Environmental Concern in Europe.

Proposing Measurement Instruments and Comparing Results Using WVS and ISSP

data.

Paper prepared for The fifth Conference of the European Survey Research Association

(ESRA) – University of Ljubjana, Slovenia, July 15-19, 2013

Enzo Loner, University of Trento, Italy

enzo.loner@untn.it

2

ABSTRACT

Purpose of the study. This study deals with the creation of an instrument for measuring

environmental concern.

Data. The study uses data from the 2000 WVS and ISSP surveys to build a cumulative

scale of mobilization for the defense of the environment.

Methods. The Mokken Scale Analysis is applied to confirm the reliability and one-

dimensionality of the scale, which respond to the strongest level of the scales according to

Mokken’s definition. The analysis of Guttman Errors permits to isolate particular patterns

of activism.

Results. The validity for construct in relation to previous literature has been analyzed by

observing the trend of the index in the sub-groups. Such procedure has also allowed to

identify additional aspects on which to investigate. In particular, Holland and Great Britain

show particular patterns that might constitute specific ways to relate to the environment.

The analysis of the indexes developed using 2000 ISSP and WVS datasets enable the

isolation of an often elusive phenomenon: the presence of individuals with a pronounced

degree of activism but who do not share the attitudes of the majority of environmentalists.

Conclusions. The indexes developed represent useful instruments for measuring

environmental concern. Further, the results underline how, with the sole exception being

the level of education, country, politic and postmaterialism, the cultural and structural

variables are scarcely correlated with the number of Guttman Errors, calling for additional

investigation of specific patterns. Finally, some remarks regarding the sampling procedure

and the wording of the questions are added.

3

Introduction

Since the second half of last Century, the interest for environmental questions arose all

over Western Countries. The emergence of this phenomenon has well been studied, but

the analysis are spread around different aspects varying from participation to attitudes,

without reaching a well-established and commonly recognised unity of measurement (for

a review see Dunlap and Jones 2002). In fact, until now, little systematic work has been

undertaken and still less has considered environmental concern as one dimension as a

whole.

Most of the works are based on the analysis of data collected from large international

surveys (WVS, EVS, ISSP, Eurobarometer) and therefore not on ad hoc investigations. As

Neumayer noted (2002), the possibility to check for construct validity of the measures can

be reached - most of the times - only accepting a poorer coverage of the concept of

concern for the nature. These difficulties call for an urgent pause of reflection of the

discipline and evidence the importance to adopt some commonly accepted standards of

measurement.

This could firstly improve the communication between the scholars and, secondly, make

the comparison of the works less difficult. For this purpose, it is possible to take advantage

of Item Response Theory’s models (IRT, Molenaar 1997; Sijtsma and Molenaar 2002; Van

Schuur 2003). In particular, I use Mokken Scale Analysis (MSA) to develop a cumulative

scale for assessing how people are willing to act in defence of the nature. Mokken Scale

Analysis, a nonparametric probabilistic IRT model, derived from Guttman’s cumulative

scale analysis (Guttman 1944; Mokken 1971; Molenaar et al. 2000; Van Schuur 2003, for

a parametric counterpart see Andrich 1988; Embretson and Reise, 2000; Bond and Fox

2001), is very useful for this purpose because it allows the researcher to observe both

whether the items form a one-dimensional scale and whether they (the items) possess

cumulative properties: that is, whether they can be ordered as steps in a scale of increasing

difficulty distributed along a continuum extending from, at one extreme, strong rejection

of acting in favour of the environment, and greater openness towards environmental social

movements to the other extreme.

The first part of the study uses the 2000 WVS data to construct a one-dimensional index of

environmental concern and to compare the results across 15 European countries.

4

In the second part I use ISSP 2000 data (concerning 9 European countries) to build a more

extended scale of environmentalism.

In the third part of this work I extend my analysis of ISSP data by examining Guttman

Errors, i.e. the number of individuals who “deviate” from the “perfect” cumulative scale.

This is a helpful way to check for the validity of the scale and for looking for (possible)

problems in the samples.

In the fourth part I study Guttman Errors also for the WVS data selecting only the countries

covered also by the ISSP survey. Here I compare the two scales to check if the pattern

observed in the WVS data is evinced by the ISSP survey as well.

In the fifth part of this work I focus only on the respondent (of both datasets) who

belonged to an organization for the defence of the nature to see if they evidence

differences in the steps that leads to mobilization. Here I try to build the profile of activist

who become involved in environmentalism along a path different from that followed by

the majority of environmentalists. This may help to distinguish different forms of

ecologism and show whether the patterns found in the sample as a whole are replicated by

individuals ‘formally’ belonging to a group committed to the protection of the

environment.

5

Analysis 1. WVS 2000 data

For the first analysis, I selected fifteen European Countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark,

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal,

Spain, Sweden and Great Britain) from World Values Survey (WVS), 2000 wave. Data

were collected with face-to-face interviews. The total number of respondents was 19719

(about 1000 for each country). As a measure of environmental concern, I choose the

following four questions:

1. “I would give part of my income if I were certain that the money would be used to prevent

environmental pollution” (PAY). [Possible answers from “Strongly agree” (4) to “Strongly disagree”

(1)].

2. “I would agree to an increase in taxes if the extra money is used to prevent environmental pollution”

(TAX). [Possible answers from “Strongly agree” (4) to “Strongly disagree” (1)].

“Please look carefully at the following list of voluntary organisations and activities and say

- Conservation, the environment, ecology, animal rights”

3. “Which, if any, do you belong to?” (MEMBER). [Answers: “Yes” (1) or “No” (0)].

4. “Which, if any, are you currently doing unpaid voluntary work for?” (WORK). [Answers: “Yes” (1) or

“No” (0)].

In order to get homogeneous values for each question, PAY and TAX have been

dichotomised (“Strongly agree” and “Agree” = 1, “Strongly disagree” and “Disagree” =

0).

A Mokken’s scale for environmental concern

A first MSA was performed using MSP5 (Molenaar, Van Schuur, Sijtsma and Mokken

2000) taking into consideration the entire dataset and the four items regarding the

environment (WORK, MEMBER, TAX and PAY).1 The results are encouraging: the

coefficient of scalability H for the scale is 0.59 (tab. 1, row 18, col. 7). According to

Mokken (1971:185; see also Molenaar and Sijtsma 2000:12), this value implies a “strong”

1 For the analysis I used listwise deletion of missing cases (Molenaar and Sijtsma 2000:50). The Mokken

Scale Analysis eliminates from the procedure subjects that have always answered in the same way (i.e.

always positively or always negatively) because these are subjects who do not make a choice on an order of

preferences and are therefore not useful for construction of the scale.

6

scale.2 Loevinger’s H coefficients for single items are also to the same extent very high:

0.64 for PAY, 0.59 for TAX, 0.53 for WORK and 0.48 for MEMBER (coll. 3-6).

Moreover, no significant violations of the assumptions of the model were found checking

for the tests of monotone homogeneity (MH) and non-intersection of item response

function (IRF).3 A further way for assessing whether our set of items conforms to a good

scale consists in repeating the same tests within the subgroups defined by demographic

and social-cultural dimensions.4 As this analysis shows no serious violation and the order

of difficulty is the same across subgroups, this suggest that the scale will also conform to

double monotonicity’s requirements (DM, i.e. non intersection of item response function,

Mokken 1971: 171-76).

The different popularity of the items (tab. 1, row 18, coll.8-11) suggests that a subject who

gives the positive response to WORK (mean score 0.03) is also most likely to give the

positive response to all the other items, while PAY (0.58) is the “easiest” step (i.e. with

the highest percentage of positive responses). When items are dichotomous, the score can

be interpreted as the percentage of positive answers (Molenaar and Sijtsma 2000:52), so

we can say that 3% of the respondents indicated that they were doing unpaid work for a

voluntary environmental organization and another 58% would give part of their income to

prevent environmental pollution.

For a deeper evaluation of these findings, I performed MSA on the data from each country

separately. In eleven countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,

Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain), the results confirmed the existence of a

“strong” (H > 0.50) cumulative scale (tab. 1, col. 7). In particular, the highest H-value was

found in Spain (H-scale = 0.68), followed by Germany (0.65), France (0.64), Ireland

(0.62) and Italy (0.61). In three cases (Greece, Sweden and Great Britain) the value was

“medium” (0.50 > H > 0.40) and in only one (Netherlands) acceptable (0.34).

2 As suggested by Mokken (1971:184-185), the threshold for coefficient H has been set to 0.30 both for the

whole scale and for single items. Loevinger’s H is given by the number of violations observed (according to

the “perfect” model of Guttman, that is to say in the ordering of two items and one subject) E(obs) and the

violations that can be expected under the model of stochastic independence: E(exp). For further information

see Van Schuur (2003:147-149) and Mokken (1971:148). 3 IRF is a mathematical function that relates the latent trait to the probability of endorsing an item. For a

review see Mokken (1971). 4 The following test included in MSP5 software have been considered: via restscore groups, restsplit groups,

p-matrices and Htrans. Minimum group size was set to 2030 cases. Validation via restscore groups checks

that the probability of the positive response increases with the score obtained by the subjects. For a review

see Sijtsma and Molenaar (2002:98-111).

7

The results are therefore very satisfying, but the Netherlands and Great Britain deserve

further investigations (tab. 1, last four rows). Notably, almost half of the Dutch

respondents (mean score 0.45) are members of an organization for the defence of the

nature, a value clearly greater than the rest of Europe: almost six times the average of the

whole sample (tab. 1, col. 9). Loevinger’s H coefficient for this item (MEMBER) is under

the lower boundary of 0.30 (0.20, col. 4).5

TABLE 1. WVS 2000: ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN SCALE: COEFFICIENT OF SCALABILITY

(H) AND MEAN SCORE FOR THE WHOLE SCALE AND FOR THE SINGLE ITEMS (* WHERE H <

0.30).

Loevinger’s coefficient of homogeneity (H) Mean score

Country n. WORK MEMBER TAX PAY Scale WORK MEMBER TAX PAY

Austria 1438 .57 .45 .54 .60 .55 .02 .10 .38 .49

Belgium 1837 .56 .46 .56 .65 .57 .03 .11 .46 .60

Denmark 965 .63 .48 .51 .54 .52 .02 .13 .65 .79

Finland 975 .50 .53 .52 .53 .52 .02 .05 .50 .54

France 1554 .53 .44 .65 .67 .64 .01 .02 .37 .46

Germany 1927 .68 .59 .65 .66 .65 .01 .02 .26 .30

Greece 1091 .39 .45 .43 .53 .45 .09 .11 .65 .82

Ireland 945 .62 .44 .63 .66 .62 .01 .03 .40 .55

Italy 1863 .64 .56 .60 .64 .61 .02 .04 .44 .65

Luxembourg 1119 .35 .35 .55 .59 .51 .04 .10 .56 .64

Netherlands 996 .68 .20* .35 .45 .34 .03 .45 .55 .74

Portugal 895 .61 .72 .54 .57 .56 .00 .01 .46 .60

Spain 2224 .64 .66 .68 .70 .68 .01 .02 .49 .58

Sweden 1003 .77 .58 .38 .43 .47 .04 .12 .77 .79

Great Britain 887 .35 .37 .58 .58 .43 .08 .02 .51 .49

All 19719 .53 .48 .59 .64 .59 .03 .08 .48 .58

Without UK and

Netherlands

17836 .58 .53 .61 .65 .61 .02 .06 .47 .58

Source: World Values Survey 2000 .

5 By using the explorative possibility of MSP5 “search”, for this country this results in two scale: the first is

formed by WORK and MEMBER, the second by PAY and TAX.

8

We deal therefore with this country by comparing our results with other international

sources. The ISSP survey registered, in 2000, 16.2% of Dutch population as member of an

ecologically oriented organization and, in 1993, the same percentage was 16.7. For EVS-

WVS 1990, the level of membership was 28.3%, for Eurobarometer 43.1 bis (1995) 21.7%

and, finally, for ESS 2003 20.1%. As each of these surveys register a level of participation

well under the findings of WVS 2000, it is possible to suspect that our data source

overestimates this value, perhaps due to the inclusion of members of animals’ rights

groups or movement for the conservation of territory in general (but, if so, we should

explain why the value increased by almost 20% between the waves 1990 and 2000 of

WVS). Finally, some scholars (Markova 1996, Vliegenthart, Oegema and Klandermans

2005) note that, during the ‘90, environmentalism in the Netherlands has assumed the

characteristics of more “passive” than “active” participation (that is, members belongs to

the associations but are not so much engaged in the activities). It is however

unquestionable that the exceptional (high) level observed in the data confirms the presence

of a particular pattern and, therefore, we can see at the Netherlands as an outlier. The

evidence of this country as a particular one was moreover recognised also by other

investigations (Diez de Ulzurrun 2001; Dalton, 2005).

Considering Great Britain, in spite of high coefficients H of homogeneity, the order of

difficulty of the items is not the same as for the other countries (tab. 1, coll. 8-9). Contrary

to the expectations of the scale, more people have, in fact, given a positive answer to

WORK (0.08) than to MEMBER (0.02). In 2000 the number of active members of the

British ecologically–oriented organizations is therefore greater than passive members.

This deviation from our expectations can be controlled by taking into consideration other

data sources. WVS in 1990 registered 5.0% for MEMBER and 1.5% for WORK: values

perfectly in line with the general trend of the scale. The same was for the 1981’s wave

(5.0% and 1.0%, respectively), while other surveys include only the membership that is:

5.9% for ESS 2003, 5.8% and 5.2% for ISSP 2000 and 1993 and, finally, 7.3% for

Eurobarometer 43.1 bis 1995. An important question, when comparing different surveys,

is the well-known “wording” issue, a problem that may occur translating questionnaires

from one language to another. Our data do not succeed into sufficiently clearing this

doubt, but do not sufficiently corroborate the hypothesis that United Kingdom has to be

considered only in terms of specific pattern. It is however important to note that some

9

scholars, as Rootes (2003), evidence the particular way in which environmentalism took

place and evolved in this country, especially in the last decades of the last Century.

Further, we have yet not to forget some possible problems of sampling, as fluctuations in

the results could arise when the number of interviews is small (the total of valid cases for

this country is only 887).

It is therefore interesting to repeat the analysis without the Dutch and British respondents

(tab. 1, last row). The H coefficients benefit of a little improvement: for the whole scale

this value growth only from 0.59 to 0.61 while, among single items, MEMBER (from 0.48

to 0.53) and WORK (from 0.53 to 0.58) benefit of the greatest improvement. The mean

score of these items drop down, respectively, from 0.08 to 0.06 (due mainly to the absence

of the Netherlands) and from 0.03 to 0.02 (due to the Great Britain). PAY remains the

easiest step (0.58) followed, in the order of difficulty, by TAX (0.47), MEMBER (0.06)

and WORK (0.02). As well as for the former, the new scale do not evidence any violation

for the assumptions of monotonicity or intersection of the IRT checking also for the

subgroups of background and social-cultural variables.

Among other characteristics, Mokken Scale Analysis offers the possibility to observe the

variations between subgroups of respondents. This can be done by comparing the mean

scores of each separate scale. This feature can further be used to obtain a brief, but

sufficiently precise, picture of the phenomenon and for cross-national comparison (tab. 1,

coll. 8-11). Let us start from the more difficult items, noting that the low level both for

WORK (mean score: 0.00) and for MEMBER (0.01) evidences how environmental

movement is not very popular in Portugal.

Greece deserves particular attention: the (very high) level of participation is perhaps due

to the enormous heritage of the innumerable historical monuments that play a special role

in the wellness of his inhabitants. Data available for this country from other surveys regard

unfortunately only the membership and not unpaid voluntary work, but do not confirm the

findings of WVS 2000: 1.4% for the ESS survey (2003) and 2.4% for Eurobarometer 43.1

bis (1995). In Great Britain, instead, the particular trend of WORK and MEMBER is

hardly explainable and to frame in any category: the comparison with other data sources,

in the case of discordant values claims for further investigations.

Considering the availability (of the respondents) to economically intervene for the defence

of the nature (tab. 1, last columns) the highest scores are reached by Greece, Sweden and

10

Denmark, while Germans evidence clearly less interest (only 0.26 for TAX and 0.30 for

PAY).

Testing the validity of the scale

To check for validity, I repeat the analysis across demographic dimensions: the gender

(GENDER) of the respondent, education (EDU) divided in three levels (“low”, “medium”

and “high”)6, age (AGE) grouped in five categories (15-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60 and over

60) and cohort (COHORT), recoded in five classes (1941 or early, 1941-51, 1951-60,

1961-70 and 1970 or later).

Further, I also use social-cultural variables. The first, postmaterialism

(POSTMATERIALISM), is divided in three categories according to Inglehart (1990)

simplest version: “materialists”, “postmaterialists” and “middle level”. Altruism

(ALTRUISM) was measured by summing the availability to help five groups of people:

“your immediate family”; “people in your neighbourhood”; “elderly people in your

country”; “immigrants in your country” and “sick and disabled people in your country”.

Altruism was then recoded for major simplicity in three levels: “high” , “medium” and

“low”7. The third dimension (SOCIAL), takes into consideration the membership in five

organizations (others than environmentalists) engaged in social questions: “Local

community action on issues like poverty, employment, housing, racial equality”; “Third

world development or human rights”; “Youth work (e.g. scouts, guides, youth clubs

etc.)”; “Women’s groups”; “Peace movement”. According to these items, the variable

was then recoded as people who participate in one or more associations and those who do

not belong to any organization. The level of activism (ACTIVISM) has been measured

considering the attitude (“Might do”, or “Have done”, coded respectively as 1 and 2)

toward the following actions: “Signing a petition”; “Joining in boycotts”; “Attending

lawful demonstrations”; “Joining unofficial strikes”; “Occupying buildings or factories”.

The additive index was then recoded in three categories: “low” (score 1 to 3), “medium”

(score 4 to 7) and “high” (score 8 to 10) level. As a proxy for cosmopolitism

6 I have used the variable already present in the dataset.

7 The variable was recoded so that “high” = availability to help 4 or 5 groups of people, “medium” =

availability to help 3 groups and “low” = availability to help 2 or less groups.

11

(COSMOPOLITISM), I used a typology according to the place the interviewed declared

to feel to belong to (“Which of these geographical groups would you say you belong to

first of all?”) and divided into: “local” (“Locality or town where you live”; “Region of

country where you live”), “national” (country level) (“Your country as a whole”) and

“extra-national” (“Europe”; “The world as a whole”). Racism (RACISM), at the end,

was estimated considering the opinion about immigrants coming in the respondent’s

country to work: “How about people from less developed countries coming here to work.

Which one of the following do you think the government should do?” According to this

variable subjects were separated in those who evidence the presence of racism (answers:

“Prohibit people coming here from other countries”; “Put strict limits on the number of

foreigners who can come here”) and respondents in which this form of hostility is, on the

contrary, absent (answers: “Let people come as long as there are jobs available”; “Let

anyone come”).8

By looking at differences in the score between subgroups, MSA can also help to identify

particular patterns, i.e. distinct levels of placing on the continuum, for example, for subsets

of gender, or education. Finally: “Differences in scalability between subgroups may be an

indication that the test measures different latent traits” (Molenaar and Sijtsma 2002:143).

Examination of subgroups is therefore notable for the validation of construct of the scale

and I have performed this analysis only in the thirteen countries where the results were in

line with our expectation, namely excluding the Netherlands and Great Britain. The data

for these two countries are calling – probably – further analysis and (at the moment) we

cannot exclude some problem due to the sample (only 996 valid cases in the Netherlands

and 887 in Great Britain).

In addition, subsets formed by gender, age, cohort, education, postmaterialism, activism,

altruism, participation in other organizations active to solve social questions, racism and

cosmopolitism have been examined for every country, for a total of 385 scales analysed.

The results witness the validity of our instrument: coefficients of scalability (H) for the

scale of environmental concern never fall below the lower boundary 0.30. In particular, for

14 scales (3.6% of the total considered) are between 0.30 and 0.39, for 82 (21.3%) are

8 Principal component analysis revealed only one factor both for the battery regarding altruism, both for

activism.

12

between 0.40 and 0.49, for 149 (38.3%) between 0.50 and 0.59, for 112 (29.1%) between

0.60 and 0.69 and, finally, for 28 (7.3%) more than 0.70.

The H coefficients for the single items are also perfectly in line with the assumptions of

our model for 322 scales (83.6% of the total), while only in 63 a violation of the boundary

(of 0.30) for a single item occurred. The finding of few specific violations has yet not to

be regarded as a general violation of the model as: “the conclusion that a certain item

violates the assumptions should only be drawn if more than one detailed result gives clear

indications for suspicion” (Molenaar and Sijtsma 2000:65).

A clearer vision of the validity for construct of the scale can also be obtained following

Mokken’s advice to perform some control accordingly to the precedent findings and

literature. This is possible by focusing our attention to the broader context of demographic

and social-cultural dimensions.

Precedent analysis of demographic variables did not show unambiguous evidences of the

relations between gender, age and environmentalism (Mertig and Dunlap 2001). As

Klineberg, NcKeever and Rothenbach (1998) states: “The determinants of environmental

concern vary greatly depending on the wording and framing of the questionnaire items”.

It is yet notable to remember that some investigations (Scott and Willits 1994; Dietz,

Kalof and Stern 2002; Hunter, Hatch and Johnson 2004) have found that women are more

concerned for the nature (although not so high) and others (Scott and Willits 1994; Dalton

1994; Carman 1998; Klineberg, NcKeever and Rothenbach 1998; Dunlap, Van Liere,

Mertig and Jones 2000) a (weak) prevalence of this sensibility among young people. As

our scale confirms (tab. 2, coll. 7-8), it is possible to exclude differences driven by gender.

The same conclusions occur also checking each single county: only in the north of the

continent (Finland, Sweden and Denmark) women obtain a score slightly higher than men.

Maybe, and not casually, in these nations women have reached since years a level of

emancipation as high as men.

Considering age, one could expect that younger people, usually less favourable towards

the status quo, are more prompt to accept the change in the values of the society proposed

by ecological organizations. As our data show (tab 2, coll. 2-6), this hypothesis is not

always true. Differences by age are in fact minimal, even though older people (more than

60 years old) obtain on the average a score lower than younger: in some countries (France,

Greece and Luxembourg) they fall, on the contrary, in the highest level of participation

13

and this is more evident especially for MEMBER and WORK. Of course, withdrawal

from the job does not necessarily coincide with the retirement and exclusion from full

social life: it is not unusual, for many elderly persons, to spend their free time participating

in organizations and this may occur, of course, also for the defence of the nature.

TABLE 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN SCALE: CHECK FOR VALIDITY THROUGH MEAN SCORE AND

COEFFICIENT OF SCALABILITY (H) FOR THE WHOLE SCALE AND FOR THE SUBGROUPS FORMED BY THE MAIN

DEMOGRAPHIC DIMENSIONS AND BY POSTMATERIALISM

Mean Score

Age Gender Education Postmaterialism

15-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61+ M F Low Med. High Mat. Mix Post.

WORK .04 .02 .02 .02 .01 .02 .02 .01 .02 .04 .01 .03 .03

MEMBER .07 .06 .06 .07 .04 .05 .07 .03 .06 .11 .03 .06 .09

TAX .50 .49 .49 .46 .41 .47 .47 .37 .48 .58 .37 .48 .56

PAY .64 .60 .59 .55 .49 .57 .58 .46 .59 .69 .47 .58 .68

H scale .60 .63 .60 .58 .65 .62 .52 .63 .59 .59 .63 .61 .59

n. 4409 3626 3145 2639 3950 8367 9462 5036 8864 3763 3461 10268 3266

Source: World Values Survey 2000 (the Netherlands and Great Britain have been excluded from this

analysis).

High-educated individuals have been frequently associated with more interest for the

environment (Scott and Willits 1994; Klineberg, NcKeever and Rothenbach 1998;

Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig and Jones 2000; Neumayer 2002). Examination of the score of

our scale (tab. 2, coll. 9-11) confirms this expectation, both for the whole index and for the

single items. Particularly remarkable is the difference for the participation in ecological

groups: people with elevated education reach a score four time higher that the low

educated, both for WORK and MEMBER (respectively, 0.04 and 0.11 against 0.01 and

0.03 of less educated people).

For a better validation of our scale, let us control also for social-cultural dimensions.

According to Inglehart (1990), modern Western Societies have seen a shift toward post-

materialistic values. Among postmaterialists, the “tension” produced by this general

changes in the way of life should result in a greater attention for the environment. Our data

confirm the expectations: for WORK and MEMBER, the difference is particularly evident

14

and, as results from table 2 (coll. 12-14), postmaterialists gain a score three times higher

than materialists (0.03 and 0.09, respectively, against only 0.01 and 0.03).

Turning our attention to altruism, we would similarly expect greater concern for the health

of the planet among people more engaged in helping the others. This attitude can in fact be

related to a major openness, as well for the environment. Some scholars (Stern, Dietz and

Kalof 1993; Stern, Dietz and Guagnano 1995) have dealt with this question from a

psychological perspective using, in particular, the New Environmental Paradigm scale.

According to these findings, our results support the hypothesis that altruists are indeed

also more ecologists (tab. 3, coll. 2-4).

With regards to the place the respondent feels to belong to first, we could presume that

subjects that feel themselves more closed to the world as a whole (instead of the small

place where they live), should be more concerned about the problems of planet earth. Our

data show that the question is not so simple (tab. 3, coll. 10-12): people affirming to

belong to the town or region where they live are less interested in ecological questions, but

the difference between national and extra-national levels is minimal. A way to deal with

the question of territorial belonging should take into consideration the “local” and “global”

side of environmental problems as did, for example, McAllister and Studlar (1999), but

this is not unfortunately possible with WVS data.

TABLE 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN SCALE: CHECK FOR VALIDITY THROUGH MEAN SCORE AND

COEFFICIENT OF SCALABILITY (H) FOR THE WHOLE SCALE AND FOR THE SUBGROUPS FORMED BY THE MAIN

SOCIAL CULTURAL DIMENSIONS

Mean score

ALTRUISM SOCIAL ACTIVISM COSMOPOLITISM RACISM

Low Med High None 1+ Low Med High Loc. Nat. Ext. No Yes

WORK .01 .02 .03 .02 .07 .01 .03 .04 .02 .02 .03 .03 .02

MEMBER .04 .06 .08 .04 .18 .03 .07 .10 .04 .06 .07 .06 .06

TAX .36 .45 .55 .45 .58 .38 .50 .58 .41 .51 .50 .53 .40

PAY .45 .56 .68 .55 .70 .48 .62 .69 .51 .60 .62 .64 .51

H scale .61 .60 .59 .63 .49 .61 .57 .60 .67 .66 .66 .62 .59

n. 4918 3910 7424 14941 2895 5559 6522 3607 5654 4518 6992 9157 8111

Source: World Values Survey 2000 (The Netherlands and Great Britain have been excluded from this

analysis).

15

Taking into account the attitude towards the immigrants, the acceptance of their presence

could be seen as an indicator of major openness for the ideals of environmentalists. It is

worth to note that our data support partly this hypothesis, inasmuch as PAY and TAX

seem to divide the groups of this dimension more efficiently than MEMBER and TAX

(tab. 3, coll. 13-14).

The level of participation in several forms of political actions (ACTIVISM) and the

membership in organizations interested in social questions (SOCIAL), on the contrary,

covariate strongly with environmental concern. The first dimension can be considered as

an indicator of the promptness to act for the solutions of problems that, in the case of

pollution, are day by day more evident. As showed in table 3 (coll. 7-9) commitment in

these forms of protest is strictly related to ecologism, and this is true especially for

MEMBER (score 0.10 for the activists and 0.03 for not activists). Social participation

(SOCIAL), finally, fosters the support for several forms of engagement also overlapping

membership and communications with other associations, as well showed by Diani

(2003:312-317)9. According to our expectations, this variable evidences the highest

capacity to single out environmentalists (coll. 5-6). Members of at least one organization

active in the social field obtain, in fact, the highest score also respectively to any

subgroup: 0.07 for WORK, 0.18 for MEMBER, 0.58 for TAX and 0.70 for PAY.

9 For an application, see Diani (1995).

16

Analysis 2. ISSP 2000 data

We can further investigate environmental concern using data collected by the 2000

International Social Survey Program - Environment (ISSP) on nine European countries

(Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,

Sweden).9 I limited the analysis to these countries as they are present both in the WVS and

in the ISSP surveys.

For our purposes I have selected the following questions:

1. Membership of an environmental protection group (MEMBER):

Are you a member of any group whose main aim is to preserve or protect the environment? [Yes; No]

2. Willingness to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment (PAY):

How willing would you be to pay much higher prices in order to protect the environment? [Very willing;

Fairly willing; Neither willing nor unwilling; Fairly unwilling; Very unwilling; Can’t choose]

3. Willingness to pay higher taxes for the environment (TAX):

And how willing would you be to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the environment? [Very willing;

Fairly willing; Neither willing nor unwilling; Fairly unwilling; Very unwilling; Can’t choose].

4. Willingness to accept a lower standard of living in order to defend the environment

(CUTS):

And how willing would you be to accept cuts in your standard of living in order to protect the environment?

[Very willing; Fairly willing; Neither willing nor unwilling; Fairly unwilling; Very unwilling; Can’t choose]

5. Signing a petition (PETITION) in order to protect the environment instead denotes

active behaviour:

In the last five years, have you signed a petition about an environmental issue?

[Yes I have; No I have not]

6. Taking part in a demonstration for the environment (DEMONST) implies very close

involvement in the movement, because it is a form of protest to which the subject commits

him/herself in first person by devoting time, money, effort to it, and by publicly exposing

himself/herself:

In the last five years, have you taken part in a protest or demonstration about an environmental issue? [Yes

I have; No I have not]

9 Interviewed for every country were around 1000 persons aged over 18 years. Germany included both the

former German Federal and Democratic Republics. Further information on the data (and the complete

questionnaire) is available at the websites of the survey: www.issp.org.

17

7. Funding an environmental association (GIVEMON) indicates ‘passive’ participation

whereby, although the funder concretely supports the movement, s/he does not personally

expose him/herself. While taking part in demonstrations is a political action which the

subject publicly performs, payment of a membership fee takes place ‘outside the social

spotlight’, so to speak:

In the last five years, have you given money to an environmental group? [Yes I have; No I have not].

The aim of this part of the study is to check whether the seven items can be used to build a

general index of environmental concern, extending the index created using WVS data. As

for the first part of this work, Mokken Scale Analysis is very helpful for this purpose

because it allows the researcher to observe both whether the items form a one-dimensional

scale and whether they (the items) possess cumulative properties: that is, whether they can

be ordered as steps in a scale of increasing difficulty distributed along a continuum

extending from, at one extreme, low concern for the environment to the other extreme

consisting in greater mobilization for the environment.

All the questions were dichotomized in order to assign an equal number of modalities to

the variables and therefore to attribute the same weight to all the indicators. For PAY,

TAX and CUTS: “Very willing”; “Fairly willing” = 1, “Neither willing nor unwilling”;

“Fairly unwilling; “Very unwilling” = 0. The analysis was performed with the MSP5

program (Molenaar, Van Schuur, Sijtsma and Mokken 2000) with listwise elimination of

the missing cases on the whole sample (7591 valid cases).

Please note that I have assigned to some variables (namely PAY, TAX and MEMBER) the

same name used for the WVS analysis although the wording of the questions is different in

the two surveys.

Analysis of the items selected (MEMBER, PAY, TAX, CUTS, PETITION, GIVEMON,

and DEMONST) for the countries surveyed (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain,

Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden) showed the existence of a

unidimensional scale (H-scale: 0.49, table 4). The coefficient of homogeneity was high for

all the items; only for the signing of a petition was it just sufficient (H = 0.36).10

10 Elimination of this item would have increased the homogeneity of the entire scale (H-scale = 0.56). It

should be pointed out, however, that this behaviour had already been analysed by Barnes and Kaase (1979)

in their study on political activism, and it was preferable to keep it in the scale because it denoted a form of

first-person commitment to the environment.

18

TABLE 4. MOKKEN SCALE ANALYSIS OF THE INDICATORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

Item Mean

score

H

item

Has taken part in a demonstration on an environmental issue (DEMONST) 4 .41

Belongs to an environmental protection organization (MEMBER) 7 .47

Has given money to an environmental protection organization (GIVEMON) 22 .43

Has signed a petition on an environmental issue (PETITION) 23 .36

Is willing to pay higher taxes in order to protect the environment (TAX) 49 .57

Would accept a lower standard of living in order to protect the environment (CUTS) 60 .51

Is willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment (PAY) 64 .60

H-scale .49

Cronbach’s α .74

NOTE. - Issp 2000, n. = 10188, Mean Score is equivalent to % of “yes answers”.

Since all the variables are dichotomous, their mean score is equivalent to the percentage of

positive answers. As to be expected, the least popular form of action is taking part in a

demonstration about an environmental issue: only four interviewees in a hundred

responded to this question in the affirmative (DEMONST 0.4, tab. 4, col. 2). Also

membership received few positive replies (MEMBER, 7%).

The most popular items were at the other end of the continuum: willingness to pay higher

prices, and to change one’s lifestyle for the sake of the environment. These questions had

little discriminatory capacity and received six-tenths of affirmative replies (PAY, 64% and

CUTS, 60%).

On the basis of these results it is possible to arrange the items in order of difficulty.

According to the cumulative properties of the scale, respondents who have taken part in at

least one demonstration on an environmental issue in the past five years have very likely

answered affirmatively to all the other questions as well. In fact, observing that

DEMONST is the most difficult ‘step’ in the scale means attributing a specific role to this

form of action. Those who have taken part in a demonstration have very probably ‘passed’

the other items in the scale as well. That is to say: they belong to an environmental

protection group, they have given money to one of these associations, they have signed a

petition, they agree with an increase in taxes, they would accept a cut in their standard of

living for the sake of environment, and they would pay a price for an environment-friendly

product.11

11 Marsh and Kaase (1979: 68) write: “If a truly unidimensional and cumulative scale exists, by knowing the

“highest” item any respondent endorses-assuming the item scores to be dichotomized into approve-

19

Testing the validity of the scale

In order to evaluate the validity of the scale obtained, we can repeat the analysis across

various subgroups12

. This signifies determining whether there are subsamples of the

population in which the scale may not ‘hold’. Such analysis carried out on numerous

subgroups (by nation, gender, age, education level, social class, civil status, occupation,

self-placement on the left/right political axis, degree of postmaterialism) confirmed the

cross-cultural validity of the scale. A total of 52 subgroups were examined.13

The

homogeneity coefficient (H-scale), in fact, was always above the minimum acceptability

threshold, and the order of difficulty of the items did not change within the various

subgroups. It is therefore possible to conclude that DEMONST, MEMBER, GIVEMON,

PETITION, TAX, CUTS and PAY form a unidimensional and cumulative scale according

to Mokken’s requirements.14

On the basis of these results it was therefore possible to construct an additive index

representing, by and large, the degree of environmental concern. Summing the responses

to the seven items, each respondent received a score ranging from seven, for those who

always gave positive replies, to zero for those who, conversely, would never act to protect

the environment.

The semantic validity of the scale can be verified by observing the pattern of affirmative

replies to individual items according to the environmental concern index. Given the

cumulative property of the scale, this proportion should increase with the score (Mokken

disapprove, or whatever dimension is used- then one also knows that the respondent endorses each of the

items below that highest and rejects every item above it”. 12

Mokken (1971) and Sijtsma and Molenaar (2002). 13

The H value for the entire scale was always above the minimum threshold of 0.30. The lowest value

obtained was 0.44 and the highest was 0.76. The result of the analysis for the scale made up of the 52

subgroups – not included here for reasons of space – is available from the author on request. The goodness

of the scale obtained was also verified by analysis conducted with Rasch scales, which confirmed that the

seven items constituted a ‘good’ scale. The RUMM 2002 program was used for this analysis. Because

dichotomous items were involved, the fit with the SLM (Simple Logistic Model) model was tested. For

further information see: Interpreting RUMM2020. Part I. Dichotomous Data. RUMM Laboratory 08/2004 or

Bond and Fox (2001). 14

This part of the analysis only checked the scale’s fulfilment of Mokken’s ‘weaker’ requirement, i.e. the

MH (Monotone Homogeneity) property of unidimensionality, not invariance, in the order among all the

respondents. The MH model is based on the assumptions of unidimensionality, local independence (i.e. an

individual's reply to a given item is not influenced by his/her replies to other items), and non-decreasing

monotonicity (Mokken 1971; Sijtsma and Molenaar 2002: 18-25).

20

1971; Sijtsma and Molenaar 2002):15

in other words, the higher the score, the higher the

number of passages, i.e. of items passed in the order leading up to environmental

activism.16

TABLE 5. POSITIVE REPLIES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN INDICATORS ACCORDING

TO THE ISSP 2000 SCALE SCORE Scale

Score PAY CUTS TAX PETITION GIVEMON MEMBER DEMONST (n)

0 min .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 (2097)

1 36.3 40.3 4.6 10.4 6.1 1.8 .5 (1579)

2 73.3 53.4 33.3 20.2 15.0 2.7 2.0 (1586)

3 95.8 92.2 86.3 11.5 10.9 1.9 1.5 (2743)

4 97.4 90.9 88.1 53.8 55.9 8.5 5.4 (1181)

5 98.8 96.8 95.4 79.5 88.9 29.3 11.3 (693)

6 99.6 99.2 98.1 98.8 97.3 73.7 33.2 (259)

7 max 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (50)

NOTE. – % “yes answers”, n. = 10188.

Excluding the two groups with the lowest and highest scores, which obviously always

comprise a percentage of positive replies equal to zero in the former case, and to one

hundred in the latter, the percentage of affirmative responses is high from the first groups

onwards for the willingness to pay more (PAY = 73.3% for respondents obtaining an score

equal to two: table 5), for acceptance of a cut in the standard of living (CUTS = 92.2%

already from group three), and willingness to pay increased taxes for the environment (for

TAX group three already records 86.3% positive replies). These three items therefore have

less discriminatory capacity because they receive broad agreement from both non-activists

and environmentalists.

Turning to the signing of petitions and the funding of environmentalist groups, here the

positive replies decrease, signalling that we are moving towards the more ‘difficult’

extreme of the scale (respectively: PETITION = 53.8% and GIVEMON = 55.9% to group

with score four). The differences are further accentuated in the next items: membership

records 73.7% only at the sixth ‘step’ (and 29.3% for those obtaining a score equal to

15 Put more precisely, after the questions have been inserted in a matrix in order of difficulty, the proportion

of positive replies should be greater than or equal to that obtained by those that obtained a lower score and,

within the same row, decrease as one scans from left to right. It is easier to read the table by comparing the

order of the row values. 16

Passing a step means giving a positive reply (the more precise term would be ‘itemsteps’).

21

five), while for taking part in demonstrations we find only 33.2% in the same position. As

expected, the analysis shows that environmental activism in its strongest forms of

expression (DEMONST, MEMBER) is like the tip of an iceberg, while pro-

environmentalist values (PAY, CUTS, TAX) are, by and large, embraced by broader

sections of the population and not just by activists. As predictable, it was above all the

indicators concerning behaviour, rather than attitudes, which gave the selective character

to the environmental concern index.

An interesting feature of Mokken scales is that they can be used to examine ‘deviations’

from the ‘perfect’ scale: in this context, ‘deviants’ are the subjects (or groups of

respondents) who order the items differently from the general average.17

This term should

be taken, not in the ‘negative’ sense, but relatively to the attitude shared by the great

majority of respondents. While some ‘deviations’ are negligible, others are more

significant. For instance, in the group of subjects obtaining a score (according to the scale)

equal to one, the signing of petitions is more popular than willingness to accept an

increase in taxes for the sake of the environment (PETITION = 10.4%, compared to 4.6%

for TAX, table 5, row with scale score 1), although this, according to the analysis

conducted on the whole sample (table 4), should have received a larger proportion of

positive replies. In the group scoring five, giving money to an environmental association is

more popular than signing a petition (GIVEMON = 88.9%, against 79.5% for PETITION,

table 518

). Since we have already seen that funding environmental groups and signing

petitions have practically the same popularity,19

it is not entirely surprising to find, within

specific subpopulations of the sample, patterns where these indicators occupy different

positions in the scale:20

this configures a situation where some interviewees perceive an

order of difficulty dictated by criteria different from those of the majority of respondents

(fig. 1).21

17 For Guttman (1950), in the ‘perfect’ scale the order of difficulty of preferences for the items is always

respected for each subgroup of individuals. The items are ordered according to the percentage of positive

replies received. 18

These are violations of the cumulative property (or rather, of Guttman’s perfect scale). For further

information see Mokken (1971). 19

Both items received very similar percentages of positive replies: 23% PETITION and 22% GIVEMON

(see table 1). 20

That is, a pattern where the order of importance of the two items differs from the ‘perfect’ scale. 21

One might also ask whether there are not two distinct scales, each composed of six items and comprising

either PETITION or GIVEMON but not both contemporaneously. The scale consisting of DEMONST,

MEMBER, GIVEMON, TAX, CUTS and PAY has already been tested (H-scale = 0.56) and it is very

22

Fig. 1 – DIAGRAM OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN SCALE

In order to verify equal ordering of the indicators among subgroups or cultures, it is useful

to examine the scale in different segments (i.e. in subgroups) of the population (Mokken

1971: 132-133, 180-182 and 272-287).22

This analysis on the ISSP 2000 data, performed on the subgroups for nation, gender, age,

education and postmaterialism (Inglehart 1977), found some inversion of order between

signing petitions and funding (PETITION and GIVEMON).23

This result shows that the

scale identified, even if unidimensional and therefore certainly able to account for

environmental activism, does not comply with the requirement of invariance in

strong, while the one comprising PETITION (H-scale = 0.52) is very solid as well. At this stage of research,

however, it is interesting to verify not so much the existence of sub-scales as the possibility of extending the

base scale so as to increase its precision and coverage of the concept. 22

This method (Sijtsma and Molenaar 2002: 104-105) uses two symmetrical (square) k x k matrixes to

examine the intersections of the functions describing the probability of positive replies to each (IRFS) item:

the H ++

matrix contains all the proportions Pij (11) (with i j) of individuals with score 1, i.e. positive,

for both the items i and j;

the H - -

matrix contains all the proportions Pij (00) (with i j) of individuals with score 0, i.e. negative,

for both the items i and j.

Given the MH property (non-decreasing monotonicity), the probability of a positive reply to item i is less

than that of j, i.e. considering θ (the ability or the latent trait): Pi(θ) Pj(θ).

In conformity with the model, ordering the rows and columns of the H++

and H-- matrixes according to the

increasing probability (Pi) in each row h (h = 1, …, k; h i, j) of these matrixes, we obtain:

for the H ++

matrix: Phi(11) Phj(11);

for the H -- matrix: Phi(00) Phj(00).

In other words, the rows (and, by symmetry, also the columns) of the H ++

matrix are non-decreasing and

those of H-- are non-increasing.

23 The analysis revealed some “violations” (in the order or preferences) between PAY and TAX as well,

although they were less serious. The Crit parameter (Molenaar and Sijtsma 2000: 49-66) was used to

evaluate the severity of the violations. This parameter (still being perfected, according to the authors)

combines different aspects of violations of monotonicity (the H coefficient of the item, the frequency,

magnitude and significance of the violation) into one value. Generally, values exceeding 80 are considered

very severe violations of the model; between 40 and 80 the severity should be investigated further; while

values below 40 may simply be due to fluctuations in the sample. The majority of the violations due to

PETITION fall between 40 and 80, although some exceed the value of 80, while those due to TAX are lower

on average (less than 40, or between 40 and 80). The complete results of the analysis, not given here for

reasons for space, can be obtained from the author on request.

Pay higher prices

(PAY)

Lower standard of

living (CUTS)

Pay higher

taxes (TAX)

Give money

(GIVEMON)

Sign a petition

(PETITION)

Membership

(MEMBER)

Demonstration

(DEMONST)

23

preferences among subjects. According to the criteria established by Mokken (1971), the

scale fulfils the requirement of non-decreasing monotonicity (MH), but not that of

holomorphism (or double monotonicity, DM) that would guarantee the equal ordering of

the items for all the subgroups of subjects. For some respondents, the steps leading to the

decision to take direct action in defence of the environment are therefore not those

perceived by the majority. In light of these conclusions, one may ask whether this pattern

does not also subtend different value-orientations motives for action. It is therefore of

considerable importance to determine whether the result obtained depends on the

procedure adopted to construct the scale, or from the particular way in which the

phenomenon occurs. It is possible, in fact, to hypothesise that the presence of ‘violations’

in the ordering of the items indicates the presence of further underlying dimensions of

importance for certain subgroups.24

The next part of the analysis assumes that the

‘violations’ are due, not to pure chance, but to the manifold forms assumed by

environmentalism. If environmental concern is a heterogeneous concept susceptible to

various interpretations, and if activists do not form a monolithic movement but instead a

set of sometimes very different groups (a green ‘archipelago’), then we can also expect

there to be observable differences among perceptions of the steps leading to action in

defence of the environment. The hypothesis verified in what follows is that the groups of

respondents who exhibit unusual patterns represent specific forms of activism which

cannot be subsumed under the general heading of ‘environmentalism’.

24 For an introductory discussion of this topic see Van Schuur (2003: 141-2).

24

Analysis 3: ISSP data and Guttman Errors: the different views of activism

The third part of this study analyses those subjects committed to environmental protection

in singular ways. It is possible, in fact, to study the perception of those whose behaviour

‘deviates’ from the average of the other subjects. As anticipated above, the term ‘deviant’

is not to be taken in the pejorative sense. It refers to respondents who ordered the items of

environmental concern in a different way from the majority. Accordingly, the next part of

the study defines ‘normal’ and ‘deviant’ positions, not on the basis of a judgment made a

priori, but in accordance with the opinions expressed by the respondents as a whole.

According to this operational definition, it is therefore possible to term the attitudes of the

majority ‘normal’, whilst ‘deviant’ applies to the attitudes of those who differ from the

majority in their ordering of the items on the scale of environmental awareness. The

simplest way to conduct such analysis is to observe the pattern of the Guttman ‘Errors’.

To understand this concept (Guttman ‘Errors’), it is sufficient to remember that Mokken

scales are based on analysis of ‘deviations’ from the deterministic scale devised by

Guttman (1950). An ‘error’, or ‘violation’ of the model, is therefore defined (according to

Guttman) on the basis of the order given by a subject to two items. More precisely, an

error occurs when the subject “responds positively to the more difficult of the two items,

not to the easier one” (Mokken 1971: 41-8). For example, in the case of a mathematical

test, a Guttman error may occur when a student is able to calculate the square root of a

number, but not to perform an easier task, such as a simple addition. The ‘perfect’ model

foresees the dominance of all more difficult items over the easier ones: once the order of

difficulty has been established, locating a subject along the latent continuum only requires

knowing the higher ‘step’ to which she/he has replied in positively.25

By analysing ‘errors’, it is possible to identify the groups of respondents which order the

items differently from the majority and seek to understand their distinctive features. This

means considering whether these individuals represent specific lifestyles. This way of

looking at ‘deviations’ therefore tries to interpret them as indicators of specific patterns or

latent dimensions, and it contrasts with the approaches taken by Rasch and Mokken, who

instead consider them to be random components to be kept under control with

25 Because Mokken scale analysis is a probabilistic version of the Guttman’s model, this statement is

obviously valid only for subjects who have not committed ‘errors’ in their ordering of the items.

25

probabilistic models (Van Schuur 2003: 141). The attribution of ‘errors’ to pure chance is

not entirely convincing because, as hypothesised above, they may display specific

patterns, or rather, distinctive ways of relating to the environment or finally, some problem

in the dataset.

These characteristics make the Guttman Errors extremely interesting, because they can be

used to bring out less evident aspects of environmentalism, such as the more radical forms

(demonstrations, violent actions, prolonged protests or debates, boycotts, and occupying

buildings) adopted to defend the local area against the building of infrastructures or a

‘romantic’ and ‘nostalgic’ vision of nature. These attitudes can be related to further

important dimensions in order to identify the underlying reasons for individual activism.

The order of difficulty of the items also follows the ever higher levels of commitment

required by the increasingly ‘strong’ items concerning participation. McAdam (1989,

1999) has shown the factors that may hinder participation, describing in particular the

biographical impact of activism, whilst Beyerlein and Hipp (2006) have defined biological

availability with reference to more time-consuming activities. On this view, individuals

have limited resources and must therefore reconcile the resources (and time) to devote to

mobilization with the other activities and commitments in their lives. Thus the ‘steps’ of

the scale require different resources and commitments. For example, sharing an opinion is

not time-consuming, but this cannot be said of taking part in a demonstration, or attending

meetings to organize a movement’s activities.

The present study concentrates on the individual level of action in an attempt to determine

whether different orderings of the items on the scale correspond to equivalent attitudes to

the environment.

Analysis of the Guttman Errors showed that almost two-thirds of the interviewees

produced the ‘ideal’ order (63.9%, table 6) by not committing any ‘errors’ in their

ordering of the seven items, while 16.9% committed only one ‘error’. This testifies that

environmental commitment almost always matches the scheme configured by the scale

and moves through a series of steps. For most of the respondents, these steps began with

the sharing of ideals and continued with increasingly committed actions: signing a

petition, funding a group, being a member of an environmentalist association, or taking

part in a demonstration. For the great majority of the interviewees, therefore, the order of

26

preference of the items was: PAY CUTS TAX GIVEMON PETITION

MEMBER DEMONST.

TABLE 6. PERCENTAGE OF GUTTMAN ERRORS BY COUNTRY

0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

Denmark 65.9 15.5 8.2 4.8 2.6 1.4 1.7

Finland 50.0 25.2 7.3 7.2 6.1 1.7 2.4

Germany 62.8 17.6 5.7 7.3 2.2 1.1 3.2

Ireland 67.9 13.9 6.8 4.1 2.6 1.5 3.2

Netherlands 56.3 21.5 10.5 5.7 2.6 1.3 2.2

Portugal 84.1 7.0 4.5 1.7 0.9 0.8 1.1

Spain 74.8 12.0 4.1 4.2 1.0 1.1 2.6

Sweden 52.8 22.5 7.2 8.0 4.7 2.3 2.5

Great Britain 67.5 13.9 5.7 6.3 3.4 0.9 2.2

Total 63.9 16.9 6.7 5.7 3.0 1.3 2.4

(n) 6500 1724 685 579 310 135 244

NOTE. – Issp 2000, n. = 10177.

If, as hypothesized, the Guttman Errors can account for the variety of the environmentalist

universe, this result therefore evidences that the alternative forms of activism make up

only a minority. Only a small proportion of respondents ordered the replies in a manner

completely different from the ‘perfect’ scale: 3.7%, equal to 379 cases, committed more

than four ‘errors’.

In order to explore the mechanisms of activation, part of the following analysis concerns

subjects who committed more ‘errors’ in their ordering of the items. Do they have

different attitudes and specific ways of perceiving commitment to defence the

environment, or do such ‘deviations’ have no significance and are due to chance, with the

consequence that they are of no interest for social research?

A first observation concerns Germany, which is the country with the largest number of

‘deviant’ subjects: fully 43 of correspondents who committed six or more ‘Errors’ (table

6).26

This result confirms the impression that in Germany environmental concern has

assumed more radical features, as evidenced, amongst others, by Rucht and Roose (2003:

92-94), who report that in the decade 1988-1997 fully 12% of protests were marked by

demonstrations which also involved violence or damage to private property. Secondly,

26 This value corresponds to almost 18% of all the respondents belonging to these categories.

27

brief examination of the ‘errors’ in light of the main demographic variables (country,

gender, age, education, nation of origin) did not reveal particular patterns, apart from a

slight tendency to reply respecting the order of the items by lower-educated subjects.27

These results prompt some considerations in regard to methodology. The first concerns

the usefulness of the index, which, also because it consists of only seven items (and four

for the WVS scale), allows detailed investigation the different ways in which

environmental concern is manifest. On examining the Guttman Errors, in fact, it is

possible to identify both the ‘normal’ patterns, i.e. those of subjects who conform with the

general average (in our case, the first two groups, which comprise in total more than eight

interviewees out of ten28

), and those of subjects who ‘think differently’ and express this

difference through particular forms of participation.

The second consideration concerns the purposes of constructing instruments to ‘measure’

social phenomena. An important objective is to find indicators which match an ideal

model as closely as possible: that is, a model possessing greater scalability and thus

assuring great advantages for subsequent analyses.29

However, this rarely happens in

social research. This criterion has only partly been fulfilled in the case of the ISSP scale,

because activism for the environment has features of such complexity that it cannot (only)

be considered in terms of dominance relationships between subjects and items alone.30

The index devised has nevertheless enabled account to be taken of this specificity, as

shown by the great differences among the categories obtained by observing ‘errors’ in the

ordering of the items. The scale is also unidimensional, and located on this continuum are

the steps that articulate action in defence of the environment. A minority of subjects,

however, perceives their relationship with the environment in an entirely different way,

and they define the spaces and hierarchies among the indicators using distinctive criteria.

In particular, some (small) sections of the population prefer direct action to economic

measures.

27 One might therefore inquire whether a lower education level is not linked to a greater degree of social

conformism. For reasons for space such analysis is described in the text, but is available from the author on

request. 28

This figure was obtained by summing the percentage of subjects who committed no Guttman Errors

(63.9%) and those who committed only one (16.9%). See last row of the table. 29

This is Mokken’s (1971: 117-18) assumption of double monotonicity (DM or holomorphism) which

indicates, in practice, that the items fit with the Rasch model (Van Schuur 2003). 30

This term is obviously to be understood in relation to Guttman’s definition of the “perfect” scale (Mokken

1971). The concept and its definition are developed in the next part of this section.

28

Analysis 4. Guttman Errors: analysis of the WVS data

It is important to test whether the pattern observed in the ISSP data is also evinced by the

data collected by the World Values Survey (WVS). For greater comparability of the data,

the analysis was performed only on the covered by the ISSP survey, namely Denmark,

Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. I

recall the questions used for the comparison: 31

1. PAY: I am now going to read out some statements about the environment. For each one read out,

can you tell me whether you agree strongly, agree, disagree or strongly disagree?

I would give part of my income if I were certain that the money would be used to prevent

environmental pollution

2. TAX: I am now going to read out some statements about the environment. For each one read out,

can you tell me whether you agree strongly, agree, disagree or strongly disagree?

I would agree to an increase in taxes if the extra money were used to prevent environmental

pollution

3. MEMBER: Please look carefully at the following list of voluntary organisations and activities

and say... which, if any, do you belong to?

Conservation, the environment, ecology, animal rights

4. WORK: “Which, if any, are you currently doing unpaid voluntary work for?”

As already noted in the first part of this work, scale analysis on these items showed the

presence of a pronounced unidimensional scale.

As for the ISSP data, is interesting to observe the order of preferences of respondents who

do not match the general average. Among those with a single ‘deviation’ from the perfect

Guttman scale (930 individuals or 8.6% of all interviewees, table 7), fully 16.3% belong to

an organization for the defence of the environment. This proportion is three times higher

than that of subjects matching the ‘ideal’ scale (5.7%). More than eight-tenths would

accept higher taxes to prevent pollution (TAX = 83.7%), but few would pay directly (PAY

= 21.5%).

The proportion of respondents who perfectly match the Guttman model is even higher

than in the case of the ISSP scale: almost nine-tenth of respondents did not commit

‘errors’ in their ordering (89.4%, table 7). This, though, was to be expected, given that the

31 This study does not address the problem of equivalence among scales. Its purpose is instead to construct a

second scale able to measure (reasonably) the same latent dimension of the ISSP scale.

29

scale consisted of only four indicators and was less accurate than ISSP in grasping the

nuances in preferences regarding the environment.32

TABLE 7. PERCENTAGE OF POSITIVE RESPONSES BY GUTTMAN ERRORS

Number of Guttman Errors

0 ‘Errors’ 1 2 3 4 ‘Errors’

WORK 1.1 5.2 18.5 100.0 100.0

MEMBER 5.7 16.3 93.2 15.6 100.0

TAX 45.9 83.7 21.0 50.0 0.0

PAY 61.4 21.5 18.5 0.0 0.0

(n.) 9668 930 162 32 25

(%) 89.4 8.6 1.5 .3 .2

NOTE. – WVS 2000, %“yes answers” (n. = 9668).

The characteristics of the groups committing most ‘errors’ indicate that they probably

comprise ‘ecologists’, i.e. respondents substantially uninterested in economic factors but

who instead give great importance to personal commitment.33

Those who ‘deviate’ from

the ‘perfect’ scale are decidedly more active, as demonstrated by the large membership of

groups for defence of the environment and the undertaking of unpaid work (MEMBER =

93.2% for those committing two ‘errors’, 100.0% for those committing four; WORK =

18.5% of the group with two violations, 100.0% of that with three or four).

As found for the ISSP data, so for the environmental concern scale obtained from the

WVS data, the highest mean score is recorded for respondents committing most ‘errors’

(fig. 2).34

This confirms that for some subjects mobilization for the environment involves

‘deviation’ from the way in which the rest of the population addresses the phenomenon.

For willingness to pay and unpaid work, for instance, the pattern is exactly the reverse: in

the former case (PAY) the percentage of favourable replies clearly decreases as Guttman

Errors increase, while for unpaid work there is a marked increase. The change in

32 Also verified was the existence of differences among the groups in Guttman Errors according to the main

structural dimensions. To obtain sufficiently large groups, those respondents who committed 3 and 4

Guttman Errors were combined in a single category. The sizes of the groups identified by the number of

deviations from the perfect scale were: 0: 9668 cases; 1: 930; 2: 162; 3-4: 57. The only finding of a certain

interest concerns gender: almost six-tenths (59.6%) who committed most errors (3-4) were male; and

occupation: almost half (49.1%) were employed full time and 10.5% were students, while housewives and

pensioners were under-represented. No significant differences emerged among the other variables (age,

nation, education, income). 33

For discussion of the distinction between ecologists and environmentalists see Nas (1995). 34

The data used to plot this graph were obtained by performing a SPSS One-Way Anova procedure (F =

15.237, df = 4, Sig. = 0.000). It should be borne in mind, however, that the groups with most Guttman Errors

comprised a small number of cases so that the result should be interpreted with caution.

30

preferences therefore matches the distinction between ecologists and environmentalists

(Nas 1995), or between the views that defence of the environment requires, or does not

require, scaling down the economic development of society.

FIG. 2. - INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN. MEAN SCORES ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER

OF GUTTMAN ERRORS (WVS 2000, N. = 9668)

The situation is therefore analogous to that found when analysing the ISSP data, since it

shows that there is a minority of respondents who attribute meanings to environmental

concern which differs entirely from that of the majority. These individuals can be seen as

‘deviant’, that is differing from the majority. For this research it is important for a part of

environmentalism to be interpreted as ‘diversity’. To be added is that term ‘Guttman

Errors’ may be misleading because it concerns, not real ‘errors’, but alternative ways to

order the items along the continuum representing willingness to mobilize for the

environment.

In this regard, the environmental concern index enables the isolation, within large-scale

sample surveys (WVS and ISSP), of an often elusive phenomenon: the presence of

individuals with a pronounced degree of activism but who do not share the attitudes of the

majority of environmentalists. The activism of these subjects is manifest above all in

membership of associations and participation in demonstrations. It emerges from the ISSP

data through the large proportion of positive responses to MEMBER and DEMONST. In

the WVS data it is instead apparent in MEMBER and WORK. In terms of ‘positive

1,2 1,3 1,5

1,7

2

0

1

1

2

2

3

0 1 2 3 4

Men

a sc

ore

Number of Guttman errors

31

replies’, for these respondents it is behaviours that outweigh – because they receive a

larger percentage of approval – attitudes, and what really matters is action. To be noted, in

fact, is that the reverse order of the priorities seems to denote an ‘emotional’ involvement

and a ‘desire to do’ which correspond to a more pragmatic attitude that does not dispute

the bases of society’s economic development.

32

Analysis 5. Are some environmentalists different from the majority?

It is now of notable interest to move to analysis of only those respondents who belonged

to an environmentalist association. This will show whether the differences found in the

sample as a whole were replicated by respondents who, at least ‘formally’ – i.e. because

they stated that they belonged to a nature protection group – represented the vanguard of

the environmentalist movement.

The analysis above has shown that environmental concern comprises diverse ways of

thinking and acting. Those who give equal importance to personal activity and economic

measures to protect the environment are flanked by a minority uninterested in such means,

but which instead assigns great importance to direct participation and involvement in

associations. This category is personified by subjects who maintain that efforts should

concentrate more on the causes of pollution than on political and economic factors, and

who can therefore be identified as ecologists in the strict sense. Environmentalists instead

centre their actions on combating the consequences of pollution (Nas 1995; Dryzek 1997).

This interpretation highlights the existence of a movement fragmented not only by

different views of the relationship between society and nature but also by the different

repertoires of action adopted. Evaluating these aspects more precisely requires

examination of the reasons and the beliefs that motivate the ‘deviant’ subjects identified

by the preceding analysis. Since these individuals are few in number, they may belong to

associations for the defence of animals: groups which often undertake radical action

marked by protest and direct confrontation (Rootes 2003).35

Some may also belong to

groups proposing alternative or grassroots lifestyles: this would explain their scant interest

in economic measures. The birth of such movements has been explained, amongst other

things, by observing the transformation of some of the main Western environmental

associations during the 1970s and 1980s, when they were ‘co-opted’ by governments

which, by involving their representatives in decisions concerning the environment,

dampened their drive and propensity to protest (Van der Heijden 1999). This process

favoured the institutionalization and ‘professionalization’ of the organizations, but it also

35 An episode that has undoubtedly strengthened this image of animal rights campaigners was the murder in

2002 in Holland of the politician Pim Fortuyn by a youth with vegetarian-animal rights beliefs. Fortuyn was

a supporter of factory farming, and also of fur-farming. However, recent surveys (Munro 2002) conducted in

Australia, the United States and Great Britain have stressed that most action by these groups is non-violent.

33

provoked the ‘exit’ of some activists who, feeling themselves betrayed and excluded by

the increasing bureaucratization, founded new groups.36

A last hypothesis concerns the possibility that the groups with a largely ‘inverted’

perception of the order of the items in the scale belong to NIMBY or environmental

justice organizations which focus their action on local issues and for this reason are not

interested in economic measures to protect the environment in general.37

This is borne out

by the fact that they exhibit a marked tendency to act in first person, as illustrated by the

demonstrations against a high-speed rail link between Turin in Italy and Lyon in France in

which a large proportion of the local population took part during the first decade of the

Millennium. Support for these hypotheses is provided by Mela et al. (1998: 75-6), who

note that ‘spontaneous’ environmental committees of NIMBY type are, like animal rights

campaigners, often concentrated on just one specific issue and are “entirely uninterested in

other, more general aspects of the relationship between human society and the natural

environment”.

The first part of the analysis has shown that, in general, those respondents who committed

more ‘errors’ in the ordering had undertaken actions which exhibited strong activism for

the environment, but without performing other actions that required less concern or

commitment (for example, they had taken part in a demonstration but had never signed a

petition). Now examined is whether the same pattern was apparent among the members of

an ecologist group.

36 It is unfortunately not possible to verify this hypothesis with the available data because the survey does

not differentiate among types of organization. Nor are other questions able to yield a more detailed picture of

the attitudes and behaviours of these subjects. 37

This statement should not be taken to imply the equivalence of NIMBY and environmental justice groups,

which should obviously be analysed separately. My concern here is to emphasise the connection of these

groups with the situation of the environment at local level. As Bullard and Johnson (2000: 558) note,

protests relative to environmental justice concern “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all

people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation,

and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of

people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the

negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the

execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies”. The birth of this movement can be dated

to 1978 in the United States. The protest, led by Lois Gibbs, began when the residents of Love Canal

discovered that they were living on top of an abandoned toxic waste disposal site (Dryzek 1997: 177-8;

Doyle and McEachern 1998: 70-1).

34

FIG. 3. - “MEMBERS” AND “NON-MEMBERS” OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION. MEAN

OF GUTTMAN ERRORS (DATASETS: ISSP, N. = 10188 AND WVS, N. = 9668)

A first analysis concerned the difference in the number of Guttman Errors committed by

members and non-members of a green association. Obviously, the number of ‘errors’

differed between the two scales (because they consisted of a different number of items).

The results show overall a very different pattern between the population and those

respondents who stated that they belonged to an environmentalist group (fig. 3). Analyses

in both datasets (ISSP and WVS) show that members of an environmental association

commit on average more ‘errors’ in the ordering.38

This result can be partly explained by

recalling that the respondents belonging to an environmentalist group replied in the

affirmative to one of the highest steps in the scale (MEMBER = "yes", i.e. the sixth item –

out of seven – on the ISSP scale and the third – out of four – on the WVS) and they were

positioned towards the most difficult extreme of the scale. For these individuals, therefore,

it was enough not to have replied affirmatively to one of the more items for which it was

‘easier’ to commit ‘errors’ in the ordering with respect to the ‘perfect’ scale. However, is

interesting to determine whether committing a larger number of ‘errors" depended on the

specific characteristics of those respondents.

As said, the analysis which follows concerns only those respondents who stated that they

belonged to a environmentalist association. This is important because previous studies

38 The differences between the averages were analysed using the One-Way Anova procedure of SPSS. The

level of significance of the differences between the averages (F test) was 0.000 for both datasets.

2,43

0,64 0,72

0,09

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

ISSP 2000 WVS 2000

Gutt

man

err

ors

Members

Not members

35

have sought to construct the profile of the ‘typical’ environmentalist, but they have

omitted those environmentalists who, although they belong to an organization, exhibit

attitudes very different from those of the majority.

Since the ISSP and WVS questionnaires contain questions on various topics, it is possible

to identify differences in the number of Guttman Errors according to the main

demographic and socio-cultural variables (view of the relationship between man and

nature, post-materialism, opinions on science, the role of women, immigration, etc.), and

certain behaviours (participation in associations, political activism, etc.).

Differences in demographic and socio-structural variables

The next part of this study analyses the respondents who exhibited characteristics

markedly different from those of the other activists. Who, therefore, are these individuals

with features so different from the majority of the population and from the ‘traditional’

environmentalists?

In order to construct a brief profile of the environmentalists who ‘diverge’ from the

average, the analysis now reported considered only the 666 cases of the ISSP and the 887

of the WVS that belonged to an environmentalist group.

Although the two scales were similar, but not exactly the same because they were

constructed using different indicators, comparison of the average number of ‘errors’

should make it possible to draw up a profile, albeit a summary one, of the members of

green associations who become involved in environmentalism along a path different from

that followed by the majority.

There are significant differences in both datasets (ISSP and WVS) as regards the country of

origin (Table 9).39

In Holland, the majority of respondents diverge from the ‘perfect’ scale,

but this may also depend on the effect of education, which was higher than average in this

sample. However, the sample was ‘unbalanced’, because its size varied among countries

(and for some countries there were very few cases). It was consequently not possible to

deepen the analysis of geographical origin further.

39 The differences between the groups was measured by performing a One Way-Anova of SPSS. For the

analysis I used the variables already present in the two datasets.

36

TABLE 9. MEMBERS OF ENVIRONMENTALIST ASSOCIATIONS. AVERAGE NUMBER OF

GUTTMAN ERRORS ACCORDING TO THE MAIN DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-STRUCTURAL

VARIABLES (SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL F TEST: * .10; ** .05; *** .001).

ISSP 2000 WVS 2000

Group

mean

(n) F Test

(sig.)

Group

mean

(n) F Test

(sig.)

Country *** *

- Denmark 2.76 103 .50 130

- Finland 3.24 71 .70 46

- Germany 2.89 58 .93 43

- Great Britain and North.Ireland 2.48 66 .64 14

- Ireland 2.07 43 .94 32

- Netherlands 1.75 223 .66 450

- Portugal 3.35 26 .86 7

- Spain 2.13 16 .76 46

- Sweden 2.90 60 .47 119

Gender n.s. n.s.

- male 2.51 337 .68 397

- female 2.36 329 .61 490

Age n.s. n.s.

- 15-24 2.64 53 .44 61

- 25-34 2.41 122 .68 178

- 35-44 2.37 155 .62 205

- 45-54 2.34 157 .63 192

- 55-64 2.39 104 .73 125

- 65+ 2.70 74 .65 122

Social class ** -

- lower class 3.14 14

- working class 3.58 66

- lower middle class 3.06 53

- middle class 2.42 136

- upper middle class 2.83 66

- upper class 1.77 13

Employment - -

- work full time .60 397 n.s.

- work part-time .85 132

- self-employed .64 70

- retired .66 131

- housewife .84 69

- student .58 43

- unemployed .70 23

- other .59 22

Education (ISSP) *** -

- still at school 2.06 32

- 1-7 3.91 34

- 8-10 2.73 93

- 11-13 2.34 182

- 14-18 2.06 210

- 19+ 1.60 57

Education (WVS) - **

- inadequate or inc. or compl.elem. .77 78

- incompl sec.school .81 151

37

- complete sec.school .55 131

- inc.sec.univ.prepar. .72 74

- comp. sec.school, univ.preparation .77 83

- some univ.without degree, high.edu. .54 235

- university with degree, higher edu. .51 120

Income - **

- lower .71 193

- middle .69 310

- upper .51 295

Left-right self-placement - ***

- left .38 79

- center-left .45 266

- center .77 308

- center - right 73 172

- right .91 23

Postmaterialism *** ***

- materialist 2.90 88 1.08 73

- mixed 2.60 373 .65 550

- postmaterialist 1.90 162 .45 224

As regards social class, the ISSP shows statistically significant differences in the averages

Although the relation is not linear, a smaller number of ‘errors’ are committed by

respondents belonging to the higher classes. The same pattern emerges more clearly from

both datasets for education: those respondents with higher educational qualifications

commit fewer ‘errors’; as do those with higher incomes (figure only available in the WVS

data). Those who become involved in the environmentalist movement by following the

‘path’ which begins with endorsement of its value-orientations and then pass to concrete

action therefore belong to the most educated classes of the population. This finding

matches those of previous studies which have sought to identify the characteristics of

environmentalists (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980, 1981; Dalton 1994; Dunlap and Jones

2002). It is interesting, however, that there are also some environmentalists who do not

follow the ‘ideal path’: some skip the ‘easier’ steps and immediately move to the more

difficult ones (for instance, taking part in demonstrations but not contributing funds to an

environmental group). These individuals belong to the less educated social classes and

have lower incomes.

Considering the demographic variables, there are no differences in the average number of

‘errors’ committed by the subgroups identified by gender and age, neither in the ISSP data,

nor in the WVS.

38

Finally, political position (reported only in the WVS dataset) displays a sharp cleavage in

attitudes towards environmentalism between right and left: ‘traditional’ environmentalists

(or ‘normal’ ones, i.e. those who did not commit many ‘errors’ in the scale) are

predominantly on the political left or centre-left (on average, only 0.38 and 0.45 ‘errors’ in

the ordering respectively), whilst those respondents who most diverge from the scale

occupy the political centre, centre-right or right (0.77, 0.73 and 0.91 ‘errors’ respectively).

This result is particularly important because it suggests that ‘deviant’ environmentalists

are mainly individuals who embrace more conservative ideas. This is also confirmed by

the finding that the ‘deviants’ are more evidently materialistic, as deduced both from the

ISSP data (on average 2.90 ‘errors’ by materialists against 1.90 by post-materialists), and

from those of the WVS (1.08 against 0.45).

39

Conclusion

Starting from WVS and ISSP data, I have developed two unidimensional scales of

environmental concern that can be used in future research.

This study has analysed the diverse motivational factors that drive environmentalism and

confirmed the idea of environmentalism as an “archipelago”. The analysis has constructed

a profile – albeit approximate and restricted by data available – of those who pursue a path

‘different’ from the one followed by the majority when joining environmentalist

associations. For many individuals, participation begins with adherence to the ideas of the

green movement and culminates with the decision to devote time and energy to nature

protection. Nevertheless, this is not always the pattern among people who belong to

environmental groups. The results obtained by the foregoing analysis have, in fact, pointed

up the existence of a minority that does not endorse the ideas usually embraced by the

members of a green organization. The characteristics that distinguish these individuals

problematize their position within the movement: how, for example, can one call

‘environmentalists’ persons who believe that a great deal of protest in defence of the

environment is exaggerated? Or who do not make any great effort to reduce the impact of

pollution through responsible behaviour (for instance by sorting their waste)? In

consequence of the results of this study, the classification of these individuals as

‘environmentalists’ is problematic and should be considered and studied separately.

According to the most likely hypothesis on the identity of these actors, they have joined

committees to defend their places of residence against the construction of public

infrastructures with high environmental impact. They therefore do not belong to

environmentalist associations in the strict sense, but to NIMBY groups concerned only to

defend a small portion of the territory. As Mela et al. (1998) suggest, the members of

NIMBY groups usually have little interest in the fate of the planet. In support of this

hypothesis, the analysis has shown that these individuals are more conservative: in their

politics (oriented towards the centre-right and right), in their attitudes towards women –

whom they would prefer to devote themselves to the home and the children – and

immigrants, and in their more materialistic view of life. They also differ greatly from other

environmentalists in their associative participation – that is, in how they view the

relationship with the environment. Not only are they less concerned about the effects of

40

pollution, and untroubled by the damage caused to the planet by human activities, they

have no intention of making personal efforts or sacrifices to repair that damage. For these

reasons, it is important that sociological research should identify these actors and study

them separately from other environmentalists.

The multiple nature of environmentalism clashes with the unidimensionality of the

environmental concern indexes constructed in the first part of this study. Although useful,

these indexes only account for certain necessary steps to mobilization and refer above all

to ‘conventional’ mobilization. They have little to say when the decision to protest is

dictated by specific reasons, like the defence of one’s home against a highly damaging

infrastructure project. If the purpose of the surveys has been to understand who the

individuals are that mobilize, then it is necessary also to identify the reasons why they act.

The foregoing analysis has suggested a number of dimensions which would increase the

capacity to distinguish among the different forms of mobilization, and the motives which

induce citizens to take action to protect the environment. In particular, future research

should consider:

1. The degree of involvement, which enables passive and active membership of the

movement to be distinguished (Wollebœk and Selle 2002).

2. The ecologist or environmentalist positions (Nas 1995) of activists as expressed in

their opposition or otherwise to economic development and political intervention.

3. The effect of the context (especially at local level) is important if set in relation to

the type of sensibility. Blake (2001) observes that certain measures to combat

pollution clash with local socio-economic realities. For example, protest action for

closure of a pollution-emitting factory may be very limited if such closure would

entail numerous job losses. For these reasons, the local setting is of great interest,

and it acts not so much on value-orientations as on pro-environmental behaviour.40

4. The motives for action, which as shown amongst others by McAllister and Studlar

(1999), may be local personal interest (for instance in NIMBY protests) and not

just a desire to protect the environment.

40 Blake’s survey was carried out on a sample of 1652 cases in British Columbia (Canada). The interviews

were conducted in 1995. The questions relating to the context concerned, for instance, the strengthening of

anti-pollution regulations even if this would reduce the interviewee’s standard of living, the closure of

polluting factories even if this involved job losses, and restrictions on the use of natural resources and areas

by industrial concerns.

41

By delving into the phenomenon of mobilization and observing it from a different

standpoint, the inquiry has brought to the surface a number of aspects which, though

unobtrusive, are intimately bound up with the complexity of environmentalism. The

numerous forms in which the latter is manifest have been interpreted in light of data

available at European level, but there are aspects that should be investigated further in

order better to understand the mechanisms. Although this attempt to simplify the

phenomenon of environmental activism has suffered from the limitations of the datasets

available (see e.g. Morales Diez De Ulzurrun 2002), it has underlined the importance of

considering other dimensions, and of comparing all the data available.

A final remark concerns the method used in this work. The difference in environmental

concern might be partly due to some specific pattern in the national samples. To

investigate further in this direction we should take into account both the sample size (in

most of the cases about 1000 individuals), the sampling frame, the method of data

collection (face-to face interviews for WVS and personal interviews, self-enumerated

questionnaires, and mail-back questionnaires for ISSP), the response rates and the wording

of the questions (different in the two surveys). In this case, an accurate analysis of

Guttman Errors might help to test the coherence of the answers and to look for anomalous

patterns of the answers given by the respondents. Although a great deal of work has been

done, much still remains for future research.

42

References

Andrich, David. 1988. Rasch models for measurement. In: Sage university paper on

quantitative applications in the social sciences, series number 07/068, Newbury

Park, California: Sage.

Barnes, Samuel H., and Max Kaase. 1990. Political Action in Europe and the USA.

London: McMillan.

Beyerlein, Kraig, and John R. Hipp. 2006. “A two-stage model for a two-stage process:

how biological availability matters for social movement mobilization.”

Mobilization, 11(3): 299-320.

Blake, Donald E. 2001. “Contextual Effects on Environmental Attitudes and Behavior.”

Environment and Behavior, 33(5): 708-725.

Bond, Trevor G., and Christine M. Fox. 2001. Applying The Rasch Model. Fundamental

Measurement in the Human Sciences. Mahwah (New Jersey) - London: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Bullard, Robert D., and Glenn S. Johnson. 2000. “Environmental Justice: Grassroots

Activism and Its Impact on Public Policy Decision Making.” Journal of Social

Issues, 56(3): 555-578.

Carman, Christopher Jan. 1998. “Dimensions of Environmental Policy Support in the

United States.” Social Science Quarterly, 79(4): 717-733.

Dalton, Russell J. 1994. The Green Rainbow. Environmental Groups in Western Europe.

New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Diani, Mario. 1995. Green Neworks: A Structural Analysis of the Italian Environmental

Movement. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Dietz, Thomas, Linda Kalof, and Paul C. Stern. 2002. “Gender, Values, and

Environmentalism.” Social Science Quarterly, 83: 353-364.

Doyle, Timothy, E Doug Mceachern. 1998. Environment and Politics. London – New

York: Routledge.

Dryzek, John S. 1997. The Politics of the Earth. Environmental Discourses. Oxford - New

York: Oxford University Press.

43

Dunlap, Riley E., and Kent D. Van Liere. 1978. “The “New Environmental Paradigm“: A

proposed measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results.“ Journal of

Environmental Education, 9: 10-19.

Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. Van Liere, and Robert Emmet Jones. 2002. “Environmental

Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues.”, Pp. 482-524, in Riley E. Dunlap

and William Michelson (eds.), Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Westport –

London: Greenwood Press.

Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. Van Liere, Angela G. Mertig, and Robert Emmet Jones. 2000.

“Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP

Scale.” Journal of Social Issues, 56(3): 425-442.

Embretson, Susan E.; and Steven P. Reise. 2000. Item response theory for psychologists.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Guagnano, Gregory A., Paul C. Stern, and Thomas Dietz. 1995. “Influences on attitude-

behavior relationships. A natural experiment with curbside recycling.”

Environment and Behavior 27:699-718.

Guttman, Louis. 1944. “A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data.” American Sociological

Review 9:139-150.

------. 1950. “The Utility of Scalogram Analysis”. Pp 60-90 in Measurement and

Prediction. Volume IV of Studies in social psychology in World War II, edited by

Samuel A. Stouffer, Louis Guttman, Edward A. Suchman, Paul F. Lazarsfeld,

Shirley A. Star, John A. Clausen. New York: Wiley.

Hunter, Lori M., Alison Hatch, and Aaron Johnson. 2004. “Cross-National Gender

Variation in Environmental Behaviors.” Social Science Quarterly, 85: 677-694.

Inglehart, Ronald. 1977 The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles

Among Western Publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jones, Robert Emmet, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1992. “The Social Bases of Environmental

Concern: Have They Changed Over Time?” Rural Sociology, 57(1): 28-47.

Kalof, Linda, Thomas Dietz, Gregory Guagnano, and Paul C. Stern. 2002. “Race, Gender

and Environmentalism: The Atypical Values and Beliefs of White Men.” Race,

Gender & Class, 9(2): 1-19.

44

Klineberg, Stephen L., Matthew Mckeever, and Bert Rothenbach. 1998. “Demographic

Predictors of Environmental Concern; It Does Make a Difference How It’s

Measured.“ Social Science Quarterly, 79(4): 734-753.

Marsh, Alan, and Max Kaase. 1979. “Measuring Political Action.”, Pp. 57-96, in Samuel

H. Barnes and Max Kaase (eds.), Political Action. Mass Participation in Five

Western Democracies, Beverly Hills – London: Sage Publications.

McAdam, Doug. 1989. “The Biographical Consequences of Activism.” American

Sociological Review 54: 744-760.

McAdam, Doug. 1999. “The Biographical Impact of Activism.” pp. 119-46, in Marco

Guigni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly (eds), How Social Movements Matter.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Mela, Alfredo, Maria Carmen Belloni, and Luca Davico. 1998. Sociologia dell’ambiente.

Roma: Carocci.

Mokken, Robert J. 1971. A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis. Paris - The Hague:

Mouton.

Molenaar, Ivo W., and Klaas Sijtsma. 2000. Msp5 For Windows. A Program for Mokken

Scale Analysis For Polytomous Items. Groningen: ProGamma.

Molenaar, Ivo W., Wijbrandt H. Van Schuur, Klaas Sijtsma, and Robert J. Mokken. 2000.

MSP5 For Windows. Groningen: SciencePlus Group – University of Groningen.

Morales Diez De Ulzurrun, L. 2002. “Associational Membership and Social Capital in

Comparative Perspective: A Note on the Problems of Measurement.” Politics &

Society, 30(3): 497-523.

Munro, Lyle. 2002. “Strategies, Actions Repertorires and DIY Activism in the Animal

Rights Movement.” Social Movement Studies, 4(1): 75-94.

Nas, Masja. 1995. “Green, Greener, Greenest.”, Pp. 275-300, in Jan W. van Deth and

Elinor Scarbrough (eds.), The Impact of Values. Oxford – New York: Oxford

University Press.

Rootes, Christopher. 1999. “Acting Globally, Thinking Locally? Prospects for a Global

Environmental Movement.”, Pp. 290-310, in Christopher Rootes (ed.),

Environmental Movements. Local, National and Global. London: Frank Cass

Publishers.

45

------. 2003. (ed.). Environmental Protest in Western Europe. Oxford - New York: Oxford

University Press.

------., and Jochen Roose. 1999. “The German Environmental Movement at a

Crossroads?”, Pp. 59-80, in Christopher Rootes (ed.), Environmental Movements.

Local, National and Global. London: Frank Cass Publishers.

Scott, David, and Fern K. Willits. 1994. “Environmental Attitudes and Behavior. A

Pennsylvania Survey.” Environment and Behavior, 26: 239-260.

Sijtsma, Klaas, and Ivo W. Molenaar. 2002. Introduction to Nonparametric Item Response

Theory. Thousand Oaks – London – New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Van Der Heijden, H.A. 1999. “Environmental Movements, Ecological Modernisation and

Political Opportunity Structures.”, Pp. 199-221, in Christopher Rootes (ed.).

Environmental Movements. Local, National and Global. London: Frank Cass

Publishers.

van Liere, Kent D., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental

Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” The

Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(2): 181-197.

------. 1981. “Environmental Concern: Does it Make a Difference How It’s Measured?”

Environment and Behavior, 13(6): 651-676.

van Schuur, Wijbrandt H. 2003. “Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and

Parametric Item Response Theory.” Political Analysis, 11: 139-163.

Vliegenthart, Rens, Oegema D., and Klandermans B. 2005. Media Coverage and

Organizational Support in the Dutch Environmental Movement. Mobilization, 10:

365-382.

Wollebœk, Dak, and Per Selle. 2002. “Passive Support. No Support at All?” Nonprofit

Management & Leadership, 13(2): 187-203.

46

Appendix

Guttman Errors: number by country (ISSP 2000)

Number of Guttman Errors

Country 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Denmark 633 149 79 46 25 13 10 0 5 1 0 0 0

Finland 669 337 98 97 82 23 18 9 3 2 0 0 0

Germany 834 234 75 97 29 15 20 5 10 1 3 0 4

Great Britain 1023 211 87 96 52 13 24 7 2 0 1 0 0

Ireland 765 156 77 46 29 17 24 4 5 1 2 0 0

Netherland 666 254 124 68 31 15 17 2 4 3 0 0 0

Portugal 749 62 40 15 8 7 4 1 3 0 2 0 0

Spain 654 105 36 37 9 10 9 5 4 2 3 0 0

Sweden 507 216 69 77 45 22 14 6 3 1 0 0 0

All countries 6500 1724 685 579 310 135 140 39 39 11 11 0 4

% 63.9 16.9 6.7 5.8 3.0 1.3 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

47

Guttman Errors: % by country (ISSP 2000)

% of Guttman Errors

Country 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Denmark 65.9 15.5 8.2 4.8 2.6 1.4 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Finland 49.9 25.2 7.3 7.3 6.1 1.7 1.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Germany 62.8 17.6 5.7 7.3 2.2 1.1 1.5 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3

Great Britain 67.5 13.9 5.7 6.3 3.4 0.9 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Ireland 67.9 13.9 6.8 4.1 2.6 1.5 2.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0

Netherland 56.2 21.5 10.5 5.7 2.6 1.3 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Portugal 84.0 7.0 4.5 1.7 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0

Spain 74.9 12.1 4.1 4.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0

Sweden 52.8 22.5 7.2 8.0 4.7 2.3 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

All countries 63.9 16.9 6.7 5.8 3.0 1.3 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

(n) 6500 1724 685 579 310 135 140 39 39 11 11 0 4