Environmental Management

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 401–411 | Cite as

Rural environmental attitudes

  • Mark K. McBeth
  • Richard H. Foster


Two frequent beliefs about rural environmental attitudes are examined conceptually and empirically: (1) the common conception that rural environmental concerns are expressed predominantly by wealthy community newcomers; and (2) the related position that long-time rural residents are hostile to the environmental cause.

We argue conceptually, through the use of a 2×2 community matrix, that environmental attitudes are equally likely to be expressed by what we term “upper middle income newcomers,” “lower middle income newcomers,” “upper middle income locals,” and “lower middle income locals.” Empirically, we find that although wealthy newcomers express the strongest environmental attitudes in the community, their concerns represent only a small percentage of rural environmental attitudes consisting of respondents who make less than $40,000 a year in household income are over 40 years of age, possess less than a college education, and work in a nonprofessional occupation. This new category expresses environmental concerns at least equal to the rest of the community on three of four measures of environmental attitudes.

The findings provide insight into the widespread and cross-sectional nature of rural environmental concern. The implication is that environmental groups will find significant sources of political support in rural communities, provided they craft their environmental message in a language consistent with rural attitudes and values.

Things are gettin' bad fast. Easterners and environmentalists comin' down here from the big cities are tryin' to turn our way of life completely upside down.

A western US rancher quoted in Krakauer (1991)

Key words

Rural Western politics Attitudes Environmental policy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Babbie, E. 1986. The practice of social research. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, California, 577 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Blocker, T. J., and D. L. Eckberg. 1989. Environmental issues as women's issues: general concerns and local hazards.Social Science Quarterly 70:586–593.Google Scholar
  3. Buttel, F. H., and W. L. Flinn. 1977. Conceptions of rural life and environmental concern.Rural Sociology 42(4):544–555.Google Scholar
  4. Chambers, R. E., and M. K. McBeth. 1992. Community encouragement: returning to the original basis of community development.Journal of the Community Development Society 23(1):20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. Wiley, New York, 325 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Durkheim, E. 1893/1964. The division of labor in society. Free Press, New York, 439 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Flora, C. B., J. L. Flora, J. D. Spears, and L. Swanson 1992. Rural communities: Legacy and change. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 334 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Fortmann, L., and J. Kusel. 1990. New voices, old beliefs: Forest environmentalism among new and long-standing rural residents.Rural Sociology 55(2):214–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foster, R. H. 1991. The federal government and the West, Pages 77–102in C. Thomas (ed.), Politics and public policy in the contemporary American West. University of New Mexico Press, 589 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Hamilton, L. C. 1985. Concern about toxic wastes: Three demographic predictors.Sociological Perspectives 28:463–486.Google Scholar
  11. Hueber, G. 1992. Americans report high levels of environmental concern, activity.The Gallup Poll Monthly April:6–11.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, R. E., and R. E. Dunlap. 1992. The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time?Rural Sociology 57(1):28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krakauer, J. 1991. Brown-fellas.Outside December:69–72, 114–116.Google Scholar
  14. Merton, R. K. 1957. Social theory and social structure. Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, 645 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Mohai, P., and B. W. Twight. 1987. Age and environmentalism: An elaboration of the Buttel Model using national survey evidence.Social Science Quarterly 68(4):798–815.Google Scholar
  16. Morrison, D. E., and R. E. Dunlap. 1986. Environmentalism and elitism.Environmental Management 10(5):581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ott, L., W. Mendenhall, and R. F. Larson. 1978. Statistics: A tool for the social sciences. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, MA, 531 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Rank, M. R., and P. R. Voss. 1982. Patterns of rural community involvement: A comparison of residents and recent migrants.Rural Sociology 47(2):197–219.Google Scholar
  19. Rudzitis, G., and H. E. Johansen. 1991. How important is wilderness? Results from a United States survey.Environmental Management 15(2):227–233.Google Scholar
  20. Stephenson, J. B. 1968. Shiloh: A mountain community. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, 232 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Stern, P. C. 1992. Psychological dimensions of global environmental change.Annual Review of Psychology 43:269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Toennies, F. (trans. by C. P. Loomis). 1887/1963. Community and society. Harper Torchbook, New York, 257 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Tremblay, K. R., and R. E. Dunlap. 1978. Rural-urban residence and concern with environmental quality replication and extension.Rural Sociology 43:474–491.Google Scholar
  24. Van Liere, K. D., and R. E. Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence.Public Opinion Quarterly 44:181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Willits, F. K., R. C. Bealer, and V. L. Timbers. 1990. Popular images of “rurality”: Data from a Pennsylvania survey.Rural Sociology 55(4):559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark K. McBeth
    • 1
  • Richard H. Foster
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA

Personalised recommendations