Shades of Green: Environmental Attitudes in Canada and Around the World 9780773581883

Citation preview

SHADES OF GREEN

This page intentionally left blank

SHADES

OF G R E E N ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES IN CANADA AND AROUND THE WORLD

Edited by Alan Frizzell Jon H. Pammett I N T E R N A T I O N A L SOCIAL SURVEY P R O G R A M M E (ISSP) SERIES # 2

CARLETON U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS

Copyright © Carleton University Press, 1997 Printed and bound in Canada

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Shades of green: environmental attitudes in Canada and around the world (ISSP (International Social Survey Programme) series ; 2) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-88629-321-9 1. Pollution—Public opinion. 2. Environmental policy—Public opinion. 3. Pollution—Canada—Public opinion. 4. Environmental policy—Canada—Public opinion. 5. Public opinion—Canada. I. Frizzell, Alan, date- II. Pammett, Jon H., date- III. Series. HC79.E5S42 1997

363,7

C97-900398-9

Cover Design: Your Aunt Nellie Typeset: Mayhew & Associates Graphic Communications, Richmond, Ont., in association with Marie Tappin Carleton University Press gratefully acknowledges the support extended to its publishing program by the Canada Council and the financial assistance of the Ontario Arts Council. The Press would also like to thank the Department of Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada, and the Government of Ontario through the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, for their assistance.

CONTENTS

1

2

3

List of Tables Preface

vi ix

Environmental Attitudes Around the World Alan Frizzell

ι

Canadian Opinions on Environmental Policy: Patterns and Determinants Scott Bennett Canada's Green Plan: An Expression of the Popular Will? Peter Morrison

4

5

19

Green Words and Public Deeds: Environmental Hazards and Citizen Response in Canada and the United States Harold D. Clarke and Marianne C. Stewart Global Environmental and Scientific Knowledge Tom W Smith

55

75

105

6

Environmental Concern, Religious Belief and Faith in Science: Complementary or Antagonistic Values? Jon H. Pammett 129

7

Environmental Consciousness and Economic Development: Some East-West Comparisons Joan DeBardeleben 147 Appendix: Data Frequencies

169

List of Contributors

203

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 1 1 Prices and Jobs 2 Environment and Jobs 3 Progress and Environment 4 Environmental Efficacy 5 Environment and Growth 6 Environment and Taxes 7 Environment and Participation 8 Government Responsibility 9 Air Pollution by Cars 10 Nuclear Threat

3 4 5 6 7 9 II 12 13 15

Chapter 2 1 Preferences for Government Intervention in the Environmental Activity of Individuals 21 2 Preferences for Government Intervention in the Environmental Activity of Businesses 21 3 Preferred Focus of Government Energy Policy 22 4 Sociotropic Perceptions of Severity of Environmental Threats 23 5 Egocentric Perceptions of Severity of Environmental Threats 23 6 Greatest Perceived Threat to Personal Environment 25 7 Willingness to Make Material Sacrifices to Protect the Environment 26 8 Percentage Frequency of Altering Behaviour to Conform with Environmental Goals 27 9 Percentage of Respondents Giving Correct Answers to Environmental and Scientific Knowledge Questions 30 10 Beliefs about Science, Nature and the Environment 32 11 Perspectives on the Importance of Nature 33 12 Rotated Varimax Variable Loadings on Major Factors Extracted from Questions on Perceived Environmental Threats 35 13 Post Varimax Rotation Variable Loadings on Major Factors Extracted from Questions on Willingness to Commit Resources and Behaviour to Environmental Improvements 38

14

15 16

Post Varimax Variable Loadings on Major Factors Extracted from Questions on Beliefs about the Environment, Nature, Science and Progress 40 Coefficients for Various Predictors of Preference for Government Involvement in Individuals Environmental Activity 42 Coefficients for Various Predictors of Preference for Government Involvement in Businesses' Environmental Activity 45

Chapter 3 1 Trade-offs Between the Environment and the Economy 2 Best Environmental Policies and Political Behaviour 3 Preferences for Paying for Environmental Protection 4 Severity of Environmental Risks 5 Ranking of Perceived Greatest Threats 6 Policy Instruments in the Green Plan 7 Familiarity with the Green Plan 8 Perceived Effectiveness of the Green Plan Chapter 4 1 Perceived Hazards to Environment Generally and to Self and Family 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Perceived Hazards to Environment Generally and to Self and Family in Particular, Canada, 1993 3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Perceived Hazards to Environment Generally and to Self and Family in Particular, United States, 1993 4 Protecting the Environment, Attitudes and Activities, Canada and the United States, 1993 5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Attitudes and Activities Regarding Environmental Protection, Canada, 1993 6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Attitudes and Activities Regarding Environmental Protection, United States, 1993 7 Covariance Structure Analysis of Determinants of Attitudes and Behaviour Regarding Environmental Protection, Canada, 1993 8 Covariance Structure Analysis of Determinants of Attitudes and Behaviour Regarding Environmental Protection, United States, 1993

60 61 63 64 65 67 67 68

81

84

85 87 90 91

92

93

Chapter Five 1 Scores on Individual Environmental and Scientific Knowledge Items Across Countries 107 2 National Scores on Environmental and Scientific Knowledge Scales 108 3 Country Ranges on Individual Items 109 4 Factor Loadings Across Countries 115 5 Factor Loadings Across Countries: College Educated Only 116 6 Correlations with Environmental and Scientific Knowledge 119 7 Multiple Regression of Scientific and Environmental Knowledge 121 Chapter Six 1 Attitudes to Science in Twenty-two Countries, 1993 131 2 Concern for the Environment in Twenty-two Countries, 1993 133 3 Attitudes to the Environment and the Economy in Twenty-two Countries, 1993 134 4 Predictors of Environmental Concern in Twenty Countries, 1993 137 5 Distribution of Attitudes of Environmental Concern and Faith in Science in Four Countries, 1993 140 6 Predictors of Willingness to Accept Cuts in Standard of Living in Twenty Countries, 1993 142 Chapter Seven 1 Mean Values for Selected Environmental Attitudes by Country, Ranked by GNP per Capita, 1993 153 2 Belief that Economic Growth is Needed for Environmental Protection, by Country, 1993 154 3 Belief that People Worry too much about Progress Harming the Environment, by Country, 1993 154 4 Willingness to Accept Cut in Standard of Living for the Environment, by Country, 1993 155 5 Willingness to Pay much Higher Prices for the Environment, by Country, 1993 155 6 Mean Values for Respondents' Assessments of Environmental Dangers in Selected Countries, by Country, 1993 159 7 Predictors of Support for Economic Growth/Progress, by Country, 1993 161 8 Predictors of Willingness to Sacrifice for the Environment, by Country, 1993 165

PREFACE

POLICY APPROACHES to environmental concerns vary from country to country and records of national achievement in environmental protection are diverse. But there are some common elements to environmental problems, whether they fall within the jurisdiction of national or regional governments, or are more general. Sometimes theatre-specific problems can be addressed by bilateral agreements such as those between Canada and the United States on such matters as pollution in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. More general concerns about atmospheric and marine pollution can only be dealt with by international co-operation and co-ordination. Such co-operation must be inclusive, since rogue nations could jeopardize the good intentions of other countries. Three factors are necessary to ensure co-operation and action on environmental matters. First, there must be a forum to work out solutions to, and agreements on, environmental dilemmas. Second, there must be the political will to implement ensuing proposals. This volume concentrates on the crucial third element, supportive public attitudes about the importance of the environment. Public opinion around the world must demand and support environmental protection, and such opinions will encourage or undermine the resolve of authorities to make difficult, and often costly, policy decisions. But is there a community of interest on the environment that spreads across national frontiers and fosters international action? This question was the focus of the International Social Survey Programme (iSSP) environment survey of 1993. The ISSP is a group of research organizations from twenty-six nations who each year conduct identical surveys on a specific topic. Despite differences of language, culture and demography a common methodology creates a set of comparative attitudinal data. Each country creates its own data file and these are combined at the Zentralarchiv fü r Empirische Sozialforschung at the University of Cologne. Twenty countries participated in the 1993 environment survey, though there are twentytwo data sets as Northern Ireland and former East Germany are treated as independent units of analysis.

This book contains the main findings of this international research project. It is the second of a series of annual volumes, following the publication oí Social Inequality in Canada (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1996) which reported the results of the 1992 ISSP survey. Future annual volumes are planned on the subjects of Women and Changing Gender Roles (1998), National Identity (1999) and the Role of Government (2000). This book is organized to explore several aspects of public opinion on the environment, both in Canada and around the world. Chapter 1 provides an overview of how people in different countries agree or disagree on a range of environmental issues. In Chapter 2, Scott Bennett examines Canadian attitudes about the environment and the influences that form them, particularly opinions on the governments responsibility for environmental protection. This theme is developed in Chapter 3 where attitudes are related to policy, especially the Canadian federal government s Green Plan. Chapter 4 broadens the picture, comparing attitudes in Canada and the United States on a variety of environmental issues, and finding more similarities than differences. The second half of the book explores the international ISSP data in depth, from three directions. Tom Smith looks at knowledge levels about the environment around the world in Chapter 5 and explains what factors are critical in the development of such knowledge. Chapter 6 deals with the interrelationship of attitudes about science, environment and religion, and shows how faith in the ability of science to solve environmental problems, while varying from country to country, mitigates the publics view of the seriousness of the environmental situation. In Chapter 7 Joan DeBardeleben examines differences in attitudes between the Western industrialized countries and those countries of the former Soviet Union and shows how economic circumstances shape perceptions about the environment.

I

ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AROUND THE WORLD

Alan Frizzell

THERE IS GENERAL AGREEMENT that concern about the environment has risen over the last three decades. Most ascribe this development to the activities of environmental groups which have not only changed public perceptions, but have forced some governments to respond through rhetoric and policy. Yet the heady hope of the early environmental movements that they could change the substantive nature of the political debate has not materialized, largely due to the fact that they have failed to gain political power in national legislatures. True there have been successes, notably in Germany, but even there as an opposition force their effectiveness has been limited. The reasons for this include the obvious divisions within the environmental movement, their status in some people's minds as single-issue groups, and the fact that they face the mighty strength of established authorities. The variety of opinions within the environmental movement is considerable, ranging from those who would dramatically alter existing society and its power structure to those who seek only to reform policy. There are those who see the environmental "crisis in terms of anthropocentric humanism that is central to the leading ideologies of modernity, including liberal capitalism and marxism" and as a result of "authoritarian social structures, embodied most perniciously in capitalism, but also present in state socialism" (Zimmerman 1994, 2). This tendency includes the ecofeminists who see environmental problems as an "outcome of a patriarchy that follows a 'logic of domination" (Zimmerman, 1994). Others, more moderate in their approach, still advocate considerable reform, necessary since "political ecology raises problems not amenable to any social contract or basic pact between free individuals" (Lipnitz 1995, 24). Despite this, there are those who suggest that environmental advocacy can result

2

SHADES OF G R E E N

in significant policy reform at the local level (Caldwell, 1976) and at the national level. In some countries this has moved environmental issues from the margin to the centre of the political stage (Toner and Doern 1994, 415). Thus, though it could be argued that environmentalists have not been totally successful, they have been more successful than most new groups (Dunlap 1989, 87-134). It could even be argued that their greatest success was to influence public attitudes on environmental issues. The purpose of this chapter is to look at attitudes toward a number of environmental concerns in twenty-two countries (or units) surveyed by the International Social Survey Programme (iSSP). Specifically, it will deal with attitudes on environmental issues, the perceived impact of environmental reform on the economy, and how willing respondents would be to sacrifice for environmental improvements, how personal behaviour is reflected by attitudes on the environment and environmental dangers. THE E N V I R O N M E N T AS AN I S S U E

When respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statements that "we worry too much about the environment and not enough about prices and jobs today," there was considerable variance between the countries involved in the study (see also Chapter 6). The countries where a majority of respondents agreed with the statement were Ireland, Slovenia, Poland and Hungary. But several nations came close. Those countries where over 40 percent agreed were the former East Germany, (for analytic reasons the Germans still distinguish between former East Germany and West Germany), Northern Ireland, the U.S., Bulgaria and the Philippines. Since in most cases a number of respondents could not say one way or another this means that of decided respondents a majority agreed with the position. This suggests that for some countries factors other than the environment are more important at this very general level. Clearly environmental concerns are evident, notably in Australia, the Netherlands, Norway and especially Canada and New Zealand. These results suggest that while the environment is an important issue, it is by no means of overwhelming importance.

ALAN F R I Z Z E L L

3

TABLE 1: PRICES AND JOBS We worry too much about the future of the environment and not enough about prices and jobs today.

Australia West Germany East Germany Great Britain Northern Ireland United States Hungary Italy Ireland The Netherlands Norway Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Russia New Zealand Canada The Philippines Israel Japan Spain

Strongly Agree

Agree

4 8 18 9 10 11 19 13 19 5 5 19 13 16 22 11 7 7 7 11 11 6

22 23 23 27 30 29 26 33 36 23 20 20 38 28 17 11 23 18 43 18 14 32

Neither Disagree Agree nor Disagree

16 13 16 13 15 14 25 13

7 19 14 16 14 12 9

22 12 14 20 16 23 16

42 31 24 37 34 32 20 31 32 41 43 25 16 30 14 19 45 41 29 29 21 35

Strongly Disagree

16 23 16 10

7 9 5 9 6 9 14 18 4 7 25 26 12 17 2 22 22 8

Cant Choose

1 3

4 3 3 5 5 1 1 4 3 3 5 8 14 10 2 3 1

4 9 3

When asked if almost everything we do in modern life harms the environment, majorities in East and West Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Russia and Spain agreed with the proposition. Strangely most of these countries were more concerned with jobs than the environment in Table 1. On the other hand there is general agreement that progress is a threat to the environment. Only in Hungary, Bulgaria and Russia do a majority disagree with the statement that "people worry too much about human progress harming the environment." A trend is developing that, in fact, continues throughout the data that the countries of the former Soviet Bloc have different ideas about the environment than most other countries in the data set (see Chapter 7). Another question of interest relates to the rights of animals. This is important to the environmental debate since one branch of the environmental movement, called "Deep Environmentalism," takes the position that the basis of environmentalism should be the protection of the planet on behalf of all living creatures (Caley 1991, 3-18). When respondents were asked if

4

SHADES OF G R E E N

TABLE 2: E N V I R O N M E N T AND J O B S People worry too much about human progress harming the environment.

Australia West Germany East Germany Great Britain Northern Ireland United States Hungary Italy Ireland The Netherlands Norway Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Russia New Zealand Canada The Philippines Israel Japan Spain

Strongly Agree

Agree

3

24 20 21 26 28 27 41 27 36 28 21 22 38 27 27 25 25 20 47 30 15 32

5 8 4 3 4 22 9 5 2 3 12 9 7 29 26 2 3

6 11 10 5

Neither Disagree Agree nor Disagree 16 44 13 31 14 34 18 40 40 19 17 39 26 6 13 37

9 18 18 13 13 14 11 25 15 11 24 15 23 11

43 39 43 37 31 34 7 8 46 48 21 28 23 41

Strongly Disagree 12 28 16

7 5 8 1 14 5 6 5 13 5 6 5 5 9 14 1 12 22 8

Cant Choose 1

3 6 6 4 5 4 1 2 7 7 3 5 12 21 11 3 5 0 5 8 3

animals should have the same moral rights as human beings only Poland, Bulgaria, Russia and Japan had over 50 percent of respondents agreeing; Japan with a staggering 74 percent. These results should give some succour to the "Deep Ecologists" since even when there is not majority support for the proposition there is still considerable support. What will not please them, however, is that when respondents were asked if they approved of the use of animals for medical testing if it might save human lives, majority approval was evident in every country; in most cases this support was overwhelming. Finally, not only is there a recognition among many respondents that environmental issues are important, there is also a sense that individuals can do something about the environment. When asked, "it is just too difficult for someone like me to do much about the environment," there was overwhelming disagreement except for the former Soviet Bloc countries, the Philippines and Japan.

ALAN F R I Z Z E L L

5

TABLE 3: P R O G R E S S AND E N V I R O N M E N T It is just too difficult for someone like me to do much about the environment.

Australia West Germany East Germany Great Britain Northern Ireland United States Hungary Italy Ireland The Netherlands Norway Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Russia New Zealand Canada The Philippines Israel Japan Spain

Strongly Agree

Agree

2 7 10 5 9 4 21 5 12 3 3 21 9 12 43 27 2 2 2 12 12 7

19 21 28 28 31 20 32 17 34 17 16 34 34 40 27 24 17 10 36 29 15 33

Neither Disagree Agree nor Disagree 16 53 15 33 30 15 16 40 15 35 48 13 23 19 12 44 6 37 18 48 52 8 12 22 36 13 9 27 7 7 12 19 50 15 54 12 24 36 12 28 23 15 12 37

Strongly Disagree

10 22 12 6 6 8 5 22 10 12 21 8 4 5 8 9 13 20 2 16 30 8

Can't Choose

1 3 5 5 5 7 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 7 9 8 3 3 0 2 5 3

THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

Throughout the environmental debate the economic impact of new environmental policies has been a hot topic. Arguments range from the suggestion that a cleaner and more natural environment would promote economic growth, to the argument that the costs of achieving this new environment or preventing industrial or commercial expansion on environmental grounds would cripple national economies. Bowman argues that the cost-benefit analysis of the early environmentalists was entirely unrealistic (Bowman 1975, 91-98). But some economists argue that an econometric approach shows no incompatibility between environmental protection and economic growth (Barrett 1992, 289-300). The extent of environmental protection will intrude into the debate, of course, and some would argue that the pursuit of an entirely zero-risk society would threaten political and economic stability (Garling, Colledge 1993, 223-49). At any level of the debate there will be always be, in terms of public attitudes, a

6

SHADES OF GREEN

TABLE 4: E N V I R O N M E N T A L E F F I C A C Y Economic growth always harms the environment.

Australia West Germany East Germany Great Britain Northern Ireland United States Hungary Italy Ireland The Netherlands Norway Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Russia New Zealand Canada The Philippines Israel Japan Spain

Strongly Agree

Agree

19 13 13 3

23 33 26 19 23 18 25 40 26 25 14 24 36 35 22 21 15 17 38 16 28 33

3 2 15 16 5 3 3 11 8 8 23 14 2 3 4 8 28 6

Neither Disagree Agree nor Disagree 49 47 20 24 18 26 30 35 36 29 24 44 18 33 20 17 15 43 26 36 21 26 19 33 22 24 18 25 13 13 12 29 22 52 21 46 30 25 21 34 8 23 26 23

Strongly Disagree 4 4

9 3 2 5 3 5 7 4 7 10 2 2 6 9 5 7 2 17 6 4

Can't Choose 2

6 9 9 8 7 6 3 4 6 9 3 8 12 23 14 4 5 1 5 7 9

tension or conflict between the role of the consumer and the public role of the citizen (Sagoff, 1988) and this is what the present study was designed to measure. When respondents were asked if "economic growth always harms the environment" the former Soviet Bloc countries, the Philippines, and both East and West Germany and Italy tended to agree. But the country most agreeable to the proposition was Japan where 56 percent of all respondents agreed. This curious blend of highly-advanced economies and emerging economies suggests that those who have want to keep it and those who don't have want to get it. The two countries that disagreed with the statement were Canada and New Zealand and this similarity of opinion parallels many other findings in the study. If some environmentalists feel that economic growth will harm the environment, then it is a feeling not shared by respondents in any country participating in the study. Respondents were asked if they believed that "in order to protect the environment, (a country) needs economic growth" and in every country at least a plurality agreed.

ALAN F R I Z Z E L L

7

TABLE 5: E N V I R O N M E N T AND GROWTH In order to protect the environment (country) needs economic growth.

Australia West Germany East Germany Great Britain Northern Ireland United States Hungary Italy Ireland The Netherlands Norway Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Russia New Zealand Canada The Philippines Israel Japan Spain

Strongly Agree

Agree

4 11

34 29 31 36 39 43 38 33 51 25 35 31 48 54 22 19 31 36 63 38 25 43

13 5 7 5 29 12 13 3 6 50 15 20 43 35 6 7 11 21 25 7

Neither Disagree Agree nor Disagree

29 22 18 25 25 22 18 17 13 26 18 10 14 7 8 19 21 19 18 14 26 16

27 20 21 22 19 22 8 26 18 34 27 5 13 9 4 6 32 27 7 15 10 16

Strongly Disagree

4 9 9 2 2 2 2 8 3 4 5 2 2 2 4 4 6 5 1 8 6 3

Can't Choose

2 8 8 9 8 7 5 4 4 9 9 3 9 8 20 17 4 6 0 4 8 10

The interesting thing about this table is the astonishing strength of support found in the former Soviet Bloc where, in each case, absolute majorities exist even when the undecideds are left in (see Chapter 7). This was also true for Ireland and Israel. Thus the economic threat to the environment posited by some economists is a view not shared by respondents in this study. A major part of the environmental debate is over the change in environmental attitudes based on the fact that many people s material needs have been met. This post-materialist notion claims that massive government intervention in the economy and the social sector has resulted in rapid economic growth and in the provision of a safety net and other social services. This development has led, it is argued, to a paradigm shift in social and cultural values (Rosenbaum 1991, 305; Inglehart, 1990). This has, in turn, led to a redefinition of what is important; it permits individuals to ponder concerns other than those of a purely material nature. Support for the environment could have been enhanced by this new freedom of action. Critics of the

8

SHADES OF G R E E N

theory point out that this change in economic status has not led to postmaterialism, but rather to a new or enhanced materialism: the same old thing with different priorities. There has also been criticism of the empirical evidence on which the theory is based. We may have seen a shift in environmental views, but only in Germany and the Netherlands has this found electoral or political expression (Martell, 1994). For this study the notion of sacrificing something for environmental benefits was the test used to examine whether or not the theory applies to the countries involved. When respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay much higher prices to protect the environment, a substantial number in some countries said they would be prepared to do so. There were absolute majorities in favour of paying more in price in Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Israel, Japan and Spain. The people of the former Soviet Bloc and the Philippines were least in favour. This would seem to suggest that the theory has some validity, but the measure is a loose one because it means the respondent can to some extent determine the price contribution through consumer choice. Different results were found when respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay much more in taxes to protect the environment. Only citizens of the U.K., the U.S., the Netherlands, Canada, Israel, Japan, Spain and, surprisingly, Russia constituted a plurality in favour of paying more taxes. A further measure was employed asking if respondents were willing to accept cuts in their standard of living in order to protect the environment. A goodly number said they were prepared to do so, especially in West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Japan and Spain. Of special note is West Germany where 53 percent said they would accept cuts in their standard of living, especially since there has been no sign that German opinion has been the vanguard of international support for environmental protection despite the representation of Greens in the national parliament. What all this means is that the postmodernist theory is neither supported nor falsified since, even though a large number of individuals are prepared to pay for environmental protection, that support is not overwhelming and could be due to reasons other than post-materialist values. With the exception of Russia itself, the nations of the former Soviet Bloc are reluctant to contribute to environmental protection, suggesting that they are much more concerned with material values than post-material ones.

ALAN FRIZZELL

9

TABLE 6: E N V I R O N M E N T AND TAXES And how willing would you be to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the environment? Very Willing

Australia West Germany East Germany Great Britain Northern Ireland United States Hungary Italy Ireland The Netherlands Norway Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Russia New Zealand Canada The Philippines Israel Japan Spain

4

5 1 6 4 7 4 5 3 5 4 3 5 6 16 17 6 7 4 7 3 4

Fairly Willing

34 28 18

32 27 31 11 31 20 43 26 13 25 25 20 24 28 30 22 36 40 39

Neither Fairly Very Willing Unwilling Unwilling nor Unwilling 21 30 10 24 25 15 22 30 23

26 27 19 21 13 8 24 28 24 33 18 14 17 28 21 22 19 18 26

19 20 24 25 22 24 14 24 31 11 25 23 12 22 18 23 14 23 21

14 16 13 38 27 43 13 15 24 15 14 20 17 15 20 29 20 14 8

Can't Choose

1 3 5

4 6 6 2 2 1 3 4 6 11 11 7 12 2 4 0 4 3 3

PERSONAL ACTIVITY If, as we have seen, there is a general feeling that environmental protection is an important issue, one might expect that individuals would participate in measures designed to achieve that goal. To be sure, some activities that promote environmental protection are mandated or encouraged by governments at the local, national or regional levels. In this study, respondents were asked if they made a special effort to make use of environmental services if they were provided. When asked how often they made a special effort to sort glass, metal, plastic and paper for recycling the results indicate that large numbers of people participate regularly in recycling programs and that very few never participate. Both Germanics lead the pack in participation rates, followed by the Netherlands, Canada, and Japan. Interestingly, even when programs are

10

SHADES OF G R E E N

available, respondents from some countries, notably Britain and Northern Ireland, seem most reluctant to use them. This could be due to the poor quality of the programs or the regularity of their availability. The study also asked other questions about participation. Respondents were asked if they made a special effort to buy fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemicals. These are measures of environmental activity that, apart from former Soviet Bloc countries, are available to the majority of respondents. Again the Germanics rank much higher than the others. The scores for the other countries are very low, including (surprisingly) the United States, where there is considerable promotion of environmentally friendly and natural items. In the case of refusing to eat meat for moral or environmental reasons, the vast majority do not adopt that option except in those countries where there are religious or cultural reasons. The large number of Germans who never eat meat are probably doing so for health reasons and one would suspect there are even fewer eating meat now in the wake of the "mad cow" scare. A final measure of environmental activity was cutting back on driving for environmental reasons. Respondents were asked how often they did this. The most likely to do this were the Germans though only 22 percent said they did this often. Other countries with relativly high rates were the Netherlands with 15.8 percent and Canada and East Germany with around 10 percent. GROUP ACTIVITY If there has been growth in support for environmental protection one might expect that participation in organized environmental activities would also be reasonably high. The highest rate of group participation is found in New Zealand with 17.3 percent followed by the Netherlands with 16.7 percent. The U.S., Australia and the Philippines hover around the 10 percent mark. Canadas rate was 6.4 percent. Participation is much greater when one considers whether respondents had signed a petition during the last five years. New Zealanders and Australians were far more likely to have done so than anyone else. Petition-signing was prevalent for most countries except those of the former Soviet Bloc and the Philippines. Another good measure of direct participation is giving money to an environmental group. New Zealanders, the Dutch and Australians come highest in this regard with over 40 percent in each country saying they had donated money. Canada came next with 38.8 percent.

ALAN F R I Z Z E L L

II

TABLE 7: E N V I R O N M E N T AND P A R T I C I P A T I O N In the last five years, have you signed a petition about an environmental issue?

Australia West Germany East Germany Great Britain Northern Ireland United States Hungary Italy Ireland The Netherlands Norway Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Russia New Zealand Canada The Philippines Israel Japan Spain

Yes, I Have 43 28 28 36 25 29 5 23 21 23 18 15 11 10 8 10 52 43 6 15 25 15

No, I Have not 56 71 71 58 66 66 94 76 79 76 78 86 89 88 92 89 42 52 94 85 75 85

Can't Choose 1 1 1 6 5 5 1 1 0 2 4 0 0 2 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 1

Group participation, then, is relatively high, suggesting that if structured organizations exist, a relatively high proportion of the population is willing to respond even during a period of recession. GOVERNMENT ACTION

There is strong support for the notion that governments rather than individuals are responsible for environmental protection. In this instance the countries of the former Soviet Bloc are in agreement with the other countries. It is interesting to note that the very highest levels of support for government responsibility come from former East Germany and Israel, two very different countries, and that the highest level of support for individual responsibility comes not from the U.S., but from Britain, Northern Ireland, Ireland and Australia. Even more skewed are the data for responsibility resting between government and business. When respondents were asked if business should be allowed to decide for themselves how to protect the environment or whether governments should pass laws to protect

12

SHADES OF G R E E N

TABLE 8: GOVERNMENT R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y If you had to choose, which one of the following would be closest to your views? Government should let ordinary people decide for themselves how to protect the environment, even if it means they don't always do the right things. or Government should pass laws to make ordinary people protect the environment, even if it interferes with people's rights to make their own decisions. Ordinary People Should Decide Themselves Australia West Germany East Germany Great Britain Northern Ireland United States Hungary Italy Ireland The Netherlands Norway Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Russia New Zealand Canada The Philippines Israel Japan Spain

20

16 10 24 21 17 12 12 24 17 11 15 12 11 10 10 17 16 32 7 14 10

Government Should Pass Laws 68 83 89 57 64 62 83 85 72 69 77 78 71 67 89 78 68 71 69 88 71 84

Can't Choose

13 1 1 19 15 21 5 3 4 14 12 7 17 23 10 12 15 13 0 5 15 6

the environment even if interferes with businesses' rights to make their own decisions, there was little doubt about the direction of opinion. For respondents in most countries few considered that business should have a free hand; the average response was between 3 and 6 percent. Even that bastion of free enterprise, the U.S., could only muster a rate of 7.6 percent. There was, however, one strange anomaly; 21.4 percent of Philippines considered business responsible for environmental protection. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

One would expect that, given a high level of concern about the environment and a high level of indirect participation in environmental matters,

ALAN F R I Z Z E L L

13

TABLE 9: AIR POLLUTION BY CARS In general, do you think that air pollution caused by cars is ... Very Extremely Dangerous Dangerous for the Environment

Australia West Germany East Germany Great Britain Northern Ireland United States Hungary Italy Ireland The Netherlands Norway Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Russia New Zealand Canada The Philippines Israel Japan Spain

17 19 19 21 17 17 14 21 16 4 8 11 11 11 17 20 17 24 21 12 22 8

33 43 38 27 25 30 38 38 29 20 29 51 23 29 29 33 26 36 48 28 42 47

Somewhat Dangerous

Not Very Dangerous

Not Dangerous at all for the Environment

Can't Choose

41 31 35 43 44 38 49 36 10 58 49 30 54 50 34 35 45 35 22 .51 30 38

6 5 6 7 10 7 8 6 14 15 12 5 9 5 9 6 10 3 8 8 3 4

0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1

3

1 1 2

3 8 2 0 1 2 2 1 2

5 10 5

1 2 0 2 3 1

this would be expressed in a high level of concern about potential threats to the environment. Five threats were examined: air pollution by cars, nuclear power stations, air pollution from industry, pesticides and chemicals used in farming and the greenhouse effect. Each was measured for its perceived effect on the environment in general and its effect on one's family. In all cases the effect on the environment was considered to be the more serious. When asked if they considered the effect of air pollution by cars on the environment dangerous or not, the overwhelming majority considered it dangerous. It is interesting to note that two car-producing countries, Germany and Italy, were among those countries who most considered the threat "extremely" or "very dangerous," while the normally environmentally conscious countries, the Netherlands and Norway, were very high in the "somewhat dangerous" category and very low in the "extremely

14

SHADES OF G R E E N

dangerous" category. There was a much lower perception of danger when the question asked referred to the threat to one s family. The overwhelming response was still that air pollution from cars was extremely dangerous, but there was an increase in the number of responses that fell into the "somewhat dangerous" category as opposed to the "very" or "extremely dangerous" categories. Again it was Norway and the Netherlands who were least fearful of the threat. Of those who thought the threat was not very dangerous, Norwegians led the list with 31 percent followed by the Dutch with the environmentally friendly New Zealanders in third place. When respondents were asked to estimate the likelihood of a large increase in ill health in their cities as a result of air pollution from cars within the next ten years, a majority in each country considered it more likely than not. Of those who considered it most likely West Germans, Italians and Filipinos were the most prominent. Around a quarter of respondents in Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Norway, Ireland and Northern Ireland considered the threat unlikely. Even in the U.S. with the most cars per capita, 19 percent of respondents thought the threat unlikely. The threat posed by nuclear power stations to the environment was generally seen as dangerous but there was also a significant minority who did dot see any danger at all. Ireland seems to be the country where the nuclear threat is perceived to be greatest; an enormous 83 percent consider the threat "extremely" or "very dangerous." Spain, the Philippines and New Zealand follow closely behind. But in some countries, including Canada, a sizeable number of respondents say there is no threat at all; in Canada's case, 15 percent. While Russians are more likely than not to see nuclear stations as dangerous, the threat is considered more dangerous in several other nations. Again, the nuclear threat to self and family was not perceived to be as great as to the environment in general. In Australia, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic almost one third of respondents did not think that nuclear stations were dangerous to their families. Air pollution from industry was seen to be a very serious threat to the environment, even more than pollution from cars. The Germanies, the Philippines and the Czech Republic were where the threat was considered most serious. Following the same pattern as pollution from cars the threat to ones family was still seen as overwhelmingly dangerous, but less than that to the environment. Russia, where 72 percent considered this form of pollution "extremely" or "very dangerous," led the pack, followed closely by the Philippines.

ALAN FRIZZELL

15

TABLE 10: NUCLEAR THREAT In general, do you think nuclear power stations are ... Extremely Very Dangerous Dangerous for the Environment Australia West Germany East Germany Great Britain Northern Ireland United States Hungary Italy Ireland The Netherlands Norway Czech Republic Slovenia Poland Bulgaria Russia New Zealand Canada The Philippines Israel Japan Spain

23 33 30 23 35 18 22 32 53 18 36 14 41 26 26 33 49 28 25 30 19 21

28 30

32 21 26 22 26 36 30 27 33 27 33 32 30 31 17 21 48 39 33 52

Somewhat Dangerous

Not Very Dangerous

Not Dangerous at all for the Environment

Can't Choose

31 23 23 36 30 35 28 21 13 35 18 32 17 30 22 23 21 29 19 21 33 21

14 9 9 14 5 13 16 7 2 13 8 18 5 3 7 6 9 13 5 4 10 3

2 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 0 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

2 3 5 6 4 10 5 1 1 4 3 5 4 7 14 7 3 6 1 5 5 3

Respondents thought there was less of an environmental threat from pesticides than any of the other item. Most respondents considered them dangerous, but most coded them as "somewhat dangerous." Those who considered them not dangerous tended to come from agricultural countries like Norway and New Zealand. The pattern that environmental dangers were more important to the environment than to one's family was maintained. The threat to the environment from river and lake pollution followed the usual pattern with one exception. There were clear differences between those countries where for commercial or tourist reasons rivers and lakes are important, and the others. Most concerned was Russia where 35 percent of respondents thought the threat was "extremely dangerous" followed by Ireland and Canada with 29 percent; no other country came close to these figures.

l6

SHADES OF G R E E N

The Germans seem far more concerned with the greenhouse effect than any others, though overall it is seen as a danger in all countries, but not to the same extent as air pollution or the nuclear threat. CONCLUSIONS The ISSP study found that there was considerable concern for environmental matters in all of the countries involved in the study, though the extent and intensity varied from country to country. There was also remarkable support for environmental protection. However, it would be wrong to assume that support will easily translate into electoral success or that it means that people will support environmentalists of any stripe. There is disagreement whether jobs or the environment should be the priority, and there is a clear preference for environmental policy to be directed through government rather than through individual action or business activity. People see that progress is a threat to the environment, but they often do not relate that to economic growth. The notion that economic growth is compatible with environmental protection may mean that individuals are perfectly willing to pay for environmental protection through higher prices only as long as growth is not jeopardized. There is a high level of indirect participation in environmental activities, which is clear from the reported levels of petition signing and financial contributions. This is probably due to the evident interest in environmental issues and concern about environmental protection. It may also be due to genuine worry about the nuclear threat, and air and water pollution. On the issues addressed, there was not one country where the people did not feel, by large majorities, that these items constituted serious threats to the environment. That people feel the threat to the environment is greater than to them personally suggests their environmental beliefs are not based solely on experience or self-interest. The study also discovered interesting differences between the countries in the study. There are consistent differences between the countries of the former Soviet Bloc and the more industrialized countries. There are also intriguing differences and the similarities within the blocs. For example, the Germanies do not differ from the other countries on questions of the nature of the problem or the economic factor, but they do recognize many factors as threats more than any other nation.

ALAN F R I Z Z E L L

YJ

Finally, the study showed that individuals are, at least in their attitudes, environmentally friendly. But other issues are usually more important in politics. A recent election study in Canada (Frizzell and Pammett 1994, 150) found that if one removed economic issues and such things as party, leader and candidate from the equation, only 5 percent of the vote was based on all other issues, including environmentalism. That should temper the quite justified inspiration any environmentalist will get from this study. REFERENCES Barrett, Scott. 1992. "Economic Growth and Environmental Protection." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 23 (3):289-301. Bowman, James. 1975. "The Ecology Movement: A Viewpoint." International Journal of Environmental Studies 8(2):91-99. Caldwell, L.K. 1976. Citizens and the Environment. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Caley, David. 1991. The Age of Ecology. Toronto: James Lorimer. Dunlap, Riley P. 1989. "Public Opinion and Environmental Policy." In Environmental Politics and Policy> ed. J.P. Lester. Durham NC: Duke University Press. Frizzell, A., et. al. 1994. The Canadian General Election of 1993. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. Laferrière, Eric. 1994. "Environmentalism and the Global Divide." Environmental Politics 3. Lipitz, Alain. 1995. Green Hopes. Cambridge: Polity Press. Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. The Industrial Revolution: The Birth of the Modern Age. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson. Martell, Luke. 1994. Ecology and Society. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Rosenbaum, Walter A. 1991. Environmentalism. Washington: CQ Press. Sagoff, M. 1988. The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slovic, P. 1993. "Perceptions of Environmental Hazards: Psychological Perspectives." Behavior and Environment^ ed. T. Garling. North Holland, NY: Colledge. Toner, G., and Bruce Doern. 1994. "Five Political and Policy Imperatives in Green Plan Formation: The Canadian Case." Environmental Politics 3(4). Zimmerman, Michael E. 1994. Contesting the Earth's Future. Berkley: University of California Press.

This page intentionally left blank

2

CANADIAN OPINIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: PATTERNS AND DETERMINANTS

Scott Bennett

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE of this chapter is to provide a picture of Canadian opinions on the environment and possible influences on those opinions. Analysis of these opinions and influences focuses attention on the role Canadians would prefer government to play in the realm of environmental policy. Such policy opinions are the primary dependent variables in our research. Other variables to be considered are: general policy concerns; specific environmental concerns; knowledge of the environment as a policy area; general systems of belief; and, of course, a variety of conventional socio-economic variables. After looking at the simple univariate patterns in the main variables of interest, we will use principal components analysis to explore the patterns that link variables to more general dimensions of meaning. The multivariate technique of logistic regression will be used to examine how the different blocks of variables noted above influence the primary dependent variables, general preferences for government action on the environment. In some cases, principal components found in the previous stage of analysis will be used as variables in the logistic regressions. As is the case with most of the analysis presented in this book, the data are taken from the 1993 version of the International Social Survey Programme (iSSP). Since this chapter is concerned with Canadian opinions and characteristics pertaining to the environment, it will be based on a weighted version of the Canadian subset of the data. EXPECTATIONS AND HYPOTHESES Although the variety of variables considered makes this chapter something of an overview of the Canadian data, it is, nevertheless, true that the

2O

SHADES OF G R E E N

analysis is guided by some general expectations. One of these is, quite simply, that Canadians will have a fairly high degree of preference for government intervention in the environment. Based on previous patterns in Canadian public opinion, it is expected that a high degree of very general preference for structured government action will exist among Canadians. When one begins to consider the influence of other variables on preferences for government activity, the following questions will guide multivariate stages of the inquiry: 1.

Will general preferences for government activity or specific concerns relating to environmental threats be more important in determining whether or not a respondent wants the state to be active in environmental policy? The answer to this will likely depend on the respondent's level of knowledge of the environment which, in turn, will be a function of various socio-economic characteristics.

2.

Do socio-economic characteristics, which have a long explanatory track record in the comparative public opinion literature ( Rohrschneider, 1988; Skrentny, 1993; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980), appear to behave in the expected fashion in these recent Canadian data?

3.

How do deeply held belief systems, other than those pertaining to general views on government, influence the overall perspective taken on the environment and public response to its problems?

Additional details on expectations and related results will be provided as we proceed to later stages of analysis. BASIC CANADIAN PERSPECTIVES ON THE E N V I R O N M E N T Preferences for Government Action The variables that will ultimately serve as the primary dependent variables in this chapter were generated from responses to two questions. One asked respondents whether ordinary people should be allowed to make their own decisions about protecting the environment. The alternatives were: the government passing more laws to protect the environment; ordinary people taking their own action; or, as a residual category, not being able to choose between these two main options. A second and similar question was asked about businesses and the environment. Again, the

SCOTT BENNETT

21

alternatives were government passing more laws to guide business and its interactions with the environment, allowing businesses to decided for themselves what they would do, and not being able to choose between the two main options. Results for these two variables are presented in Tables. 1 and 2. TABLE 1: P R E F E R E N C E S FOR G O V E R N M E N T INTERVENTION IN THE E N V I R O N M E N T A L ACTIVITY OF I N D I V I D U A L S Response Category

Percentage Frequency

Government should let ordinary people decide for themselves how to protect the environment.

15.8%

Government should pass laws to make ordinary people protect the environment, even if it interferes with people's rights to make their own decisions.

70.9

Can't choose

12.6

Not applicable or refused

0.6

TABLE 2: P R E F E R E N C E S FOR G O V E R N M E N T I N T E R V E N T I O N IN THE E N V I R O N M E N T A L ACTIVITY OF BUSINESSES Response Category Government should let businesses decide for themselves how to protect the environment, even if it means they don't always do the right things. Government should pass laws to make businesses protect the environment, even if it interferes with businesses' rights to make their own decisions.

Percentage Frequency 4.9%

88.0

Can't choose

6.0

Not applicable or refused

1.0

Clearly, Canadians approve of an active government role in the environment. This is particularly true when it comes to intervening in the affairs of businesses. However, the vast majority of respondents also feel that the government should pass laws to constrain the environmentally relevant activity of ordinary individuals. It should be noted that somewhat different patterns of response might have appeared if respondents had been

22

SHADES OF GREEN

given detailed questions about the nature and specifics of government intervention. Do they want laws as guidelines, or laws that are backed up by heavily funded and detailed regulations and bureaucracies? What kinds of penalties should be associated with breaking laws? Does the nature of citizen policy preferences vary with the kinds of activities being regulated? For example, it is one thing to generally believe that businesses should be regulated and quite another if that imposes clear costs on production of a product that will be passed on to consumers. Similarly, it is one thing to express a general preference for government intervention in individual action and quite another to consider the loss of common household and garden chemicals of various kinds. In any case, in accordance with our first major expectation, Canadians support government policy intervention on environmental matters when it is expressed in general terms. The data do provide us with one further insight into how and where Canadians would like government environmental policy to be focused. One question asks respondents to indicate where energy policy should be focused. Responses are displayed in Table 3. TABLE 3: P R E F E R R E D FOCUS OF G O V E R N M E N T ENERGY POLICY Response Category

Percentage Frequency

Renewable energy—such as solar and hydro power More efficient use of existing resources Can't choose Nuclear energy Oil and gas development resources Refused

44.2% 38.7 8.9 5.0 2.7 0.5

Table 3 indicates that policy should be focused on energy conservation and the development of new types of renewable energy sources. Relatively few people are interested in a policy of actively encouraging new fossil fuel or nuclear energy developments. Again, the specifics of the sacrifices and changes the public would be willing to make to implement new energy policies cannot be determined from the available questions. Perception of Environmental Threats and Impacts In order to determine what Canadians perceived as the major environmental threats, a series of questions were asked about the possible detrimental impact of air pollution from cars, nuclear power stations, air pollution

SCOTT B E N N E T T

23

from industries, pesticides used in farming, pollution of Canadas rivers and the possible rise in temperature caused by the "greenhouse effect." Respondents were asked to indicate the degree of danger they perceived generally as well as the degree of danger they perceived to themselves and their families. In effect, perceptions of the environmental impact of various sources is being measured on both egocentric and sociotropic dimensions. The results from these questions are displayed in the Tables 4 and 5. Although the data are ordinal, results for each item are provided in terms of a ranking by average response to an item. Originally, the scale for these items had 5 points with a score of 1 denoting "extremely dangerous" and 5 denoting "not at all dangerous." This scale was reversed in the following calculations so that high numbers represent more perceived danger. TABLE 4: SOCIOTROPIC PERCEPTIONS OF SEVERITY OF E N V I R O N M E N T A L THREATS Type of Threat Air pollution from industry Pollution of Canada's rivers Air pollution from cars Temperature impact of greenhouse effect Pesticides used in farming Nuclear power stations

Average Response 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6

TABLE 5: E G O C E N T R I C PERCEPTIONS OF SEVERITY OF E N V I R O N M E N T A L THREATS Type of Threat Air pollution caused by industry Pollution of Canada's rivers Air pollution from cars Temperature impact of greenhouse effect Pesticides used in farming Nuclear power stations

Average Response 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5

Two central themes emerge from the above tables. First, Canadians view air pollution caused by industry as the biggest environmental threat in general, and in relation to their own lives. This is followed closely by perceived pollution of Canada's waterways. Second, there is a slight tendency for the direct personal assessment of threats to be lower than estimates of threats to Canada in general. Differences between egocentric and sociotropic average responses are not great, but they are consistently in the

24

SHADES OF G R E E N

direction of assigning a higher threat to the sociotropic or "Canada in general" measures. These patterns suggest that Canadians tend to assign the biggest threat to agents outside the control of their own individual behaviour. The influence of industry on air quality is an easy target for environmental apprehensions. Quite likely, the pollution of waterways is also linked to a view that this problem arises largely from the actions of business and industry. However, this last point is speculative and cannot be directly supported from the phrasing of the relevant questions. However, these findings are consistent with some results obtained in other countries such as Australia (McAllister and Studlar 1993, 359). Of course, in many urban areas at least, the use of the automobile and the impact of human and animal populations on water quality may be just as problematic as the action of industry, but there is a desire to keep this more direct assignment of responsibility at a distance. Nuclear power stations and farming uses of pesticides are not ranked as major threats simply because they are outside the immediate daily experience of many Canadians. The slightly enhanced assessment associated with threats to Canada generally as opposed to threats to one s own household appears to reflect the view that one s own community is relatively safe but that threats of some kind are a significant reality elsewhere. Of course, all of these interpretations must be tempered by the fact that average rankings are all fairly high, tending to gravitate around the response code which means "very dangerous." Thus, whatever patterns exist in the responses just examined, there is clearly a high level of perceived threat to the environment among Canadians. Finally, there is one additional item in the questionnaire that deals directly with perceptions of environmental threats. In effect, it asks respondents to indicate which response in a list poses the greatest threat to the environment. Some respondents indicated more than one major threat, but for the sake of clarity and consistency only first mentions are recorded in Table 6 below. The earlier indications that air pollution is seen as the primary threat to the environment are corroborated by results for this question. Ozone depletion is next most frequently mentioned as the major threat to the environment, and this is consistent with the amount of media attention devoted to it in recent years. As well, it is an environmental threat that represents a general threat to most parts of the inhabited world and, in that sense, is a threat that can be readily appreciated as being of potential personal importance by most respondents. Concerns with water quality

SCOTT BENNETT

25

TABLE 6: GREATEST P E R C E I V E D THREAT TO P E R S O N A L ENVIRONMENT Response Category Air pollution Ozone depletion Water quality Waste management Can't choose Global warming Lack of wildlife protection Other Refused Total

Percentage Frequency 29.4% 19.1 14.6 14.0 8.2 7.7 4.9 1.6 0.5 100.0

and waste management are next most frequently mentioned, and this is consistent with responses to earlier questions in which water pollution was identified as a major concern. It is worth noting that studies conducted in other parts of the world do not always reflect the degree of concern with air pollution revealed above. In the United States, for example, some recent studies suggest a much greater concern with water quality than with air quality (Rockland and Fletcher 1994, 40; Times Mirror Magazine Conservation Council 1994, 27). A recent comparative international analysis suggests that water pollution problems are generally perceived to be as important if not more important than air pollution problems. So, the Canadian results reported here diverge somewhat from other findings (Bloom 1995, 356). Willingness to Bear Costs of Environmental Regulation and Current Behavioural Commitments How willing are Canadians to bear the cost of a good environment? It is likely that the kind of environmental regulation Canadians favour would require increased prices and taxes. The following table provides an idea of general willingness to pay for environmental improvement. Table 7 makes it clear that Canadians are less keen to bear the cost of a better environment personally than they are to have government provide some policy action to improve the environment. There is a sense of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. A slight majority of all respondents are very or slightly willing to pay much higher prices to protect the environment. Less than a majority, 44.8 percent, are very or slightly will-

26

SHADES OF G R E E N

TABLE 7: W I L L I N G N E S S TO MAKE MATERIAL S A C R I F I C E S TO PROTECT THE E N V I R O N M E N T Willing to Pay Higher Prices Very willing Fairly willing Neither willing nor unwilling Fairly unwilling Very unwilling Can't choose Refused

12.7% 41.3 22.5 12.8 6.4 4.1 0.3

Willing to Pay Higher Taxes

6.6% 30.4 21.4 18.1 19.7 3.4 0.4

Willing to Accept Standard of Living Cuts

8.8% 36.0 26.0 14.3 11.8 2.6 0.5

ing to accept a reduced standard off living to protect the environment. Only 37 percent are very or fairly willing to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the environment. In determining these percentages, the whole sample has been counted, including those who could not choose or who refused to respond. With these sorts of questions, such nonresponses likely indicate a kind of neutrality or uncertainty. One way of interpreting these results would be to say that a small majority of Canadians is willing to pay the cost of a better environment through non-government transaction systems. In other words, there is a willingness to rely on the general pattern of prices and incomes in society to support environmental improvement but a lack of willingness to involve the government in allocating costs through the taxation system. At first, this might seem to partly contradict earlier findings that Canadians overwhelmingly wanted active government intervention to improve the economy. However, taking a rational perspective it may be that Canadians want the government to impose control through regulatory and punitive mechanisms that are unrelated to taxation and which are factored into reduced incomes and increased prices through private market mechanisms. Again, the detailed link between general preferences for intervention and specific desires for certain types of policy instruments needs more clarification. Another perspective on the ways in which respondents are willing bear costs and inconvenience for the environment can be seen by examining a more mundane but practical aspect of environmental commitment: willingness to change the actual patterns of home management and personal habits.

SCOTT B E N N E T T

27

TABLE 8: P E R C E N T A G E F R E Q U E N C Y OF A L T E R I N G B E H A V I O U R TO C O N F O R M WITH E N V I R O N M E N T A L GOALS Sort Materials for Recycling

Always Often Sometimes Never Not applicable Can't choose Refused

43.4% 28.4 18.7 5.0 3.9 0.0 0.6

Buy Organically Grown Produce

Refuse to Eat Meat for Moral or Environmental Reasons

8.4% 18.6 31.6 31.7 8.2 0.0 1.5

3.3% 6.1 21.2 69.2 0.0 0.0 0.2

Reduce Car Use for Environmental Reasons

2.4% 10.5 32.2 43.8 11.0 0.0 0.1

A majority of Canadians report recycling household materials for environmental purposes, and also claim they buy organically grown produce (produce grown without pesticides and chemicals) at least some of the time. However, the percentage of people doing the latter on a highfrequency basis is quite small compared to the comparable figures for recycling. The majority of respondents do not refuse to consume meat for environmental or moral reasons, but this is a complex question that might be tapping several different kinds of phenomena. A tiny majority of respondents with cars reduce their use for environmental reasons; 45.2 percent compared to 43.8 percent who never do so. Almost all of the remaining 11 percent don't have a choice in the matter because they don't own cars. It would appear as though there is a fairly high commitment to recycling since effort is fairly minimal and municipal services that people already use also assist in the removal of recyclable material. Again, we see another strand of the complex fashion in which Canadians view governmental roles in environmental improvement. They want the government to be active regulators. They do not want the government to impose higher taxes to do this. They are willing to accept privately mediated economic changes in order to improve the environment. At the same time, at the personal level, the environmentally responsible behaviour people are most likely to sustain is that which often relies on heavy government subsidy at the local and/or regional levels. As an another indicator of personal commitment of time and resources to environmental matters one might also look at the amount of political participation respondents devote to environmental causes. One of the

28

SHADES OF G R E E N

more direct indicators of this asks whether or not respondents belong to an environmental interest group. Only 6.4 percent of the total sample indicate that they have such a membership. While this may seem rather low, it is quite in keeping with figures characterizing the truly active portion of the population on almost any issue area. On the other hand, 42.8 percent of respondents had signed a petition for an environmental cause within the past five years, and 38.3 percent had given money to an environmental public interest group. Only 6.3 percent had participated in an environmental protest within the past five years. So, although we have some limited acknowledgement of the environment as an issue requiring involvement, only a very few participate in the more demanding forms of action. Finally, another question that sums up some of the implications of earlier questions asks whether environmental improvements should be included in the price of products or should be limited so as not to raise prices any more than necessary. Forty-nine percent indicated that the cost of improvements should be passed on in prices; 24 percent stressed that prices should be kept low as a priority; 9.6 percent favoured some other explicit option; 15.3 percent could not choose an option; and 2.1 percent refused to answer. In some ways, this is consistent with earlier results which suggest that a fair number of Canadians are willing to see the impact of environmental improvements passed on through market mechanisms. Putting the above findings in comparative perspective, it is probably fair to say that some other studies have suggested a greater willingness of various populations to absorb the costs of environmental improvement and to expend resources on the environmental movement. However, differences in samples, question wording and timing of studies make it difficult to produce exact comparisons. One British government study suggested that 50 to 70 percent of the population would be willing to pay notably higher prices for certain types of fuels and utilities (O'Riordan 1988, 6). A U.S. study suggests that Americans are slightly more likely than Canadians to contribute to environmental organizations and are similar in their acceptance of supporting greater costs for environmental improvement. In fact, if increased taxes on gasoline are within the realm of what ordinary people consider to be taxes, then Americans may be slightly more willing than Canadians to accept tax-based funding of environmental improvement (Rockland and Fletcher 1994, 40; Times Mirror Magazine Conservation Council 1994, 28). However, in general, the characterization of Americans as being increasingly concerned about the

SCOTT B E N N E T T

29

environment but not yet fully committed to changing their personal life for environmental improvement (Dunlap 1991, 34) seems to fit Canadians as well. This is particularly true for committed change in automobile usage. Knowledge About the Environment One of the interesting questions in any study of opinions about public policy and problems is whether or not members of the public have a sound objective knowledge of the issues and related concerns. Of course, there are always some uncertainties about what constitutes objective knowledge of any topic, but there is usually some set of answers to knowledge questions on which most experts would produce the same answer at a given point in time. Fortunately, in the case of this data set and this study, a relatively large amount of attention was focused on knowledge of the environment and related scientific questions. Some of the results of the knowledge questions used in this data set are provided below in Table 9. In interpreting the table, it should be noted that respondents were allowed to indicate that a statement was definitely true, probably true, probably not true, definitely not true or indicate no choice or refusal. Those respondents who are deemed to have given the correct answer with either a definite or probable level of commitment are counted as giving the correct answer. In some cases, a conventionally correct interpretation of an answer was chosen since there may be no clearly established scientific answer. The substantive results in the table show that Canadians have a fairly high level of environmental and scientific knowledge. Generally, between 65 and 90 percent of respondents provided the correct response (see also Chapter 5 in this volume). The exceptions pertain to the astrology item, one concerning the carcinogenic properties of all man-made chemicals, a question about atmospheric holes causing the greenhouse effect and a question about the carcinogenic effects of all agricultural pesticides and chemicals. In some respects, the items where people are less likely to provide a conventionally correct responses are the items where there may be a less clearly established conventionally correct answer. For example, in the case of astrology, one can argue that astrology does have a link to primitive science. In other words, people involved in archaeo-astronomy and reconstruction of primitive scientific method give some credence to the idea that, rather than being mere primitive fantasies, earlier astrological systems involve some kind of early scientific codification of phenomena.

3O

SHADES OF G R E E N

TABLE 9: PERCENTAGE OF R E S P O N D E N T S G I V I N G CORRECT ANSWERS TO E N V I R O N M E N T A L AND S C I E N T I F I C K N O W L E D G E QUESTIONS Nature of Question All radioactivity is made by humans. (False) Antibiotics can kill bacteria but not viruses. (True) Astrology—the study of the star signs—has some scientific truth. (False) a Human beings developed from earlier species of animals. (True) All man-made chemicals can cause cancer if you eat enough of them. (False) c If someone is exposed to any amount of radioactivity, they are certain to die as a result. (False) Some radioactive waste from nuclear power stations will be dangerous for thousands of years. (True) The greenhouse effect is caused by a hole in the atmosphere. (False) Every time we use coal or oil or gas, we contribute to the greenhouse effect. (True) All pesticides and chemicals used on food crops cause cancer in humans. (False) c Human beings are the main cause of plant and animal species dying out. (True) e Cars are not really an important cause of air pollution in Canada. (False)

Frequency of Correct Response 64.7% 66.4 49.9 66.7 43.9 71.9 89.9 31.9 76.5 50.5 70.1 75.7

a. As indicated, some experts do accept that there is a proto-scientific basis to astrology. Yet, as a matter of general knowledge, it was assumed that it was best to indicate that astrology was not conventionally scientific. b. There is a debate about the exact nature of evolution in the shaping of Homo Sapiens. Just as many would question conservative "creationist" views, there are also many scientists who would question the comic book view of human evolution which seems to have gripped the imagination of secular humanists and many journalists. Here, it was assumed that the conventional scientific answer was that evolution had some importance. c. The response patterns make it clear that many believe that all man-made chemicals are dangerous beyond a certain point. Yet, there is no clear and comprehensive set of scientific findings which prove this to always be the case. Manipulation of public fears in this area have probably led to an over estimation of the problems arising from man-made chemicals (Haddock 1993). d. Although it is true that radioactivity levels of many highly radioactive substances will decrease dramatically in a matter of 100 or 200 years, it is also true that radioactive wastes will exceed low levels of ordinary background radiation for thousands of years and can be of increased danger due to decay of storage conditions and geological shirts (Kharbanda and Stallworthy 1990, 84). e. There is a credibly argued point of view that, at the present time, human interaction with the rest of nature is the main current cause of the demise of species. However, taking the long view, millions of species probably died off before human culture ever existed. In the future, it is quite possible that some unexpected punctuated equilibrium will have an impact greater than that of human activity. Yet, at present, the consensus seems to be that humans are the main short-term negative impact on the survival of species, directly or indirectly.

SCOTT B E N N E T T

3i

Perhaps respondents understand this at an implicit level, or perhaps they are simply indulging in wishful thinking. In the case of the exact effects of man-made chemicals and chemicals used in agriculture, there are legitimate debates about how harmful some of these chemicals are at various dosage levels. Logically, respondents should probably have indicated that "all" of these chemicals have not been clearly proven to be harmful. However, it is an area of uncertainty in science and popular opinion, and response patterns indicate this. The one clear misunderstanding of environmental problems indicated in the table is the belief that the greenhouse effect results from a hole in the atmosphere. This indicates some confusion about atmospheric problems, in this case the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer problem. A similar confusion or confounding was found in a New Zealand study (Bell 1994, 47). Indeed, the New Zealand study focused on the confusion of various environmental concepts among journalists rather than among ordinary citizens. However, in other responses, there is an indication that, apart from this confusion, Canadians have a reasonable understanding of the greenhouse effect. Deep Beliefs About the Environment, Faith, Science and Nature The belief systems underlying people's opinions on any policy concern are of great importance, and this is certainly true of environmental opinions as well. Social scientists have often assumed that values relating to policy matters could be represented in terms of a left/right political orientation or, perhaps, in terms of a materialist/post-materialist dimension. While these conventional dimensions of public values are useful, people are seeking new ways to organize their general perspective on the environment and other issues. With the acceleration of technological progress and the need to keep life in some kind of context that relates to the deepest realities of human existence, it may be that more people are contrasting science or technology with the need to have some kind of positive expectation or faith in the future. The data at hand provide several ways of exploring this possibility. In Table 10, we see the pattern of response to several items that explore people's views on science, progress, technology, the economy and the relation of all these to the environment. (For a comparative look at these items, see Chapter 6 of this volume.) The items in the table were scored on a five-point scale, ranging across categories such as strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree and strongly disagree. In preparing a summary of responses,

32

SHADES OF G R E E N

TABLE 10: BELIEFS ABOUT S C I E N C E , NATURE AND THE E N V I R O N M E N T Nature of Question Human beings should respect nature because it was created by God. Nature is really a fierce struggle for survival of the fittest. It is right to use animals for medical testing if it might save human lives. We believe too often in science and not enough in faith and feelings. In order to protect the environment, Canada needs economic growth. Nature would be at peace and in harmony if only human beings would leave it alone. Almost everything we do in modern life harms the environment. Animals should have the same moral rights as human beings do. Any change humans cause in nature no matter how scientific—is likely to make things worse. Economic growth always harms the environment. We worry too much about the future of the environment and not enough about prices and jobs today. People worry too much about human progress harming the environment. Overall, modern science does more harm than good. Modern science will solve our environmental problems with little change to our way of life.

Average Response 3.69 3.59 3.47 3.26 3.15 3.12 3.0 2.87 2.72 2.62 2.57 2.47 2.41 2.34

numerical coding was reversed so that higher numbers represent agreement and lower numbers represent disagreement. In addition, even though these are ordinal variables, average responses, excluding missing values, provide a partial indicator of the central tendency of the responses. In many respects, the most striking thing about the average responses is that they tend to be reasonably close to the neutral response, which was coded "3." This suggests, and is confirmed by an examination of other statistics, that there is a fair amount of variation in response on these items. There are few areas in which there was close to unanimous agreement or disagreement. The other pattern apparent in the table is that the strongest areas of average agreement are found for fairly broad statements about the interpretation of creation/nature and the human role within it. The highest levels of agreement are on the following topics: • Human beings should respect nature because it was created by God. • It is right to use animals for medical testing if it might save human lives. • Nature is really a fierce struggle for survival of the fittest.

SCOTT B E N N E T T

33

The strongest disagreement is on topics dealing with the role of science: • Modern science will solve our environmental problems with little change to our way of life. • Overall, modern science does more harm than good. So, we see suggestions that people are organizing some of their views around very broad conceptions of creation/evolution and the primacy of the human race. We also see a realization that science does change the conditions of life, possibly in conjunction with a measured optimism about such change. Of course, the real story will be told when the relations among these items are examined, and this will be provided later in this chapter. There is one final item in the survey that probes areas of meaning similar to those just discussed. It asks respondents to indicate their general perspective on the importance of nature and its relation to a transcendent belief system. The results follow in Table 11. TABLE 11: P E R S P E C T I V E S ON THE I M P O R T A N C E OF NATURE Response Category Nature is sacred because it is created by God. Nature is sacred or spiritual in itself. Nature is important but not spiritual or sacred. Can't choose Refused

Percentage Frequency 20.1% 28.5 43.1 7.7 0.6

Just short of a majority, 48.6 percent, of Canadians believe that there is a spiritual aspect to nature. Admittedly, this is a broadly defined spirituality, including more conventional forms of monotheism (the first category above) as well as new age and nature worship (the second category above). A slightly smaller percentage, 43.1 percent, believes that nature is important but not sacred. Only a very tiny number were unable or unwilling to provide a response. Again, we see that there is evidence that a fairly large part of the population views nature and the environment in terms of fairly general patterns of meaning and belief. THE STRUCTURE OF PERCEPTIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Now that we have seen the general patterns in the responses that people gave to a variety of individual items, let us examine the structure of relations among sets of these variables. Our primary tool for this task will be principal components analysis—a basic form or relative of factor analysis.

34

SHADES OF G R E E N

With this technique, we will look at sets of questions that cover the same general themes and determine whether or not their interrelation adds to our understanding of the dimensions of meaning in this area of public opinion. Perceptions of Severity of Environmental Threats Earlier we examined a dozen questions on the perception of the severity of environmental threats in general and to the respondent or their family in particular. In effect, we were able to see the simple pattern of egocentric and sociotropic perceptions of threats such as car exhaust, nuclear energy, pollution from industry, pollution in water sources, pollution from pesticides and agricultural chemicals and the greenhouse effect. In order to reveal the basic structure underlying these sample patterns a relative of factor analysis called "principal components" was used. From this point on, we will use the terms "factor" and "principal components" interchangeably even though there are slight differences between the two approaches. In addition to the original twelve variables considered, another variable on perceptions of the likelihood car exhaust leads to a decline in health was added into the set of questions to be analyzed. The varimax rotated results of this analysis are shown below in Table 12. The table reveals an extremely robust factor solution with one very strong factor and three others that, according to conventional standards, have eigen values large enough to justify their further use. Overall, these four factors account for almost 75 percent of the variation in the underlying observed variables, and the strongest factor, on its own, accounts for 47 percent of the relevant variance. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy) statistic is just under .8 (.795), which usually indicates that a very good solution may be possible (Kaiser, 1974). The first and strongest factor has been labelled "general air and water pollution" because it has its strongest loadings on those variables relating to the effects of industrial air pollution, agricultural use of pesticides and chemicals and pollution of waterways. One might also argue that this is a kind of commercial pollution factor in that it relates primarily to pollution by industries and agriculture. However, waterway pollution may also be strongly affected by residential activities, and it is not possible to know how this is viewed in detail by the public. The second factor is labelled "car-related pollution" because it has its strongest loadings on those variables related to automobiles. The third factor is labelled "nuclear power

SCOTT B E N N E T T

35

TABLE 12: ROTATED VARIMAX VARIABLE L O A D I N G S ON MAJOR FACTORS EXTRACTED FROM QUESTIONS ON PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS Nature of Environmental Threat

Loadings on First Factor: General Air and Water Pollution

Car Pollution Impacting Environment .217 Car Pollution Impacting Family .231 Car Pollution and Increase in 111 Health in Cities .176 Nuclear Power Stations Impacting Environment .098 Nuclear Power Stations Impacting Family .159 Industrial Air Pollution Impacting Environment .665 Industrial Air Pollution Impacting Family .635 Pesticides and Chemicals Impacting Environment .518 Pesticides and Chemicals Impacting Family .528 Waterway Pollution Impacting Environment. 83 5 Waterway Pollution Impacting Family .816 Greenhouse Effect Impacting Environment .226 Greenhouse Effect Impacting Family .211 Eigen Values 6.07 Total Variance Associated with Factor 46.7%

Loadings on Second Factor: Car-Related Pollution

Loadings on Third Factor: Nuclear Power Pollution

Loadings on Fourth Factor: Greenhouse Effect

.859

.041

.193

.857

.122

.186

.654

.327

.162

.135

.889

.104

.107

.891

.146

.301

.288

.075

.284

.370

.110

.233

.504

.155

.184

.551

.192

.133

-.035

.181

.127

.129

.201

.245

.132

.880

.222 1.21

.211 1.45

.875 1.00

9.3%

11.2%

7.7%

Note: The signs of the factor loadings are as obtained from analysis. However, in many cases, the numeric order of coding of categories was reversed prior to running the analysis. The inverted nature of the original coding would have complicated the assignment of a positive conceptual meaning for some factors.

36

SHADES OF G R E E N

pollution" because it has its strongest loadings on the two items related to the impact of nuclear power. Finally, the fourth and weakest factor is labelled "greenhouse effect" because it is primarily dependent on the two items related to the greenhouse phenomenon. There is a very limited overlap in the meaning of the factors in the sense that the pesticide and chemicals variables have modest loadings on the general air and water pollution factor as well as the nuclear power factor. In the case of all factors, the behaviour of sociotropic and egocentric versions of variables is consistent across factors. The basic conclusion to be reached here, and reserved for future interpretation, is that the structure of public perception of environmental risks does vary by type of threat. There are separate structures for indicators relating to different types of environmental threats. In addition, the sociotropic and egocentric aspects of environmental threats do not seem to be distinct. Instead, a persons sociotropic view of a particular kind of threat is generally consistent with their egocentric view of the threat s probable impact on them and their family. Willingness to Bear Costs of Environmental Regulation and Current Behavioural Commitments A variety of questions tapped the willingness of respondents to devote time and other resources to environmental concerns. Some of these questions probed changes in environmentally responsible consumption habits. Other questions in this area related to the respondents willingness to devote time and resources to environmental political activism. Some questions probed the willingness of respondents to bear the costs of environmental improvements. All of these items were subjected to a principal components analysis with varimax rotation. Variables were put in standardized form prior to analysis as some of the items were measured on slightly different response scales than others. The results are shown below in Table 13. In general, the results are good but not quite as robust as the solution obtained for the environmental threat factors. Four major factors are extracted (associated with a KMO statistic of .767) accounting for about 51.7 percent of the variance in the set of observed variables. The first factor indicates the extent of stated willingness to bear the costs of environmental improvement. The second factor indicates degree of political activism in environmental matters. The third factor indicates degree of personal involvement in habits that are environmentally sound at a micro

SCOTT BENNETT

37

consumer level, relatively uncommon and demanding of some attention in arranging one's life. This includes buying organic foods, refusal to eat certain foods and reduced automobile use. Finally, the fourth factor indicates the extent to which a respondent is inclined to make a minimal commitment to certain types of environmentally friendly perspectives and activities. For example, one might engage in recycling, feel positive about the possibility of impacting on the environment as an individual and indicate a general willingness to sacrifice for the environment. Quite likely, people who say they are highly inclined to make such personal effort are more likely to be generally optimistic about their efficacy rather than truly committed to environmental improvement. In conclusion, there are distinct dimensions to people's active environmental commitment and efficacy. People who indicate a general willingness to bear the costs of environmental improvement do not necessarily have personal habits which, on a small scale, promote such improvement. In addition, people who are politically active in the environmental area do not necessarily have either general or personal consumer orientations that indicate a willingness to bear costs. Beliefs about the Environment, Nature and Science The data set contained two major batteries of items that probed beliefs about the environment. There were also several questions apart from these main batteries that tapped the beliefs people had about God and nature as well as about the most important priorities for government. Some initial principal components analyses were run in which these primary batteries of items were analyzed simultaneously with other types of belief indicators. Ultimately, it was decided that most of the indicators of beliefs and priorities outside the main environment-nature batteries of questions were perceived as being separate from the main battery. At one level, this is interesting because it suggests that beliefs relating specifically to the interplay of environment, nature, science and progress are not generally strongly linked to other kinds of general belief and priority indicators. At a more practical level, it suggested that little would be lost by restricting the creation of factors in this area to the items in the main environmental belief series. However, some of the other belief variables will still appear again in other parts of the analysis but apart from the factor analysis results reported below for the environmental belief series. The rotated factor solution presented in Table 14 is reasonably good

38

SHADES OF G R E E N

TABLE 13: POST VARIMAX ROTATION VARIABLE L O A D I N G S ON MAJOR FACTORS EXTRACTED FROM QUESTIONS ON W I L L I N G N E S S TO COMMIT R E S O U R C E S AND B E H A V I O U R TO E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P R O V E M E N T S Nature of Personal Environmental Commitment

Loadings on First Factor: Willing to Bear Costs of Environmental Improvement

Willing to Pay Higher Price for Environmental Improvements .821 Willing to Pay Higher Taxes for Environmental Improvements .851 Willing to Bear Reduced Standard of Living for Environment .778 Individual Cannot Improve Environment* -.110 Willing to Sacrifice Time and Money for Environment .277 Willing to Recycle .024 Willing to Buy Organic Produce .092 Refusal to Buy Food for Environmental or Moral Reasons .028 Willing to Reduce Driving for Environment .029 Membership in Environmental Group .066 Signing of Environmental Petitions .061 Contributed to Environmental Group .205 Involved in Environmental Protest .024 Willing to Include Costs of Environmental Improvement in Prices .491 Eigenvalues 3.18 Total Variance Associated with Factor 22.7%

Loadings on Second Factor: Enviro-Political Activism

Loadings on Third Factor: Environmental Consumer Habits

Loading on Fourth Factor: Minimal Environmental Action Commitment

.147

.081

.117

.065

.108

.019

.046

.119

.197

-.092

.067

-.681

.109 .065

.228 .070

.514 .743

-.085

.647

.219

.236

.670

-.083

.062

.610

.052

.568

.064

.101

.745

-.044

.055

.726

-.005

.181

,535

.333

-.075

.158 1.59

-.331 1.34

.085 1.13

11.4%

9.6%

8.0%

Note: The signs of the factor loadings are as obtained from analysis. However, in many cases, the numeric order of coding of categories was reversed prior to running the analysis. The inverted nature of the original coding would have complicated the assignment of a positive conceptual meaning for some factors. The one item above with an asterisk follows this rule as well, but it must be remembered that the phrasing of the question itself, in this case, is in a negative form.

SCOTT B E N N E T T

39

with a KMO sampling adequacy statistic of .782 and four strong factors extracted accounting for a total of 54.3 percent of variance in the original observed variables. The strongest factor very clearly reflects a pro-nature and anti-progress perspective. That is, once the coding of the variables is taken into account, people with high scores on the factor are concerned about the impact of progress on the environment. The next strongest factor is, in some respects, the opposite of the first factor. Once the order of variable coding is taken into account, people scoring high on this factor tend to be concerned more with growth and progress relative to the merits of environmental protection. In this context, progress seems to be mostly defined in terms of economic growth. People scoring high on the third factor tend to accept extreme interpretations of animal rights which would give animals almost as many rights as humans. Finally, the primary foundation for the fourth factor is a variable pertaining to nature being a struggle for survival of the fittest. In effect, people who score high on this factor believe that nature is a struggle for survival. This factor also has some moderate loadings on items which suggest that high scores on the factor are associated with concerns for any major impact on nature by human progress. A P R E L I M I N A R Y M O D E L OF THE D E T E R M I N A N T S OF PREFERENCES FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION

Now that we have considered the univariate and multivariate patterns in some of the basic variables concerning the environment, we can turn to the final goal of the chapter, which is to determine how various types of beliefs, preferences and knowledge concerning the environment influence views on how the government should shape environmental policy. Apart from the types of variables already discussed, a small number of socioeconomic variables will be brought into the analysis. The comparative importance of various kinds of influences on preferences for government environmental policy will be tested using two logistic regressions. Logistic regression is a maximum likelihood technique that enables one to examine multiple predictors of a dichotomous variable. In this case, we have two dichotomies: whether or not individuals should determine their own environmental action or whether government should intervene; and whether or not government should constrain businesses on environmental matters. The results are presented in Tables 15 and 16. At the beginning of the paper, several expectations or hypotheses were presented which drew our attention to the relative importance of différent

40

SHADES OF G R E E N

TABLE 14: POST VARIMAX VARIABLE LOADINGS ON MAJOR FACTORS EXTRACTED FROM QUESTIONS ON B E L I E F S ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURE, SCIENCE AND PROGRESS Type of Belief about Environment

Loadings on First Factor: Acceptance of Nature over Progress

We Emphasize Science Compared to Faith .752 Science Does More Harm Than Good .700 Humans Always Harmful to Nature .701 Science Will Solve Environmental Problems with Little Impact on Our Way of Life -.135 We Worry Too Much About Future of the Environment Compared to Prices and Jobs Today .249 Everything in Modern Life Harms Environment .462 Animals Should Have Same Rights as Humans . 1 73 We Should Respect Nature Because it Was Created by God .576 We Worry Too Much About Progress Harming the Environment .038 Nature Would Be at Peace if Humans Would Leave it Alone .551 In Order to Protect the Environment We Need Economic Growth .015 Right to Use Animals for Medical Testing if it Saves Human Lives -.123 Nature a Struggle for Survival of the Fittest .000 Economic Growth Always Harms the Environment .479 Eigen Values 3.27 Total Variance Associated with Factor 23.4%

Loadings on Second Factor: Concern for Growth over Future of Environment

Loadings on Third Factor: Concern for Animal over Human Rights

Loadings on Fourth Factor: Nature a Struggle

.138

-.071

-.100

.150

.115

-.015

-.056

.160

.013

.585

.264

.259

.754

.026

-.065

-.321

.283

.274

.052

.800

.100

.049

.031

-.001

.741

-.018

-.066

-.030

.256

.315

.534

-.207

.242

.040

-.801

.207

.164

-.122

.831

-.071 1.99

.352 1.26

.366 1.09

14.2% 9.0% 7.8% Note: The signs of the factor loadings are as obtained from analysis. However, in many cases, the numeric order of coding of categories was reversed prior to running the analysis. The inverted nature of the original coding would have complicated the assignment of a positive conceptual meaning for some factors.

SCOTT B E N N E T T

41

sets of variables as predictors of general desires for government intervention in the environment. In particular, it was proposed to examine the relative importance of general views about government, deep belief systems, socio-economic variables, perceptions of the environment and its problems and knowledge of the environment and its problems. It was of special importance whether or not specific views of and knowledge about the environment were of more or less importance in predicting preferences for government intervention in the environment than more generic types of respondent views, beliefs and characteristics. In Table 15, we find the results that are most pertinent to the respondents own situation. Here, the dependent variable reflects whether the government should regulate individual environmental activity or, alternatively, whether individuals should be responsible for determining this activity on their own. Overall, as the table shows, the model is able to predict about 85 percent of the sample correctly. However, this is somewhat misleading in that the model was far more successful in predicting those who wanted government intervention (96.4 percent) than those who favoured individual autonomy in environmental matters (34.6 percent). All the chisquare significance levels are favourable. The fact that the larger group, those favouring government intervention, is better predicted than the smaller group, those against such intervention, is not an uncommon result when the groups forming a dichotomy are quite different in size. More importantly, logistic regression provides us with estimates of the effects of each independent variable, and this is where we are able to explore the crux of our earlier speculations. Two forms of the coefficients are reported here, "B" coefficients and "EXP(B)" coefficients. The two types of coefficients reflect the same information but in terms of different units of change. B coefficient values are given in logarithmic units while EXP(B) coefficients are expressed in terms of odds ratios. We are mostly concerned with the sign and significance of these coefficients. Respecting the signs, the B coefficients provide familiar positive or negative indicators of the nature of a relationship while the EXP(B) coefficients report negative impacts as fractions and positive impacts as being greater than one. In Table 15, we see that the belief that government can solve many problems impacts positively on the probability of a response that the government should intervene in the environment. We also see that the view that people should have more say in government, as a secondary government priority, increases the probability that a person would like government intervention in the environment. Apparently, some would like a

SHADES OF G R E E N

42«

TABLE 15: COEFFICIENTS FOR VARIOUS PREDICTORS OF PREFERENCE FOR GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN INDIVIDUAL'S ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITY Independent Variables

B Coefficients

Importance of Child Obedience -.357 Private Enterprise Can Solve Problems .11 Government Can Solve Problems .404** of Redistribution Maintaining Order Most Important Government Priority .081 Giving People More Say Most Important Government Priority .437 Fighting Inflation Most Important Government Priority .571 Maintaining Order Second .244 Government Priority Giving People More Say Second .721* Government Priority Fighting Inflation Second Government Priority .171 Index of Environmental and Scientific Knowledge .143* Nature Sacred Because God Created it -2.033** Nature Sacred in Itself -.863** General Air and Water Pollution Threat .181 Car Pollution -.006 Threat

EXP(B) Coefficients

Independent Variables

B Coefficients EXP(B) Coefficients

Nuclear Pollution Threat -.002 Greenhouse Effect Threat .459** 1.117 Willing to Bear Costs of Improving 1.500** Environment -.074 Enviro-political Activism .007 1.084 Individual Environmental Consumer Habits -.602** Minimal Environmental Action 1.547 Commitment .477** Acceptance of 1.770 Nature Over Progress .074 Concern for Growth Over 1.277 Future of Environment .920** 2.056* Concern for Animal Rights Over Human Rights .040 Nature is a Struggle .118 1.187 Age .010 Education -.076 1.154* Household Income -1.1E-05** Rural vs Urban Residence -.073 .1309** Degree of Belief .422** in God .071 Constant .758

.700

.998 1.583**

.928 1.007 .548** 1.611**

1.077

2.508**

1.041 1.126 1.010 .927 1.000**

.930 1.073

1.198

.994

* = significant at the .1 to .05 level ** = significant at the .05 to .0 level

Note: Percentage against government intervention correctly classified = 34.6 percent, percentage for government intervention correctly classified = 96.4 percent, overall percentage correctly classified = 85.2 percent initial -2 log likelihood chi-square = 638.7, -2 log likelihood chi-square after fitting full model = 437.8 goodness of fit chi-square = 612.6; significance of model chi-square = .000 significance of improvement chi-square = .000; n=673 (weighted)

SCOTT B E N N E T T

43

more active government role in the environment, but it should be connected to some kind of enhanced public participation. Our index of environmental knowledge has a modest but marginally significant impact on desire for government intervention in individual environmental activity. Thus, those who have higher levels of conventional environmental knowledge are more likely to want government intervention in individual environmental matters. In the realm of deep beliefs, we see that both the belief that nature is important because it is God s creation and the belief that nature is sacred in and of itself tend to reduce the acceptance of government intervention in the environment, at least as it pertains to the activities of individuals. In the area of environmentally-specific perceptions, we see that those who do perceive a major threat from the "greenhouse effect" are likely to support government environmental intervention into individuals' activities. We also see that those who have personal consumer habits of an environmentally sound nature are less likely to support government intervention, while those who have a minimal environmental action commitment are more likely to support government environmental intervention in individual action. Although somewhat disconcerting at first, these findings probably mean that those who are already taking an intensive personal responsibility for the environment in their own daily lives feel that environmental improvement depends on such personal responsibility rather than government intervention. Alternatively, those who are not deeply involved in personally responsible environmental behaviour feel that it is still a good idea, and would like to see it publicly encouraged. Whether or not they would really like to be forced into such behaviour raises old questions about the relation between responses and desired or actual behaviour. In the area of environmentally-specific views, we see that those who are concerned more with economic growth than the environment are likely to support government environmental action. This suggests a desire to have managed protection of the environment but not at the cost of significant growth and progress. Finally, we see one tiny socio-economic effect in the realm of income: as income increases, people are slightly more likely to favour individual as opposed to governmental solutions to environmental problems. This is a weak tax effect in which higher income people do not wish to sow the seeds for any programs that could raise taxes. Perhaps the most noteworthy pattern in the coefficients revealed in Table 15 is that very general beliefs about government and deep beliefs about God and nature are similar in importance to some of the factor-

44

SHADES OF G R E E N

generated variables pertaining specifically to environmental views. General government, God and nature variables and environmental perception factors are all more important than some conventional socio-economic markers. Among the latter, only income had a marginally significant, and very tiny, impact. The very limited socio-economic effects exhibited with this analysis are of some note because they do contrast with findings in at least one major comparative study (Skrentny, 1993). In that study, age and education were found to have significant effects while income did not. However, there are several reasons why this difference in results might have occurred. First, the Skrentny analysis focused on willingness to have the government spend more on the environment. This stands in contrast with the focus of our dependent variables which relate more generally to willingness to have the government intervene and constrain activity. Such differences in focus may strike different chords with respondents. In addition, the Skrentny study was a cross-national comparative study while the analysis in this chapter is purely Canadian. Finally, the other results were produced using a somewhat different mix of independent variables as well as a different estimation technique, ordinary least squares regression. Do the patterns noted above persist when respondents are asked to look at the possibility of government intervening in businesses' environmental actions as opposed to letting businesses do as they wish? Table 16 provides a partial answer. Overall results are very promising with the model correctly classifying 96 percent of the cases. However, again, it must be noted that prediction works primarily for the larger group, the pro-government regulation of business group. Of that group, 99.2 percent is correctly predicted while only 32.9 percent of the anti-business regulation group is correctly predicted. This is in part due to the fact that the pro-government group is much larger than the anti-regulation group. The split on the dichotomy is even more extreme for this question than for the question on government intervention in individual environmental actions. So, this analysis must be deemed exploratory at best. However, all of the chi-square significance levels line up in a favourable and consistent manner, suggesting that the model does work reasonably well. Turning to specific independent variables, we find that general beliefs about the direction of government policy still play a role, but a different role than was the case in analyzing intervention in individuals' activities. Those who want to fight inflation as a primary public goal are against

SCOTT B E N N E T T

45

TABLE 16: COEFFICIENTS FOR VARIOUS PREDICTORS OF PREFERENCE FOR GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN BUSINESSES' ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITY Independent Variables

B Coefficients

Importance of Child Obedience -.910 Private Enterprise Can Solve Problems -.036 Government Can Solve Problems of Redistribution -.039 Maintaining Order Most Important Government Priority -1.382 Giving People More Say Most Important Government Priority 1.515 Fighting Inflation Most Important Government Priority -2.602** Maintaining Order Second Government Priority 1.969* Giving People More Say Second Government Priority -.045 Fighting Inflation Second Government Priority -.670 Index of Environmental and Scientific Knowledge -.061 Nature Sacred Because God Created it -4.389** Nature Sacred in Itself -3.229** General Air and Water Pollution Threat 1.079** Car Pollution Threat .553*

EXP(B) Coefficients .403 .965 .962 .251

.220 .0741 7.161*

.956 .512 .941 .012* .040* 2.942* 1.740*

Independent Variables

B Coefficients EXP(B) Coefficients

Nuclear Pollution Threat -.707** Greenhouse Effect Threat -.059 Willing to Bear Costs of Improving Environment 1.549** Enviro-political Activism 1.023** Individual Environmental Consumer Habits-1.416* Minimal Environmental Action 1.074* Commitment Acceptance of Nature Over Progress .165 Concern for Growth Over Future of Environment Concern for Animal Rights Over Human Rights -.793** Nature is a Struggle -. 179 Age .001 Education -.384** Household Income -9.0E-06 Rural vs Urban Residence -1.527** Degree of Belief in God .391* Constant 19.719**

.493** .9426 4.705** 2.781**

2.928**

1.180

.453* .836 1.001 .681* 1.000 .271* 1.479*

* = significant at the .1 to .05 level ** = significant at the .05 to .0 level

Note: Percentage against government intervention correctly classified = 32.9 percent, percentage for government intervention correctly classified = 99.2 percent, overall percentage correctly classified = 96.3 percent initial -2 log likelihood chi-square = 248.6, -2 log likelihood chi-square after fitting full model = 127.4 goodness of fit chi-square = 315.2; significance of model chi-square = .000 significance of improvement chi-square = .000; n=697(weighted)

46

SHADES OF G R E E N

regulating business, while those who are concerned about public order as a secondary goal are more likely to support the regulation of business. In contrast to the earlier results on regulating individual environmental activity, the environmental knowledge index has no impact on attitudes concerning regulation of business and the environment. The variables relating to God and nature have the same kinds of effects as before, with those who ascribe some sort of spirituality to nature being less likely to support business regulation. Yet, and this emerges for the first time, those who have a high degree of belief in a personal, monotheistic deity are more likely to support governmental regulation of businesses' environmental activity. This probably has some relationship to degree of religiosity. Possibly those who are highly involved in religious institutions are more likely to want dogmatic policy responses of certain kinds while those who have a general, less dogmatic spirituality are more comfortable with unstructured kinds of policy solutions. More of the factor-generated, environment specific variables have an impact in the case of business regulation compared to intervention in individual lives. For example, those who perceive a major threat from air or water pollution do support government regulation of business environmental activities. A similar pattern exists for the threat posed by car pollution. On the other hand, there is also a weak effect in which those who think there is a major threat from nuclear power are not supportive of government regulation of business. Perhaps, nuclear power is not as clearly tied to the general environmental impact of business as some other types of issues. Those who are willing to bear the costs of improving the environment support government regulation of business. Those who have a high degree of enviro-political activism are likely to support regulation of business. Those who have individual environmental consumer habits tend not to support government regulation of business, and this parallels the finding on intervention in citizens' lives for environmental reasons. Those who have a minimal affective or behavioural commitment to the environment support government regulation of business. This also parallels the findings for individuals, and suggests some kind of motivational or efficacy interpretation. Interestingly, those who are concerned with the rights of lower animals over the rights of humans are unsupportive of government regulation of the environmental activities of business. Perhaps animal rights sympathizers feel that government intervention is more likely to legitimate controlled and legitimized commercial use of animals than to prohibit such use.

SCOTT BENNETT

47

Finally, in the area of socio-economic effects, we continue to see few major impacts. Education is significant, with more educated people being less likely to support regulation of business. This is consistent with a growing scepticism among the educated about the efficacy of governmental policy. There is also an urbanization effect, with people living in larger communities less likely to support government regulation of business in the environmental area. Is this because people in smaller communities have a clearer perception of potential losses from business actions while those in large cities do not feel there is that much left to lose? This is one possibility, but there are other interpretations. Perhaps city dwellers have a more direct sense of their livelihood being tied to a corporate agenda. The lack of an income effect and the presence of an education effect is, in part, consistent with the Skrentny study described earlier. However, the education effect observed by Skrentny was in the opposite direction from the one reported here. Apart from other differences between the two analyses already noted, this contrast in education's influence might be partly due to the different time frame for the two data sets: 1985 ISSP data in the case of Skrentny and 1993 ISSP in the case of the current analysis. Of course, it must also be appreciated that a dependent variable focusing on the regulation of business will definitely have a different resonance than one keyed to general expenditure in a policy area. In general, attitudes toward government regulation of the environmental impacts of business appears to depend on general priorities for government, beliefs about God either independently or in relation to nature, a variety of environmentally specific attitude and action factors and, to a limited degree, variables such as education and size of community of residence. CONCLUSIONS

The primary purpose of this chapter has been to determine some of the main influences on Canadians' preferences for government intervention in the environment, considering some of the basic patterns in those preferences as well. At the end of the day, a summary of the findings by types of variables suggests some interesting and not entirely anticipated findings. Certainly, a basic expectation was that Canadians would favour a fairly high degree of involvement by government in the environment, and this did prove to be true. Canadians are particularly positive toward the idea of

48

S H A D E S OF G R E E N

government regulating the environmental impacts of business. This is a clear finding concerning the primary dependent variables used in this study. One of the variable sets that only had a modest level of importance was knowledge of environmental and scientific issues. Canadians do have a relatively high level of knowledge in this area. However, a knowledge index only had a marginally significant impact on preferences for government intervention in individual activity and no impact on preferences for intervening in the environmental activities of business. At least, this is true for the types of knowledge variables used in this study. Consideration of perceived threats to the environment indicates that Canadians are primarily concerned with air and water pollution. Further, there is a suggestion that they link this primarily to the activities of businesses rather than individual behaviour. A principal components analysis of threat perceptions confirmed that Canadians tend to view air and water pollution as one dimension of environmental assessment and car-related, nuclear-related pollution and the greenhouse effect as composing quite separate kinds of threats. Further, Canadians tend to have broadly consistent sociotropic and egocentric evaluations of threats in the sense that what people view as being a threat to the environment in general is also likely to be viewed as a personal threat. The principal components reflecting the patterns among the threat variables played different roles in relation to each of the dependent variables. In the case of government regulation of individual behaviour, only the threat pertaining to the greenhouse effect was significant. In the case of government regulation of business, more striking results occurred with the air and water, car-related pollution and nuclear dimensions having some impact. How much time, effort and resources are Canadians willing to devote to the environment? At the most basic level, it was apparent that there was some reluctance to bear major costs of environmental maintenance and improvement. However, costs filtered through the market were probably more acceptable than tax-related costs. This wariness of costs is in general agreement with other studies, including some of the recent conclusions in The Decline of Deference (Nevitte 1996, 89-94). There were reasonably high levels of behavioural compliance with low-effort activities such as recycling. There were low levels of involvement in major forms of enviropolitical activism but much higher reported levels of involvement in such things as signing petitions. All of this is consistent with traditional views of political participation. The principal components analysis of these

SCOTT B E N N E T T

49

types of variables revealed a clear separation among such dimensions as willingness to bear economic costs, willingness to be politically active, willingness to be involved in various kinds of environmentally responsible consumer behaviour and minimal commitment to the environment in terms of a belief that a person can influence it positively. The separateness of these various domains of behaviour suggests that concrete involvement with the environment is not a well integrated aspect of peoples lives. However, in the current era, areas of life in which different kinds of concrete activities are well-integrated may be rare in general. The four components reflecting extent of resource commitment to environmental matters did play some role in predicting government preferences for involvement in the environment. In the case of intervention in individual activity, the component reflecting a personal behavioural commitment to environmentally sound consumer habits was significant, as was the component reflecting a lack of minimal commitment to improving the environment. Interestingly, those who realize they have a behavioural commitment to environmentally sound consumer habits would not like to see government intervention. Alternatively, those who have a minimal commitment would prefer the government did get involved. This also held true for the impacts of these complex variables on the dependent variable relating to intervention in business activities. In addition, in the case of regulation of business and the environment, the components reflecting a willingness to bear costs of environmental improvement and willingness to be politically active for the environment were also significant. So, these types of questions were extremely important in predicting views on regulation of business and the environment. Again, in all of this, we seem to see an acceptance of government action particularly focused on business and, perhaps, a belief by some that consumers can only be environmentally effective with government assistance. However, some of the more environmentally active population seems suspicious of the possible nature of extensive government intervention. Another set of variables of interest contained those items reflecting general concerns and beliefs about the environment. Initially, we found that Canadians did tend to connect their beliefs about nature and the environment to a belief in God or some form of spirituality. Yet, there was also a sense in which the violent and competitive aspect of nature was accepted. At the same time, there was a measured view of science and its ability to improve or protect the environment: science was not evil but could provide some protection. When these types of items were subjected

50

SHADES OF G R E E N

to principal components analysis, four components were identified: acceptance of nature over progress, concern for growth vs the future of the environment, concern for animal human rights over human rights and belief that nature is a struggle. These components had little impact on the prediction of the main dependent variables. In the case of intervention in individual behaviour by government, only the component relating to concern for growth relative to the environment had a significant impact. In the case of the dependent variable relating to business regulation, only the component relating to animal vs human rights had an influence. These are not major predictors of general orientation toward government involvement in the environment. When we move to indicators of belief that are not explicitly connected by questionnaire wording to environmental topics, we find that some general belief and preference indicators are of equal or greater importance than variables clearly based on an environmental focus. For example, with reference to intervention in individual behaviour, respondents tended to approve of this if they also believed that government can solve many redistributive problems. Alternatively, they also felt that it was all right for government to intervene in environmental activities if people had more say in government. In the case of views on regulating business involvement in the environment, slightly different preferences for government activity had impacts. Those who wanted to fight inflation as a priority did not favour government involvement, while those who wanted order and stability as a secondary priority did want business involvement in the environment regulated. Probably the clearest set of impacts arising from general beliefs have to do with beliefs about God or God's link to nature. These impacts arise from variables other than the ones relating to the sacredness of nature in some of the principal components described earlier. Specifically, variables indicating that nature is sacred because of God's involvement in creation or that nature is sacred in and of itself are both very significant with respect to both of our dependent variables. In effect, those who see nature in a sacred context are less likely to approve of government intervention in the environmental activities of either individuals or business. Another variable indicating degree of belief in a conventional, monotheistic, personal God also had a very significant impact on both dependent variables. In this case, the impact was one in which those who had a high degree of belief were more favourable toward government intervention in the envi-

SCOTT B E N N E T T

51

ronment. As suggested earlier, this probably has to do with degree of religiosity and desire for orthodox dogma and doctrine. Finally, socio-economic variables did not have an overwhelming array of significant impacts on our dependent variables. In the case of regulating individuals, only income showed a tiny but significant impact, with higher incomes less inclined to approve government intervention. Respecting approval of regulation of business, only education and size of community of residence had impacts, with the more educated and urban less favourable toward intervention. However, to keep this in perspective, it should be noted that use of a wider variety of socio-economic variables might have produced more distinctive socio-economic effects. In broad summary, our views of government involvement in the environment appear to be anchored in some very general beliefs about the nature of creation and God along with some general preferences for governmental priorities. In addition, some of the components pertaining to willingness to commit resources to environmentally oriented behaviour have a fairly high predictive profile, particularly with respect to views on regulating business and the environment. Perceptions of environmental ' threats also have some potency in explaining views on regulating business. However, other specifically environmental dimensions of meaning have limited or scattered importance in predicting views on government and the environment. Further, knowledge of enviro-scientific topics only has a modest impact on one dependent variable, and socio-economic variables only have a weak to moderate impact. It would appear as though Canadian views on government regulation of the environment are not well anchored in a rich matrix of calculations of personal interest. Respondents seemed to be relying more on very general belief and priority systems to organize their views on government intervention in this area. There is a high acceptance of the idea that government should be involved in the environment, but the contours ofthat acceptance have more to do with general ideas about nature, the sacred, some general priorities for government and very general apprehensions about the environment than with many other influences. It is true that views on government involvement in the environment have some grounding in dimensions of meaning that reflect our willingness or lack of willingness to commit resources to improving the environment or to participate in environmentally oriented behaviour. Yet, one might speculate that this is just what one might expect of an area in which citizens were generally taking a cautious and positive, but not highly crystallized, view of the merits of government activity.

52

SHADES OF G R E E N

REFERENCES Audirac, Ivonne, and Anne H. Shoemyen. Sept. 1989. "The Use of Converse's Mass Belief Systems Model to Measure Public Opinion on Land Use Regulation: A Comment on deHaven-Smith's Article." Environment and Behaviour 21 (5):620-29. Barker, Mary L, and Dietrich Soyez. June 1994. "Think Locally Act Globally: The Transnationalization of Canadian Resource-Use Conflicts." Environment36(5): 12-20, 32, 35. Bell, Allan. Jan. 1994. "Climate of Opinion: Public and Media Discourse on the Global Environment." Discourse and Society 5(l):33-47. Bloom, David E. July 21, 1995. "International Public Opinion on the Environment." Science 269 (5222):354-58. Bostrom, Ann, et. al. Fall 1994. "Preferences for Exposure Control of Power Frequency Fields among Lay Opinion Leaders." Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 5(4):295-318. Bruton, Jim, and Michael Howlett. Sept. 1992. "Differences of Opinion: Round Tables, Policy Networks, and the Failure of Canadian Environmental Strategy." Alternatives 19(l):25-33. Carson, Patrick, and Julia Moulden. Dec. 1991. "Green is Gold." Small Business Report 16(12):68-71. Cohen, Martin. Feb. 1995. "The Never-Ending Story." New Statesman and Society 8(339):35-36. deHaven-Smith, Lance. Sept 1989. "Toward a Communicative Theory of Environmental Opinion: A Rejoinder to Audirac and Shoemyen." Environment and Behaviour 21(5):630-35. Dunlap, Riley E. Oct. 1991. "Public Opinion in the 1980s: Clear Consensus, Ambiguous Commitment." Environment 33(8):10-15, 32-37. Haddock, Ron W. Spring 1993. "The Environment: The Road to Success is Always Under Construction." Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management 12(l):33-43. Kaiser, H.E 1974. "An Index of Factorial Simplicity." Psychometrika 39, 33-36. Kharbanda, O.P., and E.A. Stallworthy. 1990. Waste Management: Towards a Sustainable Society. Gower Publishing. McAllister, Ian, and DonleyT. Studlar. Winter 1993. "Trends in Public Opinion on the Environment in Australia." International Journal of Public Opinion 5(4):353-6l. Nevitte, Neil. 1996. The Decline of Deference. Peterborough: Broadview Press. O'Riordan, Timothy. Oct. 1988. "The Politics of Environmental Regulation in Great Britain." Environment 30(8):4, 6-9, 39-44. Rockland, David. B., and Gwyn L. Fletcher. Fall 1994. "The Economy, the Environment and Public Opinion." EPA Journal 20(3) :39-40.

SCOTT B E N N E T T

53

Rohrschneider, Robert. 1988. "Citizens' Attitudes toward Environmental Issues: Selfish or Selfless?" Comparative Political Studies 21,347-67. Skrentny, John D. Winter 1993. "Concern for the Environment: A Cross-national Perspective." International Journal of Public Opinion 5 (4): 33 5-5 2. Times Mirror Magazine Conservation Council. Sept. 1994. "America and the Environment: The Sky Isn't falling." Field and Stream 99(5):27-28. Van Liere, Kent. D., and Riley Dunlap. 1980. "The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanation and Empirical Evidence." Public Opinion Quarterly 44, 181-97.

This page intentionally left blank

3

CANADA'S G R E E N P L A N : AN E X P R E S S I O N OF THE P O P U L A R W I L L ? Fréter Morrison

PUBLIC CONCERN about environmental issues in Canada has gone through substantial tidal changes (Doern and Conway, 1994). The peak in environmental awareness in the late 1980s received expression through a major new policy initiative. On December 11, 1990 the Progressive Conservative government committed $3 billion in new funding to the Green Plan, an initiative that was billed as a comprehensive national strategy and action plan for sustainable development. The Green Plan and its impact have received relatively little attention in the scholarly literature. A recent series of articles (Hoberg and Harrison, 1994; Laplante, 1995; Harrison and Hoberg, 1996) has explored various motivations and implications of the plan. Hoberg and Harrison (1994, 130) suggested that the "pattern of instruments contained in the Green Plan is consistent with an effort by electorally-motivated politicians to claim credit for taking action on the environment while simultaneously avoiding the blame associated with imposing concentrated costs on industry or threatening the jurisdiction of the provinces." In contrast, the federal government itself declared the Green Plan to be an expression of the popular will: "Founded on public consultations, Canadas Green Plan responds to the environmental concerns of Canadians, and aims to secure for current and future generations a safe and healthy environment and a sound and prosperous economy" (Government of Canada 1991, 1). Indeed, the consultation process leading to the final release of the Green Plan was extensive, involving thousands of people in workshops across the country. The core question underlying this paper is whether the Green Plan matched the environmental priorities of the general Canadian public. The 1993 ISSP Survey provides a unique opportunity to compare the goals

56

SHADES OF G R E E N

of this major policy initiative with the values and concerns of Canadians. The survey was designed to obtain information about Canadians' environmental values. As part of the survey, two questions specifically focused on the Green Plan. The survey was conducted at the midpoint of the five-year Green Plan when the outline of the plan was emerging through concrete initiatives and specific programs and when public awareness was still high.

CANADA'S GREEN PLAN: ORIGINS AND INTENTIONS The Green Plan was conceived in the 1980s, fed in part by the Brundtland Commission and its influential report, Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). It was also motivated by a series of political missteps that had damaged the environmental reputation of the ruling Progressive Conservative Party. Within the government, the development of the Green Plan was led by Environment Canada through an internal brainstorming approach and reflected the ideological orientation of what had been a relatively small, scienceoriented department. Partly as a way of building support across the government, more than half the new funds allocated to the Green Plan were to go to departments other than Environment Canada. Despite the constitutional division of responsibilities for environmental matters among the federal government and the provinces, the provinces were not directly involved in the early stages of development of the plan. Once the initial outlines of the plan were incorporated into a discussion paper, two phases of consultation were carried out. The first was a series of information sessions in thirty-nine cities involving 6,000 people. The second phase involved seventeen consultation workshops with an estimated 3,500 participants (Hoberg and Harrison, 1994). Thus the Green Plan had the potential to embody the wishes of the general public, both in structure and content. When the Green Plan was finally announced on December 11, 1990 by the Minister of the Environment, Robert de Co tret, it outlined a series of eight goals with targets under each (Appendix 1). For each of the targets, specific initiatives were identified. The broad goals and the initial •suggested allocations of funds over the five years covered a wide range of environmental concerns: 1. Promoting clean air, water and land $850 million 2. Promoting sustainable use of renewable resources $350 million 3. Protecting natural spaces and wildlife species $175 million

PETER MORRISON

4. Preserving Arctic ecosystems 5. Acting on international agreements on air pollution 6. Promoting environmentally responsible decision making 7. Promoting stewardship in federal government operations 8. Minimizing the impact of environmental emergencies

57

$100 million $575 million $500 million $275 million $175 million

The popular perception of the Brundtland report and the concept of sustainable development it presented was that it was possible to reduce or eliminate the trade-offs between economic development and environmental protection. Instead of an "either-or" choice, it was possible to achieve a "win-win" combination of the two. This perspective was embodied in many initiatives of the Green Plan. The Green Plan was not without its critics when it was released. For example, environmental groups and the media condemned the lack of detail and what they saw as an unduly heavy emphasis on agreements (both international and domestic), and on research and education (Hoberg and Harrison, 1994). Even if the plan was criticized by some groups, did the plan accord with the perspectives of the Canadian public? H Y P O T H E S E S OF T H I S STUDY

The empirical analysis and discussion in this paper are organized around four propositions, or hypotheses. They are not strictly defined statistical hypotheses, but are policy statements that may be assessed with the empirical information available through the ISSP survey and other sources. This section briefly describes the propositions and the tests used to evaluate them. The next sections present the results of the tests and discuss the possible explanations of the results, including alternative hypotheses. Hypothesis 1: Canadians placed a relatively high priority on environmental quality. The importance attached to environmental quality and measures to protect the environment can be assessed in four ways. First, several questions ask directly about these values, focusing on measures such as membership in environmental groups, donations to environmental causes and signing peti-

58

SHADES OF G R E E N

tions. Second, the reported behaviour with respect to recycling, automobile driving, purchase of organically grown produce, and consumption of meat provide an indication of the acceptance of these values. Bennett (Chapter 2 in this volume) summarized some results from these first two sets of measures. The third and fourth sets of measures indicate the relative importance of environmental values. Several questions examine the relative importance of economic growth and environmental protection. These questions also offer some insight into Canadians' acceptance of one of the core ideas in what might be called "naive sustainable development ideology," specifically that economic growth and environmental protection are mutually reinforcing rather than subject to trade-offs. As noted above, this set of beliefs is embodied in the background documentation for the Green Plan. The fourth indicator of relative priorities is the correlation between voting patterns or political affiliation, and the perception of which political party has the best environmental policy. There are several possible explanations for such a correlation; however, a lack of correlation would indicate that environmental priorities do not play a role when the public attempts to differentiate among the parties. Hypothesis 2: The form of the Green Plan matched the preferences of Canadians. If Canadians wanted action on environmental protection, was the form of the action in accordance with their preferences? It is possible to examine three aspects of this issue. First is the decision as to whether the government should be responsible for promoting environmental quality as opposed to the private sector or individuals. Bennett (Chapter 2) has addressed this choice. Second, the public may have preferences for action by different levels of government. The ISSP survey specifically asked which level of government did the best job of protecting the environment. It is not possible to distinguish from the wording of this question between responses that took account of different mandates of the different levels of government. For example, do municipal governments do a good job of protecting the environment because they are generally effective at ensuring polluters do not exceed their limits, or do they do a good job given their mandate and resources*. The third aspect we can examine is Canadians' preferences about how to pay for environmental protection. Again, Bennett has summarized some of the information from questions regarding willingness to pay through higher taxes, higher prices or lower standards of living.

PETER M O R R I S O N

59

Hypothesis 3: The content of the Green Plan matched the preferences of Canadians. The content of the Green Plan may be compared with the priorities and preferences of Canadians in two main dimensions. The first is the nature of the environmental concerns. Three groups of questions in the survey specifically address the types of environmental issues on which action should be taken: (1) questions asking about perceptions of degree of danger due to different environmental risks; (2) a question asking respondents to select the greatest threat from a short list; and (3) a question asking for priorities on energy policy. This will be compared with the agenda of the Green Plan. The second major dimension is the choice of instruments used to achieve the goals of the Green Plan. This overlaps with the information about preferences for government action and willingness to pay for environmental protection. The responses to questions addressing these issues will be compared with the distribution of measures taken under the Green Plan developed by Hoberg and Harrison (1994). Hypothesis 4: Canadians perceived the Green Plan as addressing their priorities. There are two possible mechanisms that could result in concordance between the initiatives of the Green Plan and the perceptions of Canadians. First, if the Green Plan was effective at informing and educating Canadians, it could shape popular perceptions and priorities. Second, if the process of developing and implementing the plan was indeed attuned to generally shared priorities, Canadians could also perceive it as effective. In both cases, good communication is required. Thus the first, critical issue is the level of awareness of the Green Plan. The ISSP survey asked this question directly. The survey asked how effective the plan was: "If the Green Plan is fully implemented how effective will it be in preventing future environmental problems?" Unfortunately, the benchmark for evaluating effectiveness implied by the question, prevention of future environmental problems, does not cover the full range of goals and objectives of the Green Plan (see Appendix to this chapter, page 71). Effectiveness may also be evaluated from a political perspective. The Progressive Conservative Party would reasonably expect that the investment of $3 billion over five years would change perceptions about the quality of their environmental policies, with possible implications for future voting. The prediction in this case is that the Progressive Conservatives would be disproportionately likely to be seen as having the best environmental policy, as distinguished from the other parties.

60

SHADES OF G R E E N

P R I O R I T I E S F O R E N V I R O N M E N T A L QUALITY

Hypothesis 1: Canadians placed a relatively high priority on environmental quality. The ISSP survey presented four statements to respondents that reflect the possible trade-offs between environmental protection and economic activity. In summarizing the responses (Table 1), some responses have been combined, with "strongly agree" and "agree," and "strongly disagree" and "disagree" being lumped together. Finally, all responses that indicate neutrality or an inability to select a response have been totalled (i.e. "neither agree nor disagree," "can't choose" and "refused"). This presentation masks possible differences among degrees of agreement, but simplifies comparison of the overall trends. TABLE 1: T R A D E - O F F S BETWEEN THE E N V I R O N M E N T AND THE ECONOMY Statement 1. Economic growth always harms the environment. 2. In order to protect the environment, Canada needs economic growth. 3. We worry too much about the future of the environment and not enough about prices and jobs today 4. People worry too much about human progress harming the environment.

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

441 (21%)

550 (26%)

919 (43)

537 (25)

672 (32)

538 (25)

369 (17)

1221 (57)

476 (22)

338 (16)

1315 (62)

1136 (53%)

Note: The total weighted sample size in all cases is 2128.

In a related question, respondents reacted to a description of possible relationships between environmental protection and economic growth: "Some people say that tougher environmental policies will cost jobs and slow economic growth. Others say that a healthy environment will result in a growing economy. Which is closest to what you believe?" (Both statements could be true, since the first addresses an incremental change and the second refers to an absolute "healthy environment.") The response was heavily weighted to the second statement (50 percent of respondents, compared to 17 percent selecting the first statement, with the remainder picking "can't choose," "other" or "refused"). Taken together, these responses indicate that most Canadians believe that there is no necessary trade-off

PETER M O R R I S O N

6l

between economic growth and environmental quality. Thus the Green Plan does reflect Canadians' perspectives on sustainable development. The last way of assessing the relative priority that Canadians place on environmental protection is through reported political behaviour. Here the comparison is between the federal parties perceived to have the best environmental policy and political preferences (Table 2). The comparison is restricted to the five major political parties: Progressive Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic, Bloc Québécoi s and Reform. The proportions refusing to answer or not voting are quite large in some cases. This is reflected in the total (weighted) sample sizes which can be compared to the full sample size of 2128. TABLE 2: BEST E N V I R O N M E N T A L P O L I C I E S AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR Party

Progressive Conservative Liberal New Democratic Bloc Québécoi s Reform Total

Best Environmental Policy

296 (25%) 358 (30) 433 (36) 48 (4) 68 (6) 1203

Last Vote

573 (39%) 547 (38) 272 (19) 53(4) 25(2) 1470

Affiliation

398 (30%) 557 (42) 218 (16) 117(9) 49(4) 1339

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

While overall the correlations between perceived best environmental policy and last vote and political affiliation are highly significant, there is one major discrepancy. The New Democratic Party was seen to have the best environmental policies, yet received only half the vote that would be expected if environmental policy had been a major determinant of voting behaviour. The difference is even more extreme for political affiliation. Thus environmental policies of different parties may play some role in political behaviour, but other factors are clearly weighted more heavily in the political calculations of voters.

62

S H A D E S OF G R E E N

FORM OF THE G R E E N PLAN Hypothesis 2: The form of the Green Plan matched the preferences of Canadians. A critical area for comparison between the preferences of Canadians and the implementation of the Green Plan is the choice of instruments to achieve the goals of the plan. As discussed in Bennetts chapter, Canadians have a strong preference for controlling individual behaviour, and especially business activity, with respect to environmental protection through legal means as opposed to leaving such decisions in private hands. As discussed further below, the clear emphasis in the Green Plan is on providing information rather than implementing controls on economic activity to achieve environmental protection. This contrast supports the view of Hoberg and Harrison (1994) noted above. The Green Plan was a major spending initiative through the federal government. There were references in the background documents to building partnerships with other levels of government; yet the emphasis was heavily on national initiatives. In the ISSP survey, respondents indicated substantial uncertainty about which level of government did the best job of protecting the environment (36 percent could not choose or refused to answer). Those that did respond felt that municipal governments did the best job (25 percent), followed closely by provincial governments (23 percent), and then trailed by federal government (16 percent). These results remain ambiguous because it is not clear whether a "good job" is being evaluated against the expectations and mandate of the different levels of government, or in more absolute terms. They do suggest, however, that Canadians would have preferred that the Green Plan be delivered through their municipal or provincial governments. (As discussed below, federal politicians would face obvious political disincentives to such an approach.) Hoberg and Harrison (1994) cite survey data indicating that more Canadians felt the federal government should be primarily responsible for protecting the environment than supported the idea of provincial governments taking the lead. When taken together, these results suggest that most Canadians perceived the federal government as having overall responsibility, but not following through in terms of doing a good job (despite the Green Plan), and would prefer local delivery of environmental protection. The ISSP survey did not question respondents about their willingness to pay for particular initiatives to protect the environment; however,

PETER M O R R I S O N

63

several questions did examine their general preferences for paying for environmental protection (Table 3). Table 3 provides a summary of the results of the questions by combining the positive, negative and neutral responses. TABLE 3: P R E F E R E N C E S FOR PAYING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Mode of payment Much higher prices Cut in standard of living Much higher taxes

Willing

Neutral

Unwilling

1148(54%) 952 (45) 787 (37)

571 (27%) 619 (29) 537 (25)

409 (19%) 557 (26) 809 (38)

This table clearly illustrates Canadians' preference to pay for environmental protection through higher prices as opposed to tax increases. One possible explanation is that with higher prices consumers retain an element of control: they are free to buy or not. With increased taxes, there is a loss of economic power. This pattern is supported by another question asked in the ISSP survey. People were asked: "Do you feel that the costs of environmental improvements should be included in the price of products or should environmental improvements be limited to keep prices as low as possible?" Of the respondents who selected one of the two options, 67 percent chose fully including the cost of environmental improvements in the price. These preferences have implications for the delivery of environmental protection programs. The Green Plan spending program, ultimately funded through taxes, was not the way Canadians would have preferred to pay for environmental protection. They would have preferred to use economic instruments and full-cost accounting that incorporated the environmental externalities into product prices. C O N T E N T OF THE G R E E N PLAN

Hypothesis 3' The content of the Green Plan matched the preferences of Canadians. The ISSP survey listed several environmental risks and asked Canadians to comment on the degree of danger associated with them. Respondents were given a choice of five hazard ratings: "extremely dangerous," "very dangerous," "somewhat dangerous," "not very dangerous," or "not dangerous at all." Respondents were also asked separately about the degree of danger to the environment and to themselves and their families.

64

SHADES OF GREEN

Bennett has provided a summary of the results in the previous chapter. To assess the priorities of the Green Plan in this paper, I focus on the two most severe categories and the perceived impact on the environment (Table 4). These categories are assumed to be sufficiently dangerous that they would be a high priority for action to preserve environmental quality. The risks listed in Table 4 are ranked in order of severity. The perception of extreme risk evident in the responses to these questions may partially reflect an "anchoring" phenomenon, given the range of options presented in the questionnaire. Despite this, there is clearly a high level of concern about several sources of environmental risk, in particular industrial air pollution and water pollution. TABLE 4: SEVERITY OF E N V I R O N M E N T A L RISKS Risk

Percent believing extremely dangerous

Air pollution caused by industry Pollution of Canada's rivers, lakes and streams Nuclear power stations A rise in the world s temperature caused by the "greenhouse effect" Air pollution caused by cars Pesticides and chemicals used in farming

Percent believing very dangerous

39.7 39.6 27.9

37.9 34.3 21.3

24.1 23.9 22.3

32.8 36.0 29.9

Note: The total weighted sample size in all cases is 2128.

The relatively lower level of perceived risk associated with air pollution from cars in this set of questions should be contrasted with the question in the survey asking about future risks. Respondents were asked to comment on the probability that in the next ten years "... there will be a large increase in ill health in Canada's cities as a result of air pollution caused by cars" (emphasis added). A large majority (73 percent) of Canadians thought this was likely: 17 percent believed it was certain, 24 percent thought it was very likely, and 32 percent felt it was fairly likely. There is a clear perception that environmental quality in cities is deteriorating with significant impacts on human health. In addition, the perception of future adverse effects on health was correlated with a willingness to reduce driving for environmental reasons, raising the possibility of popular support for limitations on driving. The ISSP survey also asked directly what Canadians felt were the greatest threats to the environment which affected them. They were provided with an opportunity to give two responses. When all responses are combined and ranked according to frequency (Table 5), a clear emphasis

PETER M O R R I S O N

65

on the three atmospheric issues (air pollution, ozone depletion and global warming) in combination emerges. There also seemed to be a general acceptance that this list captured most of the critical environmental threats, given the small number of respondents selecting "other." TABLE 5: R A N K I N G OF P E R C E I V E D GREATEST THREATS Threat Air pollution Ozone depletion Water quality Waste management Global warming No wildlife protection Other Can't choose

Percent selecting 29.4 19.1 14.6 14.0 7.7 4.9 1.6 8.2

As Bennett notes, these responses are consistent with the more serious threats associated with forces over which the respondent has little control. The ISSP survey provides a third question that can be used to evaluate the targeted areas for emphasis in the Green Plan. As described in Bennett, there is a strong preference for renewable energy and more efficient use of existing resources compared to non-renewable resources such as nuclear energy, and oil and gas development (83 percent for the first two options). The general themes in the Green Plan and the initial indications of budget (see Appendix to this chapter) map fairly well onto the levels of concern expressed in the ISSP survey. There are two major discrepancies. First, the Green Plan places greater emphasis on sustainable use of natural resources (forests, agriculture and fisheries) than would be warranted by the expressions of environmental concerns. This reflects a broader definition of environmental issues than is used by the general public. The political requirement to "spread the wealth" to departments other than Environment Canada likely played a role in shaping these allocations. The second discrepancy was the heavy emphasis in the plan on process concerns; "environmentally responsible decision making," internal departmental operations, and environmental emergency responses totalled $950 million. It is not clear what level of support Canadians would have provided for these measures to bolster the federal bureaucracy and its environmental capability. The second comparison between Canadians' preferences and the implementation of the Green Plan is in the choice of policy instruments.

66

SHADES OF GREEN

As discussed above, Canadians strongly prefer government intervention (presumably with an emphasis on regulation), especially for business interests. Canadians also prefer to pay for environmental protection through changes in prices of purchased products rather than through increased taxes or changes in their standard of living. Because of the way that Green Plan money was gradually buried in departmental accounts, it was not within the scope of this paper to attempt to uncover the exact amounts allocated to each initiative. Table 6 indicates the heavy emphasis on information programs in the Green Plan as designed and as actually implemented in the first 27 months. The weight on measures to promote information dissemination and information development does not match well with the preferences of Canadians for a firm government hand on environmental protection. The lack of emphasis on economic instruments to achieve environmental goals also contrasts with the expressed preferences. Hoberg and Harrison (1994) note that only two of the initiatives raise the possibility of using marketbased instruments. P E R C E P T I O N OF THE G R E E N PLAN

Hypothesis 4: Canadians perceived the Green Plan as addressing their priorities. The first (implicit) part of this hypothesis is that Canadians were aware of the Green Plan. Only a small percentage of the people questioned (1.4 percent) described themselves as very familiar with the Green Plan; the largest single group was not at all familiar with the plan (Table 7). The relatively poor understanding and recognition of an initiative with a $3 billion price tag indicates that the information dissemination aspect of the plan was not successful in shaping awareness. This is somewhat surprising given the heavy emphasis on communication in the way the plan was delivered (Hoberg and Harrison, 1994). Several basic variables (province, age, education, employment status, income, urban/rural) were investigated to identify which factors might predict awareness of the Green Plan. A clear pattern was not evident for any of these. Familiarity with the Green Plan was predicted instead by two other factors. Variables that were strongly related (p