Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:41:21.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Education and Environmentalism: Ecological World Views and Environmentally Responsible Behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Norman Blaikie
Norman Blaikie*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Concern for the environment has traditionally been associated with youth. Studies in the USA over the past twenty-five years have consistently shown that environmental concern declines with age (Buttel, 1979; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980; Lowe, Pinhey and Grimes, 1980; Lowe and Pinhey, 1982; Honnold, 1981, 1984; Mohai and Twight, 1987; Arcury and Christianson, 1990). Just why this is so has been a matter of some dispute; the ‘aging’ hypothesis suggests that it is due to the socio-biological aging process; the ‘cohort’ hypothesis points to the differential influence of important historical events on birth cohorts, particularly in their formative years; and the “period” hypothesis proposes that both of these processes can be over-ridden as all age cohorts adapt to changing social, cultural and economic circumstances. Both the ‘cohort’ hypothesis (Mohai and Twight, 1987; Samdahl and Robertson, 1989) and the ‘period’ hypothesis (Honnald, 1984) have received some support.

A recent study in Australia (Blaikie, 1992) has offered some support for the ‘cohort’ hypothesis but has shown that the relationship between age and Ecological World View (environmental attitudes) is curvi-linear rather than linear. The strongest commitment to an Ecological World View (EWV) is to be found in a middle-aged cohort; younger cohorts hold a middle position and older cohorts have the lowest level of commitment. It would appear that this middle-aged cohort was influenced in its youth by the earlier wave of environmental concern in the 1970s, and it has either maintained this level of concern, or had it revived in the more recent wave. Today's younger generation has not reached this same level of concern, perhaps because of the differences in socio-economic climate between the 1970s and the present, and their greater susceptibility to the effects of the current recession.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australian Journal of Environmental Education , Volume 9 , 1993 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

Arcury, T.A., & Chrislianson, E.H. “Environmental Worldview in Response to Environmental Problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 Compared.” Environment and Behavior 22, 1990, pp. 387–407.Google Scholar
Blaikie, N.W.H. “The Nature and Origins of Ecological World Views: an Australian Study.” Social Science Quarterly 73(1), 1992, pp. 144–65.Google Scholar
Blaikie, N.W.H., & Ward, R. “Ecological World Views and Environmentally Responsible Behaviour.” Sociale Wetenschappen 35(4), 1992, pp. 40–63.Google Scholar
Blocker, T.J., & Eckberg, D.L. “Environmental Issues and Women's Issues: General Concerns and Local Hazards.” Social Science Quarterly 70, 1989, pp. 586–93.Google Scholar
Buttel, F.H. “Age and Environmental Concern: A Multivariate Analysis.” Youth and Society 10, 1979, pp. 237–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catton, W.R., & Dunlap, R.E. “Environmental Sociology: a New Paradigm.” The American Sociologist 13, 1978a, pp. 41–9.Google Scholar
Catton, W.R., & Dunlap, R.E. “Paradigms, Theories, and the Primacy of the HEP-NEP Distinction.” The American Sociologist 13, 1978b, pp. 256–59.Google Scholar
Catton, W.R., & Dunlap, R.E. “A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-exuberant Sociology.” American Behavioral Scientist 24, 1980, pp. 15–47.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R.E. “Paradigmatic Change in Social Science: From Human Exemptions to an Ecological Paradigm.” American Behavioral Scientist 24, 1980, pp. 5–14.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R.E., & Van Liere, K.D. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: a Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results.” Journal of Environmental Education 9, 1978, pp. 10–19.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R.E., & van Liere, K.D. “Commitment to the Dominant Social Paradigm and Concern for Environmental Quality.” Social Science Quarterly 65, 1984, pp. 1013–28.Google Scholar
Honnold, J.A. “Predictors of Public Environmental Concern in the 1990s.” pp. 63–75 in Mann, D. (ed.), Environmental Policy Formation, Vol. 1. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1981.Google Scholar
Honnold, J.A. “Age and Environmental Concern: Some Specification of Effects.” Journal of Environmental Education 16, 1984, pp. 4–9.Google Scholar
Lowe, G.D., & Pinhey, T.K. “Rural-urban Differences in Support for Environmental Protection.” Rural Sociology 47, 1982, pp. 114–128.Google Scholar
Lowe, G.D., & Pinhey, T.K. and Grimes, M.D. “Public Support for Environmental Protection: New Evidence From National Surveys.” Pacific Sociological Review 23, 1980, pp. 423–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McStay, J.R., & Dunlap, R.E. “Male-female Differences in Concern for Environmental Quality.” International Journal of Women's Studies 6, 1983, pp.291–301.Google Scholar
Mohai, P., & Twight, B.W. “Age and Environmentalism: an Elaboration of the Buttel Model Using National Survey Evidence.” Social Science Quarterly 68, 1978, pp.798–815.Google Scholar
Nelissen, N. J. M., & Scheepers, P. “Environmental Consciousness and Behaviour Examined.” Sociale Wetenschappen 35(4), 1992, pp. 63–81.Google Scholar
Richmond, J.M., & Baumgart, N. “A Hierarchical Analysis of Environmental Attitudes.” Journal of Environmental Education 13, 1981, pp. 31–7.Google Scholar
Samdahl, D.M. and Robertson, R. “Social Determinants of Environmental Concern: Specification and Test of the Model.” Environment and Behavior 21, 1989, pp. 57–81.Google Scholar
Van Liere, K.D., & Dunlap, R.E. “Social Bases of Environmental Concern: a Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44, 1980, pp. 181–197.Google Scholar