Advertisement

Population and Environment

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 207–216 | Cite as

Shifting environmental concern in rural eastern Oregon: the role of demographic and place-based factors

  • Angela E. Boag
  • Lawrence C. Hamilton
  • Joel Hartter
  • Forrest R. Stevens
  • Michael W. Palace
  • Mark J. Ducey
Research Brief

Abstract

Public opinion can impact the success of natural resource management policies and programs. In this case study, we assess the degree to which demographic and place-based factors are associated with changing public opinions on climate change, wolves, renewable energy, and land development regulations in rural northeast Oregon. Based on cross-sectional telephone survey data collected in 2011 and 2014, our observations suggest declining support for eliminating wolves, increased support for renewable energy, and increasingly favorable views of regulations that limit development in rural landscapes. We find that while demographic change and local events contribute to some of the observed shifts in opinion on wolves, exogenous factors acting at state and national levels likely contribute to shifting opinions on climate change, renewable energy, and land use regulations.

Keywords

Environmental concern Survey Climate change Wolves Renewable energy Oregon 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) (2014-68002-21782). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of NIFA or USDA. We appreciate continued collaboration with Oregon State University College of Forestry Extension, the USDA Forest Service, and the Oregon Department of Forestry. Special thanks to Paul Oester at Oregon State University Extension Service and Nils Christoffersen, Executive Director of Wallowa Resources, for their support and involvement in the CAFOR project. This study complies with US law and is approved by the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research at the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of New Hampshire.

Supplementary material

11111_2016_261_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. Abrams, J., & Bliss, J. C. (2013). Amenity landownership, land use change, and the re-creation of “working landscapes”. Society & Natural Resources, 26(7), 845–859. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2012.719587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). (2006). Standard definitions: Final disposition of case codes and outcome rates (4th ed.). Lenexa, KS: American Association for Public Opinion Research.Google Scholar
  3. Boag, A. E., Hartter, J., Hamilton, L. C., Stevens, F. R., Ducey, M. J., Palace, M. W., Christoffersen, N., & Oester, P. T. (2015). Forest views: Shifting attitudes toward the environment in Northeast Oregon. Durham, NH: Carsey School of Public Policy. http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/238/.
  4. Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the US, 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114(2), 169–188. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cash, D. W., & Moser, S. C. (2000). Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change, 10(2), 109–120. doi: 10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chavez, A. S., Gese, E. M., & Krannich, R. S. (2005). Attitudes of rural landowners toward wolves in northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(2), 517–527. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[517:AORLTW]2.0.CO;2.
  7. Christoffersen, N. (2005). Wallowa resources: Gaining access and adding value to natural resources on public lands. In Natural resources as community assets: Lessons from two continents (pp. 147–180). http://sandcounty.net/assets.
  8. Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 353–364. doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.00088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emmet Jones, R., Mark Fly, J., Talley, J., & Ken Cordell, H. (2003). Green migration into rural America: The new frontier of environmentalism? Society & Natural Resources, 16, 221–238. doi: 10.1080/08941920309159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fransson, N., & Garling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 369–382. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gosnell, H., & Abrams, J. (2011). Amenity migration: Diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal, 76(4), 303–322. doi: 10.1007/s10708-009-9295-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gruber, J. S. (2010). Key principles of community-based natural resource management : A synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. doi: 10.1007/s00267-008-9235-y.Google Scholar
  13. Hamilton, L. C., Colocousis, C. R., & Duncan, C. M. (2010). Place effects on environmental views. Rural Sociology, 75, 326–347. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2010.00013.x.
  14. Hamilton, L. C., Hamilton, L. R., Duncan, C. M., & Colocousis, C. R. (2008). Place matters: Challenges and opportunities in four rural Americas. Durham, NH: Carsey Institute. http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/41/.
  15. Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., Keim, B. D. Boag, A. E., Palace, M. W., Stevens, F. R., & Ducey, M. J. (2016). Wildfire, climate, and perceptions in Northeast Oregon. Regional Environmental Change, 16, 1819–1832. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0914-y.
  16. Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., Lemcke-Stampone, M., Moore, D. W., & Safford, T. G. (2015). Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0138208. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138208.
  17. Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., Safford, T. G., & Stevens, F. R. (2014). Rural environmental concern: Effects of position, partisanship and place. Rural Sociology, 79(2), 257–281. doi: 10.1111/ruso.12023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., Stevens, F., Congalton, R. G., Ducey, M., Campbell, M., Maynard, D., & Staunton, M. (2012). Forest views: Shifting attitudes toward the environment in northeast Oregon. Durham, NH: Carsey Institute. http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/162/.
  19. Hartter, J., Stevens, F. R., Hamilton, L. C.,  Oester, P. T., Congalton, R. G., Ducey, M. J., & Crowley, M. (2014). Forest management and wildfire risks in inland Northwest. Durham, NH: Carsey Institute. http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/211/.
  20. Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57(1), 28–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00455.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Measham, T. G., & Lumbasi, J. A. (2013). Success factors for community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): Lessons from Kenya and Australia. Environmental Management, 52(3), 649–659. doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0114-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. (2008). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 27(1), 1–26. doi: 10.1177/0013916506295574.Google Scholar
  23. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). (2014). 2014 Depradation Investigations. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/depredation_investigations_2014.asp.
  24. Rao, J. N. K., & Scott, A. J. (1984). On Chi squared tests for multiway contingency tables with cell proportions estimated from survey data. The Annals of Statistics, 12(1), 46–60. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176346391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schanning, K. (2009). Human dimensions: Public opinion research concerning wolves in the Great Lakes States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In Recovery of gray wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States (pp. 251–265). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-85952-1.
  26. Schultz, P. W. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457–475. doi: 10.1177/0022022105275962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scruggs, L., & Benegal, S. (2012). Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the great recession? Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 505–515. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sponarski, C. C., Semeniuk, C., Glikman, J. A., Bath, A. J., & Musiani, M. (2013). Heterogeneity among rural resident attitudes toward wolves. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 18(4), 239–248. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2013.792022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. StataCorp. (2013). Stata statistical software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  30. State of Oregon. (2015). Election statistics: Voter registrations and election participation. http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/electionsstatistics.aspx.
  31. Thomas, A. R., Lowe, B., Fulkerson, G., & Smith, P. (2011). critical rural theory: Structure, space, culture. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  32. Upham, P. (2009). Applying environmental-behaviour concepts to renewable energy siting controversy: Reflections on a longitudinal bioenergy case study. Energy Policy, 37(11), 4273–4283. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. US Census Bureau (2010–2014). American community survey 5-year estimates.Google Scholar
  34. Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental concern in a local context: The significance of place attachment. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 249–263. doi: 10.1177/00139160121972972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wallowa County Chieftain. (2014). Area ranchers’ wolf woes continue Ranchers in Northeast Oregon. http://www.wallowa.com/wolves/20141231/area-ranchers-wolf-woes-continue.
  36. Walker, P. A., & Hurley, P. T. (2011). Planning paradise: Politics and visioning of land use in Oregon. University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wang, T., & Chen, C. (2012). Attitudes, mode switching behavior, and the built environment: A longitudinal study in the Puget Sound Region. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(10), 1594–1607. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2012.08.001.Google Scholar
  38. Xiao, S., & Dunlap, R. (2007). Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern cross-nationally. Social Science Quarterly, 88(2), 471–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela E. Boag
    • 1
    • 8
  • Lawrence C. Hamilton
    • 2
    • 3
  • Joel Hartter
    • 1
    • 3
  • Forrest R. Stevens
    • 4
  • Michael W. Palace
    • 5
    • 6
  • Mark J. Ducey
    • 7
    • 3
  1. 1.Environmental Studies ProgramUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Sociology DepartmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Carsey School of Public PolicyUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Department of Geography and GeosciencesUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  5. 5.Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and SpaceUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  7. 7.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  8. 8.BoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations