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

Abstract

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.

Understanding Environmentalism in a Red, Agricultural State: The Impact of Political Party Identification and Place of Residence

“…Later studies, however, produced inconsistent results showing little to no support for rural-urban differences in environmentalism (see Arcury and Christianson 1993;Bennett and McBeth 1998;Freudenburg 1991;Jones et al 1999Jones et al , 2003Kowalewski 1994;58 J. Blankenau et al McBeth and Bennett 2001;McBeth and Foster 1994;Van Liere and Dunlap 1980;Williams and Moore 1992).…”

U.S. Midwestern Residents Perceptions of Water Quality

“…These include theories that urban environmental degradation is more visible; rural people, especially people who are engaged in natural resources extracting occupations, have utilitarian orientations and; small-town residents have a pro-growth orientation [19,20]. The residence effect is also found to be significant in water quality perceptions.…”

“…Based on the literature about environmental views, we hypothesized that a person with stronger pro-environment attitudes is more likely to have negative assessment of the quality of natural resources such as water. Also, due to the differences in orientations towards the environment [19,20], we hypothesized that urban and rural non-farm residents have lower perceptions about the quality of local water than farmers.…”

Gauging citizen support for a low carbon fuel standard

“…Region by province (Shwom et al, 2008;Matisoff and Edwards, 2014) Regions heavily reliant on carbon intensive industries or fossil fuel production À Regions less reliant on carbon intensive industries or fossil fuel production þ Region by living area type (Freudenburg, 1991;Elliott et al, 1997) Urban and suburban þ Rural À Political ideology-citizen affiliation with, or support for, federal political parties (Lyon and Yin, 2010) Left-liberal perspectives þ Conservative perspectives À Social networks-discussion of climate change with families and friends and participation in environmental activities (Lubell et al, 2007) þ Number of vehicles in a household À Daily commute time to work or school À Commute mode to work or school Drive myself À Other modes (e.g., carpool, public transit, bicycle) þ Personal capability variables Age (Elliott et al, 1997;Klineberg et al, 1998) À Gender (Elliott et al, 1997;Klineberg et al, 1998) Male À Female þ Education (Elliott et al, 1997;Klineberg et al, 1998) þ Income (Elliott et al, 1997;Klineberg et al, 1998) þ Awareness of LCFS existence in British Columbia (Rhodes et al, 2014;Lorenzoni et al, 2007) þ a þPositive effect, and À negative effect.…”