Public Support for Environmental Protection: New Evidence from National Surveys

Lowe, George D.; Pinhey, Thomas K.; Grimes, Michael D.

doi:10.2307/1388734

Cited by 54 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it has been suggested that the integration of public attitudes into environmental management decisions should include their direct contact, for example through the use of public opinion surveys (House and Fordham, 1997). Public opinion surveys have been used to assess the status of environmental knowledge on a range of topics (Arcury, 1990;Arcury and Johnson, 1987;Dunlap, 1991;Lowe et al, 1980) from general environmental awareness and attitude (Scott and Willits, 1994) to the public's position on global warming (Bord et al, 1998) to the value of specific landscapes (Kellom€ aki and Savolainen, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observer rating of recreational use in wadeable streams of New York State, USA: Implications for nutrient criteria development

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observer rating of recreational use in wadeable streams of New York State, USA: Implications for nutrient criteria development

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Perhaps the most straightforward approach is to ask people how worried or upset they are about a series of environmental problems, whether on the local or national level (Constantine and Hanf 1972;McEvoy 1972;Dunlap, Gale, and Rutherford 1974;Milbraith 1975). A second approach, striving for greater concreteness, asks respondents to weigh tradeoffs-sometimes implicitly, as in asking whether more or less money ought to be spent on environmental protection (Dillman and Christenson 1972;Erskine 1974;Dunlap and Dillman 1976;Lowe, Pinhey, and Grimes 1980;Mohai and Twight 1986), and at other times explicitly, asking about tradeoffs of environmental protection against increased employment or industrial development (Sharma, Kivlin, and Fliegel 1975;Marsh and Christenson 1977;Butte1 and Flinn 1976a;Mohai and Twight 1986). A third approach involves measured agreement with items that are more abstract, such as the belief that "Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature," or that "The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources" (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978, p. 13).…”

Section: Measuring Environmental Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rural‐Urban Differences in Environmental Concern: A Closer Look*

Freudenburg

1991

Sociological Inquiry

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In comparison with urbanites, rural residents live in environments that are less heavily modified by human activity. They also depend more directly on the extraction or use of natural resources and are more likely to suffer the kinds of economic weaknesses that could lead them to favor economic development even at the expense of environmental protection. Yet while some studies have found rural residents to express lower levels of environmental concern than do urbanites, other studies have found that low levels of rural environmental concern may actually reflect lower concerns among farmers in particular. These varied results may be affected by methodologies, including the degree of focus on local environmental concern and the need to separate livins in polluted areas from workins for polluting industries. Drawing on rural areas with significant employment both in agriculture and in mining, this paper presents data on more specific local concerns about the environment and technological development. The findings show persons in agriculture express higher levels of concern than do other rural persons in the same communities. The results suggest that widespread support for environmental protection may make it difficult to isolate groups having low levels of environmental concern unless greater attention is devoted to the specific environmental issues having the greatest local salience.

show abstract

“…A second economic variable tests the "extractive commodity" hypothesis, and is supported by several scholars (Salka 2001;Kahn and Matsusaka 1997;Freshwater and Deavers 1992;Freudenburg 1991;Lowe et al 1980). This hypothesis suggests that differing levels of support for environmental protection across counties can be explained by dependence on natural resource and construction industries, which require the extraction of natural resources.…”

Section: Sources Of Support For Environmental Protectionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Determinants of Countywide Voting Behavior on Environmental Ballot Measures: 1990–2000*

Salka

2003

Rural Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is considerable debate in the literature regarding the variables that produce differing levels of countywide support for environmental protection. Competing explanations include differences stemming from individual attributes of residents, economic conditions, and urban‐rural differences. The present study examines why some counties express higher levels of support for environmental protection when voting on environmental ballot measures. Using voting data aggregated at the county level on state‐wide environmental ballot measures in five states, OLS regression is employed to examine the utility of each explanation. The results suggest that while all three hypotheses are accurate in a number of cases and urban counties tend to be more supportive of environmental protection than rural counties, individual attributes and economic conditions appear to be the most influential.

show abstract

Public Support for Environmental Protection: New Evidence from National Surveys

Cited by 54 publications

References 13 publications

Observer rating of recreational use in wadeable streams of New York State, USA: Implications for nutrient criteria development

Observer rating of recreational use in wadeable streams of New York State, USA: Implications for nutrient criteria development

Rural‐Urban Differences in Environmental Concern: A Closer Look*

Determinants of Countywide Voting Behavior on Environmental Ballot Measures: 1990–2000*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About