![]()
Part I
Reconsidering environmental threats and risks
![]()
Chapter 1
The perception of environmental threats in a global and European perspective
Markus Hadler and Klaus Kraemer
Introduction
The German sociologist Ulrich Beck (1986: 48) posited that some environmental threats are distributed rather equally within societies and independent of classic social inequalities such as income and class. What Beck had in mind were new environmental threats such as nuclear power and air pollution that cannot be stopped by borders, social inequalities or privileges. His view was corroborated by the nuclear incident in Chernobyl, which happened shortly after his book was published. Henceforward, the discussion of the democratization of environmental risks dominated over approaches focusing on environmental justice, pointing out that there is a clear connection between the social position and exposure to certain environmental hazards and threats (Kraemer 2008).
The presence of different environmental hazards and threats can differ geographically, both within societies and between societies, with some being related to the natural distribution of environmental qualities and others to social factors, such as economic development, type of industries and political measures (see Kraemer 2014; Lutzenhiser & Hackett 1993). At the country level, for example, we can see that the impact on the environment is usually greater in more developed countries (York, Eugene & Dietz 2003). However, we also need to take into account that not all threats increase in the same way with economic development, and that societies can implement different measures to offset environmental impacts (Kraemer 2011). Thus, even within countries, we can observe the presence of different threats, depending on the area of residency such as suburbs, industrial zones, etc., and more generally between urban and rural areas (Grant et al. 2010; Lichter & Brown 2011).
In addition, we also need to ask which threats are actually perceived. Many environmental hazards only influence an individualâs life very indirectly, through complex social and ecological distribution mechanisms that are far removed from everyday experiences (Kraemer 2008). And even when a particular threat is assessed, research focusing on the perception of risks has shown that the perception of the same risk varies between social groups and experts (Keller et al. 2012; Slimak & Dietz 2006; Slovic 1987). In addition, international comparative research, focusing on environmental attitudes and behaviours, also points to substantial variations across countries (Franzen & Meyer 2004; Hadler & Haller 2011; Haller & Hadler 2008).
Our contribution considers both: the influence of the different environmental hazards, and individual characteristics on the perception of environmental threats. We focus on a broad range of risks ranging from water shortage to climate change. Environmental risks in this regard refer to environmental problems that are perceived as a threat for the respondentsâ life, or as a threat for their family. Environmentally damaging behaviours of our respondents that are often referred to as âenvironmental risksâ are not addressed.
This introduction is followed by a brief discussion of natural and social aspects of the distribution of environmental good and bad. Consequently, we discuss the individual-level determinants of the perception of environmental threats. The data and methods section introduces the 2010 ISSP data, our dependent and independent variables, as well as the analysis strategy. The results section starts with an overview of threat perception at the country level. This is followed by an analysis of country-level and individual determinants of environmental-threat perception. The discussion and conclusion section summarizes our main findings, and concludes that the threat perception depends on both contextual and individual characteristics.
Distribution of environmental good and bad
Considering the distribution of environmental good and bad, we can distinguish four dimensions (see Kraemer 2008: 175ff). The first refers to a natural distribution of environmental characteristics related to differences in climate, geography and natural resources that are relatively independent from human intervention. The second dimension refers to human-induced problems that affect the environment. Some of these human-induced problems are distributed rather evenly across all social groups â which is at the centre of Beckâs (1986) democratization of environmental risks idea â and thus less important when addressing their relationship to social inequalities.
The third dimension refers to the fact that the social distribution of environmental good and bad is not distributed randomly; an observation that is addressed within the environmental justice literature (Bolte & Mielck 2004; Elvers, Gross & Heinrichs 2008). A typical example is pollutants emitted from factories that more often affect local residents than individuals who live far away. Furthermore, such public âbadâ more often affects social groups in lower social positions and with other social disadvantages (see, for example, Freeman 1974; Grant et al. 2010). At the international level, we need to consider that the level of development and the type of economy affects households differently. Whereas the overall impact on the environment increases with an increasing economic development (York et al. 2003), the negative impact of certain pollutants can actually decrease, as discussed within the ecological modernization literature. The use of fossil fuels in everyday activities such as cooking, for example, has a major impact on low household air quality, whereas this form of pollution is of little importance in more developed societies (Yale University 2014).
The fourth dimension refers to political interventions and the different ways environmental hazards are addressed. Proponents of ecological modernization have suggested that increasing development can be used to address environmental threats and implement more environmentally sustainable means of production (Harper 2012: 176ff). The empirical evidence, however, is inconclusive, as technical solutions such as filters for factories can lower the impact of a particular emission, whereas other hazards such as climate change cannot be addressed as efficiently (Kraemer 2011). In addition, the implementation of different measures is also highly dependent on political actors and other stakeholders. The debates around ecological modernization have thus come to the conclusion that not all aspects can be addressed, but that, in any case, a minimum level of resources and affluence is necessary to address the most pressing environmental threats. For international comparison, we thus can expect that the population of countries, which are part of a political community such as the European Union, with common environmental regulations (Hix & Høyland 2011), will be exposed to similar standards and thus should perceive similar threats.
Individual differences in the perception of environmental threats
Insights into the determinants of individualsâ threat perceptions can be drawn from research on risk perception. This type of research was set in motion in the 1960s by the observation that experts and laymen had contrary views about the risks of nuclear power (Keller et al. 2012). It was assessed as quite safe by experts, but considered dangerous by the general public. Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichtenstein (1981) and Slovic (1987) thus applied a psychometric approach, and studied the underlying dimensions of how different risks are seen. They were able to identify three main dimensions: 1) âDreadâ, which refers to considering a risk to be potentially catastrophic; 2) âUnknownâ, which refers to the observability and familiarity of a risk; and 3) âExposureâ, which refers to how many people can be potentially affected. Nuclear power ranks highly on these dimensions, whereas everyday activities such as using power tools, for example, rank rather low. These studies show that the perception of very different risks can be described by similar underlying dimensions, which may also apply to the perceptions of environmental threats.
These initial approaches focused on the question of how different risks are perceived. However, they did not consider why the perception of the same risk can differ between social groups and individuals. Dake (1992) thus extended these initial psychometric approaches and included the influence of world views, in addition to the influence of different cognitive heuristics. More recent approaches (Keller et al. 2012) also consider place attachment and identities, agency and trust in institutions. For example, individuals are less likely to perceive a threat if they have a strong attachment to the area where they live, if they think that they are able to handle a threat, and when they trust the agencies that are responsible for dealing with the environmental hazard (see Bickerstaff 2004).
In contrast to their focus on psychological determinants of risk perceptions, approaches such as that of the sociologist Ulrick Beck (1986) and the anthropologist Mary Douglas (Douglas 1992) focus rather on the impact of environmental threats on an entire society (see also Wilkinson 2001). As mentioned before, Beck considers environmental threats, which are caused by modern forms of production and can thus impact all social groups in the same way, as independent from classic social inequalities such as socio-economic class. Beck, however, also recognizes that some groups will be better able to avoid some threats. In this regard, he considers knowledge an important factor. Individuals who are aware of certain threats and also know how to deal with these problems will more likely show avoidance strategies.
Mary Douglas (Douglas 1992; Douglas & Wildavsky 1982) likens modern ecological end-of-the-world scenarios with the doomsday prophecies of various religious writings, only that the ecological version is more appealing to modern, rational-thinking individuals. When it comes to differences in the perception of environmental threats, Douglas refers to her grid and group theory, considering group embedding and social control that result in four different ways of life: individualistic, hierarchical, egalitarian and fatalistic. All four forms differ in the perception of threat, with individuals who live in small, tight-knit groups tending more to fundamentalist attitudes towards environmental threats than actors who live in rather loosely integrated groups (Schwarz & Thompson 1990; Thompson et al. 1990).
In line with these approaches, international comparative research focusing on environmental attitudes, concerns and threat perception, considers socio-demographics, values and contextual characteristics in explaining differences in individual perceptions (see Fairbrother 2013; Hadler & Haller 2011; Haller & Hadler 2008). A frequently used approach is Sternâs Value-Belief-Norm schema (Stern 2000) that has been applied specifically to the perception of environmental risks by Slimak & Dietz (2006). Their results showed that different values and attitudes are particularly important in determining the risk perceptions of the general public, whereas the views and opinions of experts were not influenced as strongly by these traits.
These different approaches lead to the following general hypotheses regarding the perception of environmental threats:1 First, we can expect that these perceptions are influenced by differences in the natural and social distribution of different environmental good and bad, by the level of affluence and the way environmental threats have been addressed by policymakers. At the same time, we can also expect that differences are present between individuals. A first difference should emerge regarding the different dimensions of risks â dread, unknown, and exposure â and a second difference regarding the individual determinants of the threat perception. Here, our expectation is that the perception of different threats is influenced by environmental efficacy, as well as different socio-demographic characteristics.
Data and methods
The empirical analysis is based on public opinion data collected by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP Research Group 2012). This ISSP Environment module includes 60 questions on environmental attitudes and behaviours, plus a comprehensive set of background variables. The data was collected in a total of 36 countries and is representative of the adult population of each country. A first cumulative dataset including 32 countries was published by the German data archive GESIS in 2012. We also added data from Australia, Iceland, the Netherlands and Portugal â countries where the data was collected or submitted after the official census date of ISSP. These additional four datasets were published in 2014 and are availabl...
