Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:21:20.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian Public Opinion and Environmental Action: Evidence from British Columbia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Donald E. Blake ,
Neil Guppy  and
Peter Urmetzer
Donald E. Blake
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Neil Guppy
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Peter Urmetzer
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Public opinion regarding environmental issues has attracted considerable scholarly attention during the 1990s. Less attention has been paid to links between environmentally friendly attitudes and “green” behaviour and the degree to which behaviour is context or value-driven, especially in Canada. Using survey data from British Columbia, this article analyzes these links, paying particular attention to differences between public perceptions of local versus global environment, and how these concerns influence behaviour. The analysis also demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between different types of behaviour. While the crucial role of postmaterial values for three kinds of environmentally friendly behaviour is confirmed, other factors, particularly left/right ideological differences and personal financial circumstances emerge as significant explanatory variables. “Green consumer behaviour” is largely determined by local context. Local concerns also drive “green political activity,” but value differences are crucial as well. Left/right differences and personal financial circumstances are especially important in explaining “green pocketbook behaviour” — willingness to incur costs, either personally or through taxes, for environmental protection and enhancement.

Résumé

Au cours de la dernière décennie, l'état de l'opinion publique à l'endroit des questions environnementales a soulevé beaucoup d'intérêt. Cependant, on a peu étudié les liens entre les attitudes et le comportement « vert », ainsi que dans quelle mesure ce comportement est influencé par le contexte ou les valeurs, particulièrement au Canada. En se basant sur les données d'une enquête réalisée en Colombie-Britannique, cet article analyse ces liens en tenant compte surtout des différences entre la perception publique de l'environnement local par rapport à l'environnement global et la façon dont ces attitudes influencent le comportement. Quoique le rôle critique des valeurs postmatérialistes portant sur trois sortes de comportement eco-ami soit confirmé, d'autres facteurs apparaissent comme variables significatives d'explication, surtout celles relatives aux différences idéologiques gauche/droite et aux circonstances économiques personnelles. Le « comportement de consommateur vert » est en grande partie déterminé par le contexte local. Des soucies locaux déterminent aussi le « comportement politique vert », mais les différences en tant que valeurs sont également décisives. Les différences gauche/droite et les circonstances économiques personnelles sont particulièrement importantes pour expliquer l'habitude « portefeuille-vert »—la volonté d'encourir des frais, directement ou à travers les taxes, en vue de protéger et d'améliorer l'environnement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 451 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 These data were supplied by Robert Burge of the Centre for Public Opinion Research at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.

2 Nevitte, Neil and Kanji, Mebs, “Explaining Environmental Concern and Action in Canada,” Applied Behavioral Science Review 3 (1995), 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Rohrschneider, Robert, “Citizens’ Attitudes toward Environmental Issues: Selfish or Selfless,” Comparative Political Studies 21 (1988), 347–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Virtually all analysis in this area measures value change using Ronald Inglehart's theory of the development of postmaterial values. See his The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977) and Cultural Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).

5 Rohrschneider, “Citizens’ Attitudes toward Environmental Issues,” 364.

6 McAllister, Ian, “Dimensions of Environmentalism: Public Opinion, Political Activism and Party Support in Australia,” Environmental Politics 3 (1994), 22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Nevitte and Kanji, “Explaining Environmental Concern in Canada.”

8 The term refers to “rising levels of knowledge and attentiveness” among the mass public and is operationalized by frequency of political discussion and level of education. See ibid., 88–89.

9 Ibid., 94.

10 Bakvis, Herman and Nevitte, Neil, “The Greening of the Canadian Electorate,” in Boardman, Robert, ed., Canadian Environmental Policy: Ecosystems, Politics and Process (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992), 152.Google Scholar

11 McAllister, “Dimensions of Environmentalism,” 27.

12 Nevitte and Kanji, “Explaining Environmental Concern in Canada,” 91.

13 The survey was conducted by Campbell, Goodell, Traynor Consultants Limited of Vancouver under the supervision of Donald E. Blake and Neil Guppy. A total of 1,652 telephone interviews was completed from the general population age 18 or over. These were supplemented by an additional 100 interviews from Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking households, 101 from Punjabi-speaking households in the Lower Mainland, and 101 interviews from the Abbotsford area. Arlene Strom and Peter Urmetzer provided invaluable assistance in developing the survey instrument.

14 The question was prefaced with the statement, “First, I would like to start off by asking you about some general concerns you might have about political and economic issues in the province.” However, the introduction to the survey stated that it dealt with environmental issues, hence the figure for environmental problems may have been inflated somewhat.

15 This figure is the sum of motor vehicle exhaust, ground water contamination, air pollution, pulp mill emissions, garbage pollution, sewage system and pollution of oceans and lakes. The total could be higher depending on what people had in mind when they mentioned problems such as lack of recycling, water shortages and chemicals.

16 This is substantially less than the pro-environmental response in British Columbia to a similar question asked in the 1988 National Election Study. Ignoring those with no opinion, 83.6 per cent of BC respondents “mainly agreed” with the statement that “protecting the environment is more important than creating jobs” (Bakvis and Nevitte, “The Greening of the Canadian Electorate,” 151). Our survey asked which of a given pair of policy goals, “reducing unemployment or protecting the environment,” was closer to the respondent's own position. We are unable to tell whether the apparent decline is real or a result of differences in question wording. Moreover, unlike Bakvis and Nevitte who find significant differences on reactions to this trade-off by education, occupation and gender, with one exception we found no significant differences in British Columbia using standard demographic control variables. The exception is ethnic origin. Respondents from Asian backgrounds are significantly more likely to choose the “reduce unemployment” option than people of other origins. Ethnic differences are explored more fully below.

17 In 1994, there were 2,250 groups listed in the Canadian Environmental Network's Green List database, of which 529 were located in British Columbia. See Stefanick, Lorna, “The Green Wave: Canada's Environmental Lobby,” paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Calgary, 1994, 6.Google Scholar

18 See Stefanick, Lorna, “From Protest to Participation: A Comparison of Environmental Activism in B.C. and Ontario,” paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal, 1995Google Scholar; Kathryn Harrison, “Environmental Protection in British Columbia: Postmaterial Values, Organized Interests, and Party Politics,” and Hoberg, George, “The Politics of Sustainability: Forest Policy in British Columbia,” in Carty, R. K., ed., Politics, Policy and Government in British Columbia (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1996), 290–309 and 272–89Google Scholar, respectively.

19 Steger, Mary Ann E. and Witt, Stephanie L., “Gender Differences in Environmental Orientations: A Comparison of Publics and Activists in Canada and the U.S.,” Western Political Quarterly 42 (1989), 629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Hay, P. R. and Haward, M. G., “Comparative Green Politics: Beyond the European Context?” Political Studies 36 (1988), 438CrossRefGoogle Scholar; emphasis in the original.

21 Dunlap, Riley E. and Liere, Kent Van, “The New Environmental Paradigm,” The Journal of Environmental Education 9 (1978), 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Multiple regression revealed that demographic variables explain only 2 per cent and 6 per cent, respectively, of the variance in levels of local concern and global concern. See Blake, Donald E., Guppy, Neil and Urmetzer, Peter, “Being Green in BC: Public Opinion on Environmental Issues,” BC Studies 112 (1996–1997), 41–61Google Scholar, for details.

23 Witherspoon, Sharon and Martin, Jean, “What Do We Mean by Green?” in Jowell, Roger et al., eds., British Social Attitudes: 10th Report (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1993), 1–26.Google Scholar

24 Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

25 However, this is three times the percentage in Australia. See McAllister, “Dimensions of Environmentalism,” 33. Without further investigation, it would probably be unwise to make too much of this difference. In British Columbia, at least, “membership” in some organizations comes automatically with a relatively modest financial contribution solicited by door-to-door canvassers.

26 Witherspoon and Martin look at both activities (“What Do We Mean by Green?”). Nevitte and Kanji focus on willingness to pay (“Explaining Environmental Concern”).

27 Not all these activities may have an explicit environmental protection motivation. Robert M. Worcester reports a British study which shows that only 36 per cent of those who reduce fuel and electricity use cite environmental reasons for doing so (“Public and Elite Attitudes to Environmental Issues,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 5 [1993], 323). Moreover, some consumers undoubtedly purchase organic fruits and vegetables primarily for presumed health benefits.

28 Witherspoon and Martin also use a list of green consumer activities to develop a “green consumer” scale for a United Kingdom sample, which has two items similar to our own (“What Do We Mean by Green?”). Their results suggest the British are not as green as British Columbians. Only 32 per cent recycle bottles, tins and newspapers and only 8 per cent buy organically grown food. Part of the difference in the frequency of recycling is undoubtedly the greater availability of “blue box” recycling in Canada.

29 Persons living in single-family dwellings are much more likely to have the space to engage in composting and at the same time are more likely to have one or more cars and be less dependent on public transit. Only the five items with loadings greater than .30 on the first factor were used in calculating a “green consumerism” scale.

30 Factor analysis of the 10 activism items confirmed that all items have reasonable loadings (from 0.36 to 0.62) on a single factor. However, there is some evidence of a second factor which has higher loadings for the two letter-writing items and the phone-in item.

31 Factor analysis indicates that responses are structured by a single underlying dimension accounting for 38 per cent of the variance, with item loadings ranging from 0.40 to 0.72.

32 This scale is conceptually similar to one appearing in Witherspoon and Martin, “What Do We Mean by Green?” but ours is longer (seven items versus six) and has more variance. Nevitte and Kanji use a three-item scale labelled “environmental action” (“Explaining Environmental Concern”). However, all three items deal with the willingness of individuals to pay directly, or through taxes, for action against pollution.

33 Rohrschneider, “Citizens’ Attitudes toward Environmental Issues,” 362.

34 The measure was constructed by giving respondents one point for each correct answer to questions about sources of air pollution, the greenhouse effect and landfill contents. Details are available from the authors on request.

35 Details of the construction of the postmaterialism, populism and neo-conservatism scales are provided in the Appendix. Also, see Donald E. Blake, “Value Conflicts in Lotus Land: British Columbia Political Culture,” in Carty, ed., Politics, Policy and Government, 3–17.

36 Inglehart, Ronald, “Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies,” PS: Political Science and Politics 28 (1995), 57.Google Scholar

37 Here we disagree with Milbrath, Lester who argues that “the left-right argument is between socialists and capitalists but has little relevance for environmental problems” (Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society [Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984], 88).Google Scholar

38 Blake, “Value Conflicts.”

39 See Blake, Donald E., Two Political Worlds: Parties and Voting in British Columbia (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1985).Google Scholar

40 This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that gender makes no difference, net of other factors, on our other two measures of green behaviour.

41 See similar results from Alberta in Derksen, Linda and Gartrell, John, “The Social Context of Social Recycling,” American Sociological Review 58 (1993) 434–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Nevitte and Kanji, “Explaining Environmental Concern,” 97.

43 McAllister, “Dimensions of Environmentalism,” 33–34. His activism measure is a four-point index based on whether a respondent is a member of an environmental group, considered joining, had not considered joining or would never join. His distinction between “cosmopolitan” and “local” concerns is conceptually similar to ours, but, again, our measures differ.

44 This conclusion is based on a regression equation with the same independent variables as in Table 3, but with the dependent variable scored 3 for group members, 2 for financial contributors, 1 for those displaying signs or bumper stickers and 0 for those doing none of these things.

45 Nevitte and Kanji, “Explaining Environmental Concern,” 95.

46 Bakvis and Nevitte, “The Greening of the Canadian Electorate,” include a control for self-placement on the left/right spectrum when looking at an “environment versus jobs” trade-off, one of the components of “willingness to pay.” They conclude that postmaterialism has a much greater effect (152). However, this conclusion is based on a restricted sample: the 20 per cent of the national sample who acknowledged using left/right labels. As noted above, our measure of left/right position is constructed from answers to questions dealing with taxes, private property rights and government regulation of business.

47 Witherspoon and Martin do not use Inglehart's postmaterialism measure limiting the comparisons we can make between their study and ours. However, they too show that environmental concerns have significant effects on green consumer behaviour and willingness to pay for environmental protection (“What Do We Mean by Green?” 20–21).

48 Inglehart, The Silent Revolution.