awareness the world as a whole
1. People living in poverty and need
2. Discrimination against girls and women
3. Poor sanitation and infectious diseases
4. Inadequate education
5. Environmental pollution
(2)
Priority of Here are two statements people sometimes make
environmental when discussing the environment and economic
protection growth. Which of them comes closer to your own
point of view?
1. Protecting the environment should be given
priority, even if it causes slower economic
growth and some loss of jobs
2. Economic growth and creating jobs should be
the top priority, even if the environment
suffers to some extent
(3)
Willingness to Can you tell me whether you strongly agree
pay for (point 1), agree (point 2), disagree (point 3),
environmental or strongly disagree (point 4) with these
protection statements?
1. I would give part of my income if I were
certain that the money would be used to
prevent environmental pollution
2. I would agree to an increase in taxes if the
extra money were used to prevent environmental
pollution.
I create a summated 7-point willingness-to-pay
scale by combining the two items. The scale
reliability coefficient Cronbach's a is .747.
Then, I adjust the original 2-8 scale into a
0-6 scale by subtracting 2
(4)
Participation in Could you tell me whether you are a member of
environmental environmental organizations?
organizations
Dimension Measurement
Environmental Binary variable:
threat 1: Yes (if the respondent chooses
awareness "environmental pollution" as either
the most or the second most serious
problem)
0: No (if the respondent does not
choose "environmental pollution")
Priority of Binary variable:
environmental 1: Protecting the environment is more
protection important
0: Economic growth is more important
Willingness to Interval variable (a):
pay for 7-point scale from 0 (strong
environmental unwillingness) to 6 (strong
protection willingness)
Participation in Binary variable:
environmental 1: Yes (b)
organizations 0: No
(a) I reversed the order of the answers in the original survey so
that a larger number indicates a higher degree of willingness to
pay for environmental protection.
(b) It includes both active and inactive membership.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Four Dimensions within Environmental
Concern and Their Correlations
Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Environmental threat awareness .265 .441 0 1
Priority of environmental
protection .706 .456 0 1
Willingness to pay for
environmental protection 3.461 1.393 0 6
Participation in environmental
organizations .151 .358 0 1
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1. Environmental threat
awareness 1
2. Priority of environmental
protection .121 * 1
3. Willingness to pay for
environmental protection .112 * .281 * 1
4. Participation in
environmental organizations .042 .083 * .160 * 1
Note: From two-tailed tests.
* p <.05.
Table 3
Measurement of Independent Variables
Variable Survey question
Age You are-years old
Gender Code the respondent's sex by observation
Education What is the highest educational level
that you have attained?
Income Please specify your annual income,
counting all wages, salaries, pensions,
and other incomes
Perceived environmental Please tell me how serious you consider
degradation each one of the following: (1) poor
1. Local environmental water quality, (2) poor air quality,
degradation and (3) poor sewage and sanitation, to
2. Global environmental be here in your own community. Is it
degradation very serious, somewhat serious, not
very serious, or not serious at all?
Please tell me how serious you consider
each one of the following: (1) global
warming or the greenhouse effect, (2)
loss of plant or animal species or
biodiversity, and (3) pollution of
rivers, lakes, and oceans, to be for
the world as a whole. Is it very
serious, somewhat serious, not very
serious, or not serious at all?
Consumption of mass For each of the following sources, please
media indicate whether you used it last week
to obtain information:
1. Newspaper reading 1. Daily newspaper
2. TV viewing 2. News broadcasts on radio or TV
3. Use of the Internet 3. Internet, email
Political orientation In political matters, people talk of "the
left" and "the right." How would you
place your views on this scale,
generally speaking?
Variable Measurement
Age Measured in years
Gender Binary variable:
1: Male
0: Female
Education 9-point scale: 1, no formal education; 2,
incomplete primary school; 3, complete
primary school; 4, incomplete secondary
school (technical and vocational type);
5, complete secondary school (technical
and vocational type); 6, incomplete
secondary school (university-
preparatory type); 7, complete
secondary (university-preparatory
type); 8, some university-level
education (without a degree); 9,
university-level education (with a
bachelor's degree)
Income 11-point scale from 1 (annual income
under 12,500 Canadian dollars) to 11
(annual income above 150,000 Canadian
dollars)
Perceived environmental 10-point composite scale from 1 (not
degradation serious at all) to 10 (very serious)
1. Local environmental that combines the seriousness of (1)
degradation water pollution, (2) air pollution, and
2. Global environmental (3) poor sewage and sanitation in the
degradation respondent's own community. (a)
10-point composite scale from 1 (not
serious at all) to 10 (very serious)
that combines the seriousness of (1)
global warming or the greenhouse
effect, (2) loss of plant or animal
species or biodiversity, and (3)
pollution of rivers, lakes, and
oceans. (a)
Consumption of mass All three are binary variables:
media 1: The respondent used it last week
0: The respondent did not use it last
1. Newspaper reading week
2. TV viewing
3. Use of the Internet
Political orientation 10-point scale from 1 (very left/liberal)
to 10 (very right/conservative)
(a) For both local and global environmental degradation, I add up
each respondent's answers to the three questions, which results
in a 10-point scale ranging from 3 (all three are very serious)
to 12 (all three are not serious at all). I adjust the scale into
a 10-point scale ranging from 1 to 10 (by deducting 2 from the
original scale), and then reverse the coding so that 1 indicates
"not serious at all" while 10 is "very serious."
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Various Predictors and Their
Correlations
Variable Mean SD minimum Maximum
Age 48.21 17.80 16 94
Gender (male) .42 .49 0 1
Education 6.17 2.01 1 9
Income 5.63 2.95 1 11
Local environmental 5.17 3.12 1 10
degradation
Global environmental 8.98 1.39 1 10
degradation
Newspaper 0.72 .45 0 1
TV 0.95 .21 0 1
Internet 0.53 .50 0 1
Political orientation 5.43 1.88 1 10
(conservative)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(1) Age 1
(2) Gender (male) .054 1
(3) Education -.259 * -.020 1
(4) Income -.211 * .84 * .436 * 1
(5) Local -.056 * .009 -.066 * -.046 1
environmental
degradation
(6) Global -.044 -.069 * -.011 -.062 * .146 *
environmental
degradation
(7) Newspaper .57 * .072 * .152 * .195 * -.042 *
(8) TV .110 * .034 .014 .044 * -.051
(9) Internet -.392 * .035 * .408 * .339 * .020
(10) Political .096 * .015 -.117 * .020 -.050
orientation
(conservative)
(6) (7) (6) (9) (10)
(1) Age
(2) Gender (male)
(3) Education
(4) Income
(5) Local
environmental
degradation
(6) Global 1
environmental
degradation
(7) Newspaper -.037 1
(8) TV -.001 .167 * 1
(9) Internet .008 .131 * .023 1
(10) Political -.127 * .060 .067 -.053 1
orientation
(conservative)
Note: From two-tailed tests.
* p < .05.
Table 5
Logistic Regression of Environmental Threat Awareness in Canada, 2006
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Age -.012 *** -.011 ** -.013 *** -.012 **
(-3.78) (-3.32) (-3.57) (-2.90)
Male .457 *** .473 *** .485 *** .548 ***
(4.17) (4.18) (4.25) (4.21)
Education .018 .016 .031 .004
(.58) (.50) (.95) (.11)
Income -.032 -.021 -.012 -.010
(-1.55) (-.98) (-.57) (-.42)
LEnvi .018 .019 .022
(.99) (1.02) (1.07)
GEnvi .245 *** .252 *** .303 ***
(5.10) (5.19) (5.35)
Newspaper .006 .019
(.04) (.12)
TV -.068 .090
(-.25) (.28)
Internet -.236 -.164
(-1.77) (-1.08)
Political -.113 **
conservative
(-3.23)
Income x LEnvi
Education x
Poli
Constant -.539 * -2.961 *** -2.905 *** -2.886 ***
(-1.98) (-5.48) (-4.94) (-4.04)
Model fit
statistics
Akaike 2,036.5 1,912.9 1,914.9 1,880.7
information
criterion
(AIC)
Bayesian 2,063.9 1,950.9 1,955.0 1,937.5
information
criterion
(BIC)
Variable Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Age -.012 ** -.012 ** -.010 **
(-2.90) (-2.93) (-2.64)
Male .548 *** .547 *** .540 ***
(4.21) (4.20) (4.19)
Education .004 -.147
(.11) (-1.50)
Income -.017 -.011
(-.38) (-.46)
LEnvi .015 .023
(.35) (1.12)
GEnvi .303 *** .307 *** .310 ***
(5.35) (5.40) (5.53)
Newspaper .019 .027
(.13) (.17)
TV .091 .107
(.28) (.33)
Internet -.164 -.170
(-1.08) (-1.12)
Political -.113 ** -.304 * -.112 **
conservative
(-3.22) (-2.52) (-3.23)
Income x LEnvi .001
(.18)
Education x .029
Poli (1.66)
Constant -2.851 *** -1.934 * -2.959 ***
(-3.84) (-2.12) (-4.96)
Model fit
statistics
Akaike 1,882.6 1,880.9 1,871.7
information
criterion
(AIC)
Bayesian 1,944.6 1,941.9 1,897.5
information
criterion
(BIC)
Notes: LEnvi, local environmental degradation; GEnvi, global
environmental degradation; Poli, political conservativeness.
Numbers in parentheses are z-scores; from two-tailed tests,
* p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001.
Table 6
Logistic Regression of Priority of Environmental Protection
(Environment-Economy Trade-Off) in Canada, 2006
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Age -.006 -.004 -.003 -.001
(-1.92) (-1.22) (-.75) (-.26)
Male -.008 .012 .035 .106
(-.07) (.10) (.30) (.78)
Education .134 *** .121 *** .118 ** .096 *
(4.38) (3.71) (3.46) (2.44)
Income .014 .028 .031 .033
(.69) (1.26) (1.37) (1.24)
LEnvi -.073 *** -.072 *** -.059 **
(-3.86) (-3.76) (-2.66)
GEnvi .348 *** .356 *** .385 ***
(8.46) (8.58) (8.12)
Newspaper -.267 -.186
(-1.92) (-1.14)
TV .190 .359
(.68) (1.08)
Internet .142 .055
(1.05) (.35)
Political -.149 ***
conservative
(-4.13)
Income x LEnvi
Education x
Poli
Constant .297 -2.483 *** -2.710 *** -2.290 ***
(1.08) (-5.14) (-5.00) (-3.48)
Model fit
statistics
Akaike 2,018.2 1,821.1 1,821.3 1,785.9
information
criterion
(AIC)
Bayesian 2,045.4 1,858.8 1,859.1 1,842.5
information
criterion
(BIC)
Variable Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Age -.001 -.001
(-.25) (-.26)
Male .109 .106
(.80) (.78)
Education .097 * .088 .118 **
(2.45) (.81) (3.47)
Income .010 .033
(.22) (1.24)
LEnvi -.082 * -.059 ** -.060 **
(-2.01) (-2.66) (-2.71)
GEnvi .385 *** .386 *** .379 ***
(8.13) (8.12) (8.07)
Newspaper -.185 -.186
(-1.14) (-1.14)
TV .364 .359
(1.09) (1.08)
Internet .055 .055
(.35) (.35)
Political -.149 *** -.158 *** -.146 ***
conservative
(-4.11) (-2.36) (-4.08)
Income x LEnvi .004
(.57)
Education x .001
Poli
(.08)
Constant -2.179 ** -2.237 * -1.969 ***
(-3.18) (-2.44) (-3.72)
Model fit
statistics
Akaike 1,787.5 1,787.8 1,778.7
information
criterion
(AIC)
Bayesian 1,849.3 1,849.6 1,804.4
information
criterion
(BIC)
Notes: LEnvi, local environmental degradation; GEnvi, global
environmental degradation; Poli, political conservativeness.
Numbers in parentheses are z-scores; from two-tailed tests,
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Table 7
OLS Regression of Willingness to Pay for Environmental
Protection in Canada, 2006
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Age .002 .003 .003
(.85) (1.51) (1.42)
Male .141 * .149 * .140 *
(2.13) (2.25) (2.10)
Education .172 *** .171 *** .166 ***
(9.45) (9.30) (8.67)
Income .007 .009 .006
(.55) (.74) (.50)
LEnvi .015 .014
(1.40) (1.30)
GEnvi .191 *** .189 ***
(7.88) (7.76)
Newspaper .142
(1.84)
-.273
(-1.69)
Internet .031
(.40)
Political conservative
Income x LEnvi
Education x Poli
Constant 2.242 *** .382 .592
(13.67) (1.35) (1.88)
Model fit statistics
Akaike information 5,909.1 5,531.6 5,488.6
criterion (AIC)
Bayesian information 5,936.4 5,569.4 5,542.5
criterion (BIC)
Variable Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Age .003 .003 .003
(1.10) (1.11) (1.13)
Male .154 * .150 * .161 *
(2.06) (2.02) (2.16)
Education .162 *** .162 *** .301 ***
(7.52) (7.52) (5.33)
Income .006 .039 .007
(.40) (1.53) (.47)
LEnvi .011 .047 .011
(.90) (1.81) (.88)
GEnvi .192 *** .191 *** .191 ***
(6.99) (6.98) (6.97)
Newspaper .149 .150 .142
(1.68) (1.69) (1.61)
-.080 -.086 -.076
(-.43) (-.46) (-.41)
Internet -.017 -.017 -.017
(-.20) (-.20) (-.20)
Political conservative -.077 *** -.078 *** .088
(-3.90) (-3.97) (1.35)
Income x LEnvi -.006
(-1.57)
Education x Poli -.026 **
(-2.65)
Constant .944 * .773 * .039
(2.52) (1.98) (.08)
Model fit statistics
Akaike information 5,215.1 5,215.6 5,210.0
criterion (AIC)
Bayesian information 5,271.8 5,276.5 5,271.1
criterion (BIC)
Variable Model 7 Model 8
Age
Male .182 * .182 *
(2.48) (2.48)
Education .304 *** .163 ***
(5.47) (8.74)
Income
LEnvi
GEnvi .192 *** .192 ***
(7.09) (7.09)
Newspaper
Internet
Political conservative .094 -.066 **
(1.44) (-3.35)
Income x LEnvi
Education x Poli -.026 ** -.026 **
(-2.69) (-2.69)
Constant 0.231 1.746 ***
(0.50) (7.01)
Model fit statistics
Akaike information 5,203.6 5,203.6
criterion (AIC)
Bayesian information 5,234.5 5,234.5
criterion (BIC)
Notes: OLS, ordinary least squares; LEnvi, local environmental
degradation; GEnvi, global environmental degradation; Poli,
political conservativeness.
Numbers in parentheses are t-scores; from two-tailed tests,
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Table 8
Logistic Regression of Participation in Environmental Organizations
in Canada, 2006
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Age -.009 -.007 -.007 -.005
(-1.88) (-1.57) (-1.41) (-.95)
Male .190 .222 0.223 .186
(1.41) (1.59) (1.58) (1.17)
Education .121 ** .133 ** .119 ** .148 *
(3.18) (3.39) (2.87) (3.14)
Income .056 * .071 ** .063 * .040 *
(2.21) (2.71) (2.36) (2.05)
LEnvi .051 * .050 * .038 *
(2.26) (2.18) (1.98)
GEnvi .228 *** .240 *** .262 ***
(3.78) (3.90) (3.70)
Newspaper .246 .213
(1.40) (1.05)
-.052 .177
(-.15) (.41)
Internet .179 .191
(1.06) (1.00)
Political -.064
conservative
(-1.52)
Income x LEnvi
Education x
Poli
Constant -2.478 *** -5.115 *** -5.354 *** -5.485 ***
(-7.25) (-7.47) (-7.10) (-5.97)
Model fit
statistics
Akaike 1,494.4 1,389.6 1,391.9 1,392.5
information
criterion
(AIC)
Bayesian 1,521.8 1,434.9 1,435.8 1,447.8
information
criterion
(BIC)
Variable Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Age -.005 -.005
(-.95) (-.95)
Male .186 .192
(1.17) (1.20)
Education .148 ** .368 * .134 ***
(3.14) (2.94) (3.68)
Income .034 .043 * .082 **
(.61) (2.12) (3.15)
LEnvi .031 .036 * .054 *
(.52) (2.01) (2.43)
GEnvi .262 *** .260 *** .226 ***
(3.70) (3.69) (3.77)
Newspaper .212 .205
(1.05) (1.02)
.178 .156
(.41) (.36)
Internet .190 .199
(.99) (1.04)
Political -.064 .227
conservative
(-1.51) (1.45)
Income x LEnvi .001
(.13)
Education x -.042
Poli
(-1.92)
Constant -5.446 *** - 7.017 *** -5.412 ***
(-5.65) (-5.69) (-8.77)
Model fit
statistics
Akaike 1,392.9 1,391.3 1,385.6
information
criterion
(AIC)
Bayesian 1,454.9 1,451.3 1,406.3
information
criterion
(BIC)
Notes: LEnvi, local environmental degradation; GEnvi, global
environmental degradation; Poli, political conservativeness.
Numbers in parentheses are z-scores; from two-tailed tests,
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Table 9
The Correlates of Environmental Concern: Hypotheses and Results
Dimension 1 Dimension 2
Environmental Priority of
threat environmental
Variable Hypothesis awareness protection
H1: Income (+)
H2: Local (+) (-)
environmental
degradation
H3: Interaction (-)
between income
and local
environmental
degradation
H4: Global (+) (+) (+)
environmental
degradation
H5: Education (+) (+)
H6: Mass media (+)
H7: Political
orientation
(conservativeness)
H8: Interaction
between education
and political
conservativeness
H9: Gender (male) (-) (+)
H10: Age
Dimension 3 Dimension 4
Willingness to pay Participation in
for environmental environmental
Variable protection organizations
H1: Income (+)
H2: Local (+)
environmental
degradation
H3: Interaction
between income
and local
environmental
degradation
H4: Global (+) (+)
environmental
degradation
H5: Education (+) (+)
H6: Mass media
H7: Political
orientation
(conservativeness)
H8: Interaction
between education
and political
conservativeness
H9: Gender (male) (+)
H10: Age
Blank cell, no significant effect; (+), positive effect; (-),
negative effect.
