Advertisement

Environmental Concern: A Global Perspective

  • Andreas Diekmann
  • Axel Franzen
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Measurement and early exploration of the determinants of environmental concern was pioneered by Dieter Urban. Here, we focus primarily on the relation between the wealth of nations and environmental concern. Based on survey data environmental sociologists assert that citizens in poor countries exhibit a larger degree of environmental concern than citizens in wealthy countries. However, a detailed analysis points to an interaction effect with different dimensions of environmental concern. While there is evidence for a negative correlation between per capita GNP and environmental awareness of local ecological problems, environmental concern with global problems is positively correlated with nations‘ wealth. Environmental concern is important for legitimizing institutions but has only a modest effect on individual behavior. Institutional regulations such as the implementation of an ecological tax regime or emission certificates could change behavior by discouraging environmentally harmful consumption and rewarding ecologically friendly behavior. However, institutions will not be effective without acceptance by citizens and, at least in democratic societies, change in laws and institutions requires the political will of the voters. In this regard, citizens’ environmental concern plays a central role in determining environmental behavior.

Schlüsselbegriffe

Global environmental concern International Social Survey Health of Planet Survey dimensions of environmental concern income and environmental awareness rating and ranking questions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Blais, Andre and Robert Young. 1999. Why Do People Vote? An Experiment in Rationality. Public Choice, 99: 39-55.Google Scholar
  2. Diekmann, Andreas and Axel Franzen. 1999. The Wealth of Nations and Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior, 31: 540-549.Google Scholar
  3. Diekmann, Andreas and Peter Preisendörfer. 1998. Environmental Behavior. Discrepancies between Aspirations and Reality. Rationality and Society, 10: 79-102.Google Scholar
  4. Diekmann, Andreas and Peter Preisendörfer. 2003. Green and Greenback: The Behavioral Effects of Environmental Attitudes in Low-Cost and High-Cost Situations. Rationality and Society, 15: 441-472.Google Scholar
  5. Downs, Anthony. 1972. Up and Down with Ecology – the Issue-Attention Cycle. The Public Interest, 28: 38-50.Google Scholar
  6. Dunlap, Riley E., G.H. Gallup and A.M. Gallup. 1993. Of Global Concern. Results of the Health of the Planet Survey. Environment, 35.Google Scholar
  7. Dunlap, Riley E., and Kent D. van Liere. 1978. The ”New Environmental Paradigm“. A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9: 10-19.Google Scholar
  8. Dunlap, Riley E. and Angela G. Mertig. 1996. Weltweites Umweltbewusstsein. Eine Herausforderung für die sozialwissenschaftliche Theorie. In Umweltsoziologie. Special Issue No. 36 of the Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Eds. Diekmann, A. und C.C. Jäger.Google Scholar
  9. Dunlap, Riley and Richard York. 2008. The Globalization of Environmental Concern and the Limits oft the Postmaterialist Values Explanation: Evidence from Multinational Surveys. Sociological Quarterly 49: 529-563.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. 1992. Europeans and the Environment in 1992. European Coordination Office.Google Scholar
  11. Ezati, Majid and Daniel M. Kammen. 2001. Indoor Air Pollution from Biomass Combustion and Acute Respiratory Infections in Kenya: An Exposure-Response Study. Lancet, 358: 619-624.Google Scholar
  12. Franzen, Axel. 1997. Umweltbewusstsein und Verkehrsverhalten. Empirische Analysen zur Verkehrsmittelwahl und der Akzeptanz umweltpolitischer Massnahmen. Ruegger: Chur and Zuerich.Google Scholar
  13. Franzen, Axel and Dominikus Vogl. 2013a. Acquiescence and the willingness to pay for environmental protection: A comparison of the ISSP, WVS, and EVS. Social Science Quarterly 94: 637-659.Google Scholar
  14. Franzen, Axel and Dominikus Vogl. 2013b. Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change 23: 1001–1008.Google Scholar
  15. Goodwin, Phil, Joyce Dargay and Mark Hanly. 2004. Elasticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption with Respect to Price and Income: A Review. Transport Reviews, 24: 275-292.Google Scholar
  16. Hines, Jody M., Harold R. Hungerfold and Audrey N. Tomera. 1987. Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18: 1-8.Google Scholar
  17. Human Development Report. 2005. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations: New York.Google Scholar
  18. Inglehart, Ronald. 1995. Public Support for the Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies. Political Science and Politics, 28: 57-72.Google Scholar
  19. Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  20. Kirchgässner, Gebhard and Werner Pommerehne. 1993. Low-Cost Decisions as a Challenge to Public Choice. Public Choice, 77: 107-115.Google Scholar
  21. Leitner, Kerstin. 2005. Health and Environment. Environment Matters. World Bank: Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  22. Mauch, S. P., R. Iten, Von Weizsäcker, E. U. and J. Jesinghaus. 1992. Ökologische Steuerreform. Ruegger, Chur and Zuerich.Google Scholar
  23. Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgan Randers and W. W. Behrens III. 1972. The Limits to Growth. A Report of the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books: New York.Google Scholar
  24. North, Douglas C. 1986. The New Institutional Economics. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 142: 230-37.Google Scholar
  25. Pfister, Christian, Ed. 1995. Das 1950er Syndrom. Der Weg in die Konsumgesellschaft. Haupt Verlag: Bern.Google Scholar
  26. Riker, William H. and Peter C. Ordeshook. 1968. A Theory of the Calculus of Voting. American Political Science Review, 62: 25-43.Google Scholar
  27. Trace, Simon. 2005. Sanitation. No Silver Bullets, but Reasons for Hope. Environment Matters. World Bank: Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  28. Urban, Dieter. 1986. Was ist Umweltbewußtsein? Exploration eines mehrdimensionalen Einstellungskonstruktes. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 15: 363-373.Google Scholar
  29. Urban, Dieter. 1991. Die kognitive Struktur von Umweltbewußtsein. Ein kausalanalytischer Modelltest. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 22: 166-180.Google Scholar
  30. Urban, Dieter. 1996. Quantitative Measurement of Public Opinions on New Technologies. An Application of SEM-Methodology to the Analysis of Beliefs and Values Toward New Human Applications of Genetic Engineering. Scientometrics 35: 71-92.Google Scholar
  31. Urban, Dieter and Uwe Pfenning. 2000. Attitudes Towards Genetic Engineering Between Change and Stability: Results of a Panel Study. New Genetics and Society 19: 251-268.Google Scholar
  32. Weizsäcker, Ernst Ulrich von, L. Hunter Lovins and Amory B. Lovins. 1998. Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use – A Report to the Club of Rome. Earthscan: London.Google Scholar
  33. World Bank. 2005. Environment Matters. World Bank: Washington, D. C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BerlinDeutschland
  2. 2.BernSchweiz

Personalised recommendations