Cultural theory meets the community: Worldviews and local issues

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35 www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp

Cultural theory meets the community: Worldviews and local issues Maria Luisa Lima, Paula Castro Centro de Investigac- a˜o e Intervenc- a˜o Social, Instituto Superior de Cieˆncias do Trabalho e da Empresa, Av. das Forc- as Armadas, 1649 026 Lisboa, Portugal Available online 17 March 2005

Abstract This paper constitutes an attempt to clarify the relationship between ‘‘environmental hyperopia’’ (the discrepancy between environmental concern towards global and local targets) and cultural worldviews regarding nature. A 14-item scale was developed to assess the four views of nature identified by cultural theory. The results, obtained in a sample of 300 residents of an industrialized area, support the relationships predicted by the theory. Altogether, the results on environmental concern showed the ‘‘environmental hyperopia’’ effect: concern for local environmental issues was more attenuated than for global ones, risk perception of local sources of pollution was perceived as lower than distant threats, and global sources of information about the environment were considered more trustworthy than local ones. However, all these effects were influenced by the views people hold on nature. In particular, egalitarians were the ones who exacerbated these effects, and individualistic participants were the ones who were more immune to them. This last result indicates that individualistic residents may have the potential to be involved in local environmental issues. Egalitarian individuals also proved to be particularly responsive to the dimensions of social integration and belongingness to place attachment, and this can be the reason for their low sensitivity to local problems. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the last decade, the definition of sustainable development brought particular saliency to global environmental issues in the public arena. Besides calling our attention to the global problems of the planet and to the interdependency of the economic and environmental goals, Agenda 21 defined participative action at a local level as a desirable path to our common future. However, research has shown that although levels of self-reported environmental concern are, on the whole, very high (e.g. Dunlap, Gallup, & Gallup, 1993), there is a general tendency for the general public to present higher levels of concern for global issues as compared to local ones, an effect also known as ‘‘environmental hyperopia’’ (Uzzell, 2000). Nevertheless, not even this trend is totally stable, since it is also sometimes reversed (see Gooch, 1995). On the whole, this means that the interplay between local and global environmental Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M.L. Lima). 0272-4944/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.004

concerns is not yet fully understood, and that there is a need for more detailed research on the local/global dichotomy (Uzzell, 2000). This paper focuses on these two levels. Following what in the last few years has been a rather central convergent concern of several traditions of study of environmental thought—the examination of how broader belief systems organize views of nature and the environment—the present paper attempts to show how this dichotomy maintains complex relations with these systems. In addition, it also seeks to further develop our understanding of the links between these systems and the sense of community and local identity.

1.1. The cultural approach to environmental thought During the last 20 years, cultural theory has been gaining influence in the study of environmental thought, from a point of view that considers how broader belief systems organize views of nature and the environment. Developed by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky (1982; Douglas, 1985), cultural theory’s main tenet is

ARTICLE IN PRESS 24

M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35

that our society, like any other, uses cultural lenses—or cultural filters, or worldviews—to look at all types of phenomena, nature and the environment included, positing that there can be no culturally unmediated perception. These worldviews are a result of peoples’ socialization and participation in the four main forms of current social organization. These forms, in turn, can be characterized through two dimensions—the Group and the Grid dimensions. The first dimension, or axis,—Group—has to do with the ‘‘outside boundary that people have erected between themselves and the outside world’’ (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982, p. 138). That is, this dimension refers to the fact that there are forms of social organisation that allow for permeability between the inside and the outside, whereas there are others that accentuate the difference between the We and the Them, or the inside and the outside, rather strongly. The second dimension—Grid—applies to the constraints that individuals find within the organizations they belong to. These constraints can be rather strict, severely limiting the range of approved behaviours, or alternatively, they can offer individuals considerable space for manoeuvre. By crossing the two dimensions, cultural theory identifies four rationalities, or ways of looking at the world, each corresponding to a quadrant: egalitarianism (High Group-Low Grid); individualism (Low GroupLow Grid); hierarchy or bureaucracy (High GroupHigh Grid), and fatalism (Low Group-High Grid). Each of these rationalities, sometimes also called cultural biases, is ‘‘a point of view, with its own framing assumptions and readily available solutions for standardized problems’’ (Douglas, 1997, p. 128, cit. in Ellis & Thompson, 1997). What the theory calls the Center— sometimes also the Establishment—aggregates hierarchicals and individualists, and the Border includes egalitarians and fatalists. It is the Border, not the Center, that fears for nature (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982). In the 1982 book, a lively description of the activities of the initial American environmental groups, such as the Audubon Society or the Sierra Club, is presented to illustrate the egalitarian worldview—alarmed, dichotomized, sectarian, expecting imminent ecological disaster in a nature whose balance has been disrupted. This is a worldview which is suspicious of technological solutions for environmental problems, and which relies on egalitarian arrangements for decision-making. For these reasons, the guiding management rule for this rationality is the precautionary principle. By contrast, the Center is not really alarmed, considering other risks besides the environmental ones to be more pressing. Individualists are particularly concerned with the lack of freedom to continue business as usual, and believe that carrying on through the same paths pursued thus far is the answer. Most researchers in

the area call this rationality ‘‘market individualism’’, for its reliance on market to solve problems. Within the same logic, the preferred risk management style is pragmatic, noninterventionist, almost laissez-faire. Although fearing social disruption most of all, hierarchical individuals trust rules and regulations, and believe institutional order and experts will be able to take care of all types of problems. In this case, then, there is a clear difference between hierarchical and individualistic risk management styles, the former valuing an interventionist and regulatory approach, based on institutional advises of experts. The 90s inaugurated a tendency for testing and operationalizing these ideas. This has been done through the development of scales and, sometimes, also single questions. These instruments are applied at the level of the individual, with the assumption that the four rationalities are lenses that organize the encounter of individuals with the world, producing different worldviews, or cultures. Dake, 1992; Wildavsky and Dake, 1990/1998, based on the ideas proposed by others (Schwarz & Thompson) developed and instrument to link each rationality with a particular view of nature, or, in his terminology, a particular Myth of nature. According to Dake (1992), Hierarchical persons would see nature as robust, but only up to a certain point, and where to draw the line is a task for experts. Egalitarians, in turn, would see nature as fragile and would, thus, undertake to fight for environmental protection. For individualists, nature is benign, amply capable of recovering from humanity’s impact. It is also a source of abundance for all. Finally, fatalists—those who see life as a lottery—would see nature as being capricious, basically unpredictable and uncontrollable. Marris, Langford, and O’Riordan (1996, 1998) lent some support to Dake’s proposals, showing for instance that the myth of nature benign has positive correlations with a scale assessing individualism and negative correlations with a scale measuring egalitarianism. Further, they showed that the myth of nature fragile correlates positively with egalitarianism, and in general they showed the predicted relations between worldviews and preferences for the management of environmental problems. The correlations were not very strong, however. The work of Ellis and Thompson (1997) also seemed to point in the same direction, by finding positive relations between egalitarianism and environmentalism and, at the same time, a strong negative relation between individualism and environmentalism. Furthermore, the authors also showed that there were significant differences between a sample of the general public and a sample of environmental activists in regards to trust in science and technology, this being lower among activists. In the same vein, the results of Wildavsky and Dake (1990/1998) showed a strong correlation between egalitarianism and the perception

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35

of risk linked to technology (cfr. p. 108). Later in the decade, Steg and Sievers (2000) advanced a proposal for relating the myths of nature with four different preferences for the resolution and management of environmental problems, drawing on four questions, each operacionalizing a preference and a worldview. In sum, the decade has seen various proposals being developed as scales or questions for assessing both the four rationalities and the way these connect to different aspects of the world. The general direction of the relations originally proposed by cultural theory seems to be supported by most tests, but the cultural biases towards different domains are not always consistently related. Although critics tend to emphasize the imprecision of the theory (see Sjoberg, 1998), it is sometimes reminded by its proponents that it is capable of ‘‘predicting a lot from a little’’ (Ellis & Thompson, 1997, p. 893) and that the simultaneous two dimensions (grid and group) are not just merely a way of classifying differences between the four rationalities, but also a representation of communalities (Rayner, 1992; Adams, 1995). However, although the general direction of the pattern of results has some consistency, the correlations are not always very strong, nor totally clear. As a consequence, a test that would put together the various proposals of questions and scales advanced to date to be applied at the level of the individual would help clarify how they relate to each other and, at the same time, to environmental thought and environmentalism. Another very significant issue that emerges from the research in this area is the fragility of the knowledge about the role of hierarchical and fatalist views. In their conclusions, Ellis and Thompson (1997) stressed how their results support the idea that the environmental debate is a dispute between egalitarians and individualists (pp. 892–893), with the roles of both hierarchical and fatalist views still unclear. According to them, ‘‘it is hard to say positively what is the hierarchical conception of the environment’’ (p. 893). Castro and Lima (2001), addressing this question, suggested that hierarchical individuals may be those that try to keep both old, anthropocentric ideas, and new, ecological ones (as measured by the NEP scale,) simultaneously, with a conciliating type of approach to all issues, including the environment. This led the authors to claim that old and new ideas should always be simultaneously assessed in research on environmental thought, in order to assure that the dialectical relations between new and old ideas are taken into account, as social representations theory (Moscovici, 1984) suggests they should, and empirical findings corroborate (see Bechtel, Verdugo, & Pinheiro, 1999). Also in connection with the question of the possible clarification of the role of Hierarchical views, Poortinga, Steg, and Vlek (2002) attempted an explicit joint test of

25

cultural theory and the HEP-NEP model (Dunlap, 1993; Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). They hypothesized that individuals with a high score on the NEP scale would favour the myth of nature fragile, those with medium scores would endorse the myth of nature tolerant, and those with low scores would accept the myth of nature benign. Their results confirmed this last prediction, and the authors claimed that environmental concern and myths of nature are ‘‘strongly overlapping concepts’’ (p. 474) and need not necessarily be used as if they were different (p. 476). However, they did find differences in levels of concern by Myth of nature, which does not in itself imply overlapping concepts, but rather concepts that have some level of association and, in this case, in the direction predicted by the theory. Moreover, cultural theory is a bidimensional theory, whereas these authors studied environmental concern as an uni-dimensional concept—a general score obtained with the first version of the NEP scale (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978). In our view, there is no reason to eliminate the more complex rationale of Cultural Theory, transforming two dimensions and four quadrants into only one dimension. Instead, one could empirically examine the relationships among the various indicators thus far developed to assess both cultural theory rationalities and environmental concern. 1.2. The environment at a local and a global level Another set of studies shows that environmental concerns vary significantly according to the target being evaluated. That is, in general, concern for global issues is greater than for local ones. Dunlap et al. (1993), analysing the results of the international survey Health of the Planet, called our attention to this phenomenon. With few national exceptions, respondents rated their nations’ environment more negatively than the environment of their local community, and the world’s environment as worse than their nations’. In Portugal, results from a representative sample of the adult population (Schmidt, Valente, & Pinheiro, 2000) also showed greater levels of concern for global environmental problems than for local ones: 20.7% of the participants were very concerned about the state of the environment in their community, 32.5% in their country, 39.1% in Europe, and 58.2% in the world. Uzzell (2000, 2003) also found this pattern, by focusing not on a general evaluation of the environment, but by assessing concern with a series of specific environmental problems. In all Australia, Slovakia, Ireland and the UK, these problems were rated as more serious at the global level than at the local one. This widely reproduced effect of ‘‘environmental hyperopia’’ (Uzzell, 2000, p. 314) is often seen as an obstacle to environmental participation, since more concrete and

ARTICLE IN PRESS 26

M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35

immediate actions regarding local environmental issues are considered as less important, because these problems are seen as less problematic when compared to the serious global ones. Different theoretical approaches can be called on to understand this effect (Uzzell, 2003). The ‘‘familiarity hypothesis’’ comes from the risk literature, and suggests that what we know or experience directly (local issues) is not perceived as being as bad as what we do not know or experience. In fact, different studies have shown that known, familiar risks are perceived as less threatening than unknown or unfamiliar ones (Lichtenstein, Slovic, Fischhoff, Layman, & Combs, 1978; van der Pligt, Eiser, & Spears, 1986; Slovic, 1987). Furthermore, the continuous contact with an environmental threat promotes habituation and the minimization of risks (Baxter & Lee, 2003; Lima, 2004). In contrast, the ‘‘identity hypothesis’’ stresses the importance of social identity to understand this local/global distinction: what is ours is better. In fact, some studies have shown that local knowledge and memory shape the construction of environmental understandings (Brazier, Simmons, & Wynne, 1997; Irwin, Simmons, & Walker, 1999) and specifically that place identity plays an important role in that process: the stronger the feelings of local identity, the lower the perception of local environmental problems (Bonaiuto, Breakwell, & Cano, 1996; Baltazar & Lima, 2003). Under this perspective, environmental problems in places perceived as external to the self are more easily magnified than local ones, as a strategy to access a positive social identity. Although very heuristic, these perspectives do not end the discussion, as they forget the diversity of views among the public, stressed by the cultural approach. In fact, to focus on the effects of external factors (such as exposure and knowledge, for the ‘‘familiarity hypothesis’’) or on the importance of place attachment (as in the ‘‘identity hypothesis’’) is to suppose universal effects. Although ecological ideas are, in Western societies, highly socially desirable and national surveys systematically show a high level of concern with the environment (see Dunlap et al., 2000), this does not mean that environmental ideas are thoroughly consensual (Ellis & Thompson, 1997; Castro & Lima, 2001). One should take into account the fact that people actively engage in the task of transforming the ideas that circulate through society, and produce new combinations that respond to their general orientations, identities and interests, as stressed by social representations theory (Moscovici, 1988; Castro & Lima, 2001). And in this same logic, several authors, working from many different theoretical orientations, among which those from cultural theory, have stressed that, in order to understand the way people think about nature and the environment, and act towards it, contextual variables must be taken into consideration, and cultural variation must be

contemplated (Lyons, Uzzell, & Storey, 2001; Uzzell, 2003). One of the aims of this paper is, hence, to link the cultural approach to the ‘‘environmental hyperopia’’ effect. In order to draw predictions from cultural theory in this particular issue, we focused on the basic dichotomy between egalitarian and individualistic views, and two paths of reasoning were followed. One line of thought stresses that different rationalities value different kinds of risk (Marris et al., 1998). Since problems with a catastrophic potential, such as the environmental ones, are so salient for the egalitarian worldview, these individuals would differentiate less between local and global levels. In other words, they should be very concerned with all environmental issues, whether these are local, regional or global. On the other hand, as the egalitarian worldview clearly stresses the identity dimension (high Group), the ‘‘identity hypothesis’’ could clearly apply to them. This being the case, an alternative hypothesis could be stated. Namely, due to their high identification with their communities and places of residence, it would be difficult for egalitarians to view local problems as really serious, and they would produce a pattern of results very much similar to the one commonly found for the general population. Individualistic worldviews, in turn, give much less emphasis to environmental issues, global problems, or even collective (Group) dimensions. For these reasons, the predictions for this group would be that (1) they are much less concerned about environmental issues than the egalitarians in general, and (2) that they have more personal freedom to negatively evaluate local issues, as they are less induced to a positive view of the local community. In this study, we will explore these alternative hypothesis for environmental concern (both local and global), for risk perception (with both global and local sources of pollution), and for trust in local vs. national sources of environmental information. 1.3. Attachment to the local community One of the difficulties of elaborating predictions from cultural theory derives from the fact that the two dimensions (Grid and Group) address very different areas. In order to isolate and to clarify the importance of the Group dimension for the environment area, local identity and sense of community were also analysed in this study. Sense of community is understood as the personal feeling of belonging to a local social structure that promotes the interdependence and the emotional connection between the members of a neighbourhood (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). This variable has been shown to be crucial to increase local action, as sense of community is associated with higher residential

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35

satisfaction and seems to foster neighbourhood ties (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). Local identity, in turn, refers to the personal sense of belonging to a place, and simultaneously to a sense of common fate with the others who share the same local category. In addition, it considers the importance of place in self-descriptions, and, for this reason, the distinction from others who do not belong to the same place. Local (or place) identity is, thus, a construct that links the physical environment, the individual, and the social identity of a person (Lalli, 1992; Twigger-Ross & Uzzel, 1996). As previously mentioned, local identity is associated with more positive views of local environment (Bonaiuto et al., 1996). Since the two concepts refer to a sense of belonging, it would be expected from cultural theory that hierarchical and egaliatarian participants would express higher levels of attachment in both measures than the participants who share other worldviews, for which the Group dimension is less important. 1.4. Objectives and hypothesis To summarize, this study attempts to clarify the relationship between ‘‘environmental hyperopia’’ (the discrepancy between environmental concern towards global and local targets) and cultural worldviews, a line of research that has never been pursued. In particular, our main objectives are: (1) to produce psychometrically sound indicators of the four environmental worldviews, preserving the complexity of the cultural approach. In fact, different authors have operacionalized these ideas with single items, different in each case (e.g., Marris et al., 1998; Steg & Sievers, 2000), and there is no full consensus on the items to use. (2) to analyse the associations between the four types of environmental thought, and their relationships with the more general worldviews about social relations, in order to better clarify and enlarge the indicators of the four rationalities. (3) to compare the ‘‘environmental hyperopia’’ effect among participants with different worldviews about the environment. Specifically, the level of environmental concern, risk perception and trust will be analysed for local and global targets, and the responses of egalitarian and individualistic respondents will be particularly under analysis, since different hypothesis can be derived from the theory for these two worldviews. (4) to analyse the variations in attachment to the local community (sense of community and place identity) reported by participants with different worldviews about the environment. From cultural theory, it is to be expected that hierarchical and egaliatarian

27

individuals will show higher levels of attachment than the participants for which the Group dimension is less important.

2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure Data for this study was collected as part of a larger project designed to follow-up on the impact of the operation of a waste incinerator near Oporto, in the North of Portugal (LIPORII). The participants were selected from the towns and villages in a ray of 6 miles from the incinerator. Besides the incinerator, that area includes other important sources of pollution: the biggest airport in the North of the Country, many polluting industries such as an oil refinery, a waste disposal facility, a natural gas repository and several factories. As it is usually found (Adeola, 1994), the residents near the more industrialized area show lower socio-economic level. To minimize the effects of the low level of education of the population in that area, the answers to the survey were collected during a face-toface interview. The interviews were conducted by trained interviewers, and they took place in the resident’s home, at the end of the weekday or during the weekend. Besides the variables described below, the survey included information about the demographic characteristics of the respondent, attitudes towards the incinerator, perceived environmental quality, perceived risks and benefits, and psychological well-being. On the whole, 300 persons were interviewed. Of these, 41% lived less than 1.24 miles away from the incinerator (2 km, including different small villages); 30% at about 3 miles from the site (including different suburbs of Oporto); and the more distant group was from Oporto (6 miles away from the site; Oporto is the second largest Portuguese city). Forty-eight per cent of the sample was male, age ranged from 18 to 87 years old (M ¼ 49:7; S.D. ¼ 18.0), and the majority of respondents was married (66.7%). Their level of education was quite low, namely, 54% spent less than 5 years in school. 2.2. Instruments 2.2.1. Views of nature In order to develop an integrated measure for assessing the four views of nature and the environment predicted by cultural theory, a set of items were adapted from previous studies (Dake, 1992; Marris et al., 1998; Dunlap et al., 2000; Steg & Sievers, 2000; Castro & Lima, 2001; Castro, 2002, 2004) and pre-tested in a previous study. The items are listed in Table 1, and were all responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ I totally disagree; 5 ¼ I totally agree).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 28

M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35

Table 1 Items used to assess the views of nature Egalitarian—nature fragile If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe The environment is fragile, and human interference can cause unexpected disaster The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset Environmental problems can only be controlled if people are forced to radically change their behaviour Individualistic—nature benign Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it Human beings were meant to rule over the rest of nature The environment is quite adaptable and it will recover from any damage caused by us We do not need worry about environmental problems because science and technology will be able to solve them Hierarchical—nature robust It is possible to avoid ecological catastrophe if environmental problems are managed by experts and scientists Environmental problems are controlled, but the government should produce laws indicating clearly what we can and what we cannot do During the last years much was done to protect the environment To avoid environmental disasters it is necessary to pay more attention to the advises of specialists Fatalist–nature capricious No matter what we do, it is unpredictable what it will happen to the environment We do not know whether environmental problems will aggravate or not

2.2.2. Views of social relations General views regarding the social organization of society proposed by cultural theory were also assessed using four items adapted from Dake (1992): ‘‘The most important thing in life is to get rich and successful’’ (individualism); ‘‘In our society people should show more respect for the institutions and the laws’’(hierarchy); ‘‘If people were treated in a more equal way, we would have less problems’’ (equality); and ‘‘One lives better if one does not trust anyone’’ (fatalism). Participants were asked to place their answer on a 5point Likert scale (1 ¼ I totally disagree; 5 ¼ I totally agree). 2.2.3. Concern with environmental problems Based on Uzzell (2000), the levels of concern with environmental problems were assessed using four single items focusing on different targets: the place, the region, the country, and the world. Participants were invited to state the level of concern with the environmental problems for each of the four targets, on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ no preoccupation at all; 5 ¼ strong preoccupation). 2.2.4. Risk perception Risk perception was assessed following the formulation proposed by Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, and Johnson (2000): ‘‘What are the risks of—for the Portuguese society as a whole?’’ The targets evaluated included seven sources of pollution, of which four were local (‘‘a chemical plant’’, ‘‘an oil refinery’’, ‘‘a waste incinerator’’ and ‘‘a waste disposal facility’’), and three were global (‘‘a nuclear power station’’, ‘‘genetic

manipulation’’ and ‘‘depletion of the ozone layer’’).1 Participants were asked to express their views on a 5point Likert scale (1 ¼ not at all risky; 5 ¼ very much risky). The proposed theoretical structure fit the data, as these two factors emerged from a principal component factor analysis. Reliability scores were acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .85 for local risks and Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .85 for global ones). Hence, two scores were computed, averaging the items. 2.2.5. Trust Trust in different sources of environmental information was assessed in relation to a local facility, the waste incinerator. Participants were asked to rate their ‘‘level of trust to get the correct information on issues related with the incinerator’’, considering different entities: the Ministry of Environment, the media, scientists, environmental groups, municipal entities, business/companies, and the company that manages the waste in Oporto Area. These entities were chosen to integrate both local and national sources of information. The participants were asked to rate their level of trust on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ no trust at all; 5 ¼ a great deal of trust). The seven items were subject to a principal component factor analysis that yielded a two-factor structure. The first factor grouped global/national sources (Ministry of Environment, the media, scientists, environmental 1 These four local sources of pollution were considered because there is at least one example of each of these facilities in the area where the survey was conducted. Although the names of the local installations were not explicitly given, higher levels of familiarity with those sources of pollution that exist close to the respondent’s neighbourhood were assumed.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35

groups; Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .88) and the second factor included local sources (municipal entities, business/ companies, and the company that manages the waste in Oporto Area; Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .76). Mean scores were computed for trust in local sources and trust in global sources.2 2.2.6. Attachment to the community The Psychological Sense of Community was assessed using six items adapted from the ‘‘Sense of Community Index’’ (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). In order to allow for higher variability, answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ I totally disagree; 5 ¼ I totally agree). A principal component factor analysis on these items yielded a two-factor structure, with the first factor stressing a general emotional positive tone associated to the place (‘‘I feel good in this neighbourhood’’, ‘‘I think that this is a good place to live in’’, and ‘‘I hope to live in this neighbourhood for a long time’’, Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .81). The second factor focused on the sense of social integration in the community (‘‘In this neighbourhood people get along with each other’’, ‘‘Few of my neighbours recognize me’’ (-), and ‘‘I know most of the people in this neighbourhood’’, Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .62). Two mean scores were computed, one for each of the dimensions. High values on these items imply a strong sense of community.

3. Results 3.1. Worldviews concerning nature and the environment A principal component factor analysis was performed on the 14 items assessing views of nature, after testing the adequacy of the data for this type of statistical procedure (KMO measure ¼ .73; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: w2 ð91Þ ¼ 939; po:001). An orthogonal (varimax) rotation with Kaiser normalization was used and it converged in five iterations. The analysis displayed a four-factor structure (58% explained variance), coherent with the predictions of cultural theory (see Appendix A). On three of the 14 items, the factor loadings were strong in more than one factor, but the pattern of the associations was also coherent with the theory, in itself a bi-dimensional theory. In other words, the item ‘‘We do not need to worry about environmental problems because science and technology will be able to solve them—IND4’’ loaded on the egalitarian factor (.60) and on the individualist one (.36); the individualist item 2 The results of this factor analysis and the high values of internal consistency of these two indexes show that participants do not discriminate very clearly among the sources presented in each factor. For this reason, the different patterns of association between views of nature and sources of information found by Marris et al. (1998) were not explored in this study.

29

‘‘The environment is quite adaptable and it will recover from any damage caused by us—IND3’’ (.53) also loaded on the egalitarian factor (.51) and on the fatalist one (.39); and the hierarchical item ‘‘To avoid environmental disasters it is necessary to pay more attention to the advises of specialists—HIE4’’ (.43) also loaded on the egalitarian factor (.55). These associations are compatible with the theoretical model, where hierarchy and egalitarianism share a ‘‘group’’ dimension, and the egalitarian view is clearly opposed to the individualist one. It should be noted that there were no double loadings in the two factors that cultural theory assumes to be incompatible: egalitarian/individualistic or fatalist/hierarchical. Beyond the theoretical consistence of the structure, its reliability was analysed in terms of internal consistency (as measured by Cronbach’s alpha) and homogeneity (as measured by inter-item correlations).3 The final 14-item scale included four for individualism (e.g., ‘‘The environment is quite adaptable and it will recover from any damage caused by us’’, Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .68; mean inter-item correlation ¼ .35), four items to assess hierarchy (e.g., ‘‘Environmental problems are controlled, but the government should produce laws indicating clearly what we can and what we cannot do’’, Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .54; mean inter-item correlation ¼ .22), four items to measure egalitarianism (e.g., ‘‘Environmental problems can only be controlled if people are obliged to radically change their behaviour’’, Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .70; mean inter-item correlation ¼ .37), and two to assess fatalism (‘‘No matter what we do, it is unpredictable what it will happen to the environment’’, Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .60; r ¼ :43). The values of internal consistency are not high, but the values of the homogeneity of the scales are all adequate.4 A mean score was computed for each of the four views of nature. Table 2 shows the correlations among the factors. It can be observed that these correlations are in the direction predicted by cultural theory. By far, the strongest correlation is the one between the egalitarian and the individualistic views—a negative correlation of .39, between the two groups that occupy opposite positions in the Group dimension and are considered 3 This double procedure was used following the recommendations by Briggs and Cheek (1986) to overcome Cronbach’s alpha coefficient extreme sensitivity to the length of the scale. In fact, they suggest that ‘‘the mean inter-item correlation is not influenced by scale length and it is therefore a clearer measure of items homogeneity’’ (p. 115), and they consider the optimal value of this indicator between .2 and .4 (p. 115). 4 Although the hierarchy index had adequate inter-items correlation values, as alpha values were low (but were not improved if any of the four items were removed), a further test of the unidimensionality of the items was performed through principal component factor analysis. Although the overall level of explained variance was not high (42%), only one factor emerged, and that reinforces the idea of an acceptable homogeneity of the items.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35

30

in the literature to be the main protagonists of the ‘‘environmental dispute’’ (Ellis & Thompson, 1997). Egalitarians are, thus, characterized by endorsement of an alarmed view of the future of nature, coupled with a preference for behavioural solutions for environmental problems, and by a rejection of the exemptionalist ethos (Catton & Dunlap, 1978). In turn, the individualistic view is characterized by a preference for technical solutions and by confidence in the resilience of a nature humanity is meant to govern. The positive correlation between egalitarian and hierarchical indexes (r ¼ :19) that share a High Group position is also in line with the theory. In addition, the same is true regarding the positive correlation between individualistic and fatalistic indexes (r ¼ :16), since these are the two rationalities that share a Low-Group positioning. Correlation procedures were used in order to test the relationship between views of nature and views of social relations (Table 3). Results showed significant associations in all the predicted directions between the two types of beliefs (r values in the diagonal). The pattern of results found is, however, more consistent for the egalitarian and hierarchical rationalities than for the fatalist and individualist ones. In fact, for the former the strongest correlations are between the predicted items, whereas for the latter this is not the case, since the associations between measures of individualism and fatalism are stronger. This is perhaps due to the fact that the items assessing views of social relations for these two

Table 2 Correlation between views of nature (mean inter-item correlation in brackets) Views of nature

Egalitarian Individualism Hierarchy Fatalism

Egalitarian

Individualism

Hierarchy

(.37) .39 .19 .05

(.35) .03 .16

(.22) .02

Fatalism

(.43)

 po.005. po.001.

rationalities are strongly connected with the weak We-Them differentiation that, according to cultural theory, characterises both rationalities. Still in line with cultural theory, that predicts that the great oppositions should be found between egalitarian and individualistic beliefs, are the results that show that they are indeed negatively associated (r ¼ :15 and .20). In sum, then, the relations between views of social relations and views of nature can lend some support to the instrument constructed to measure the views about nature. Participants were consequently classified into four groups, based on their pattern of preferences regarding the four views of nature. For instance, individuals were considered as endorsing a hierarchical view of nature if their score on the ‘‘hierarchy factor’’ was greater than the other three scores. This procedure allowed for the classification of 211 persons (70.3% of the sample) as shown in Table 4. The individualistic worldview, favouring an anthropocentric, less socially desirable view of nature, was only clearly preferred by a small number of persons, as it is usually found in these type of studies (Steg & Sievers, 2000; Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2002; Castro, 2004). A comparison of the groups through a series of ANOVA’s showed that each group scored significantly higher in the corresponding view of nature than the others (F individualism ð3; 210Þ ¼ 57:94; po:001; F hierarchy ð3; 210Þ ¼ 20:07; po:001; F egaualitarian ð3; 210Þ ¼ 55:03; po:001; F fatalism ð3; 210Þ ¼ 52:64; po:001). The four groups were not significantly different in terms of demographic variables: instruction (w2 ð3Þ ¼ :78; p ¼ :86), sex (w2 ð3Þ ¼ :62; p ¼ :89), income level (w2 ð12Þ ¼ 12:93; p ¼ :37), or age (F ð3; 210Þ ¼ :13; p ¼ :94). This classification of the participants was used in the subsequent analyses. 3.2. Views about nature and the local/global dichotomy The first set of results compared the concern with environmental problems in each of the groups for the four targets: the place, the region, the country, and the world. Although the general pattern of the results followed Uzzell’s (2000) results, this pattern was the

Table 3 Association between views of social relations and views of nature (r values) Views of social relations

Views of nature Egalitarian Individualism Hierarchy Fatalism

‘‘If people were treated in a more equal way, we would have less problems’’ (egalitarian) .46 ‘‘The most important thing in life is to get rich and successful’’ (individualism) .15 ‘‘In our society people should show more respect for the institutions and the laws’’(hierarchy) .30 ‘‘One lives better if don’t trust anyone’’ (fatalism) .12  .054p4.01. po.001.

.20 .23 .27 .24

.28 .09 .30 .14

.14 .33 .13 .30

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35 Table 4 Description of the four different groups

4.5

Views of nature N Egalitarian Individualism Hierarchy Fatalism

Egalitarian Individualism Hierarchy Fatalism

74 27 52 58

31

M

S .D .

M

S.D.

M

S.D.

M

S .D .

4.59a 3.37c 3.57c 3.89b

.42 .59 .57 .59

2.20c 4.02a 2.86b 2.93b

.59 .39 .66 .70

3.49b 3.54b 4.21a 3.48b

.72 .54 .46 .48

2.74c 3.35b 2.95c 4.45a

1.07 .63 .77 .51

Means with different subscripts are significantly different according to Scheffe test (po:05).

same for the four groups. In fact, a 4 (groups)  4 (target) ANOVA, with repeated measures on the last factor, showed a significant effect for target (F ð3; 621Þ ¼ 41:87; po:001), standing for higher levels of concern with global problems than with local ones. No main effects were found for group alone (F(3,207) ¼ .12, p ¼ :95), but a significant interaction effect emerged (F(9,621) ¼ 5.25, po.001) showing that this pattern is not to be found in all groups. As Fig. 1 shows, individualists presented a pattern of results that is different from all the other groups. Their level of environmental concern was the same for all the targets considered; local concern was not different from concern with the region (tð26Þ ¼ 1:10; p ¼ :28), the country (tð26Þ ¼ :78; p ¼ :45), or the world (tð26Þ ¼ :25; p ¼ :80). Moreover, at the more global level, the differentiation between the groups was higher, with individualistic participants reporting significantly lower levels of global concern (M ¼ 3:33; S.D. ¼ 1.24) than hierarchical ones (M ¼ 4:06; S.D. ¼ .80), and specially egalitarians (M ¼ 4:27; S.D. ¼ .83). In fact, by simplifying the data to a 2(local/world)  2 (individualism/egalitarianism) analysis, a simple interaction effect was found (F(1,99) ¼ 18.11, po:001). In sum, the general pattern of results follows the usually found ‘‘environmental hyperopia’’ effect, except for the individualistic participants. These findings were somehow unexpected. Although, as hypothesized, egalitarians can also be vulnerable to a local blindness, our results showed that individualistic persons could be attentive to environmental issues, at least for local ones. Trust in different sources of information about environmental issues (Fig. 2/Table 5) was also different in the four groups considered. A 4 (groups)  2 (local vs. global trust) ANOVA, with repeated measures on the last factor, was performed on the data. Results showed that, in general, global sources were more trusted than local ones (F ð1; 207Þ ¼ 37:56; po:001). They also showed that those who share an hierarchical view of nature present higher levels of trust, in particular when compared with participants endorsing an egalitarian view (F ð3; 207Þ ¼ 2:99; p ¼ :03). However, an interaction effect was also found (F ð3207Þ ¼ 4:52; p ¼ :004),

Egalitarian Individualism

4

Hierarchy Fatalism

3.5 3 2.5

Local

Region

Country

World

Fig. 1. Perception of environmental problems: mean values for the four groups of participants. 4.5 4

Egalitarian Individualism

Hierarchy Fatalism

3.5 3 2.5 2 Trust: Local

Trust: Global

Risk: Local

Risk: Global

Fig. 2. World views, trust and risk perception at a local and global level. Table 5 Views of nature, trust and risk perception at a local and global level Views of nature

Trust

Risk perception

Local

Egalitarian Individualism Hierarchy Fatalism

Global

Local

Global

M

S .D .

M

S .D .

M

S.D.

M

S .D .

2.48b 2.93a 2.96a 2.51b

.83 .66 .78 .81

2.94 2.96 3.20 3.12

.83 .61 .77 .88

3.56 3.59 3.79 3.79

.87 .89 .78 .91

4.44a 3.89a 4.21ab 4.18ab

.76 .94 .84 .77

Means with different subscripts are significantly different according to Scheffe test (po:05)

standing for a different pattern of results in the individualist group. These participants, similarly to what happened with environmental concern, showed similar levels of trust in global and in local sources, and that contrasted particularly with the egalitarian group (F interaction ð1; 99Þ ¼ 7; 30; po:01). The same type of analysis was conducted for risk perception, and no systematic difference between the groups was found (F ð3; 207Þ ¼ 1:08; p ¼ :36). The results (Table 5, Fig. 2) showed a clear effect of habituation, with risk perception being more extreme for global issues than for local ones (F ð1; 207Þ ¼ 52:28; po:001), in particular for the egalitarian group (F interaction ð3; 207Þ ¼ 4:59; p ¼ :004). In line with the results for concern, these participants stressed the global threats and tended to minimize local ones.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35

32

Table 6 Strength of attachment to the community and views about nature Views of nature

N

Place identity Pride

Egalitarian Individualism Hierarchy Fatalism

74 27 52 58

Sense of Community Membership

General emotional

Social integration

M

S.D.

M

S.D.

M

S.D.

M

S.D.

4.19 4.26 4.35 4.17

1.14 .90 1.08 1.12

4.46a 3.93b 4.29ab 4.00b

.97 .96 1.04 1.14

3.88 3.65 3.99 3.72

.97 .78 .80 1.01

4.13a 3.49b 3.86ab 3.65b

.66 .83 .79 .82

Means with different subscripts are significantly different according to Scheffe test (po:05).

5 4.5 4 3.5 3 Egalitarian

Individualism

2.5 place identity: place identity: pride membership

Hierarchy

Fatalism

S.O.C.: general S.O.C: social integration emotional

Fig. 3. Attachment to the community: mean values of place identity and psychological sense of community for the four groups of participants.

However, this research study also aimed to explore the relationship between community variables and cultural views of nature. A 4 (groups)  2 (local identity items) ANOVA, with repeated measures on the last factor, was performed on the data. Results (Table 6/ Fig. 3) only showed a significant interaction effect (F interaction ð3; 207Þ ¼ 8:98; po:001). This was due to the different pattern of responses provided by egalitarians. In fact, there was no difference between the groups when we considered the two identity items together. However, egalitarian participants particularly stressed belongingness, while for all the others (in particular, individualists and fatalists) pride was more important. The same pattern of results was found for the sense of community. While there was no difference between the groups in the more general evaluative dimension, egalitarian participants accentuated the integration dimension, contrary to the other groups (F interaction ð3; 207Þ ¼ 2:62; po:05).

4. Discussion There is presently a consensus in the literature that agrees that environmental thought is complex, and that simple assessments of environmental concern are poor predictors both of more specific environmental beliefs and of pro-environmental actions. In particular, after

Rio’s Agenda 21, special importance has been attributed to the articulation between local action and global problems, a topic that is approached in this paper. Recent research on environmental concern has shown that environmental concern is not the same for local and global issues. Uzzell (2000) proposed the term ‘‘environmental hyperopia’’ to refer to the fact that local environmental issues tend to be less of a source of concern than global ones. Research on this topic has shown this to be a rather systematic effect. This is, in itself, an already intriguing effect, worth studying. However, a more detailed analysis of the possible diversity of positions that are hidden in the mean scores with which studies have worked is also worth undertaking, and still lacking. In a moment when research has shown the importance of treating local/global environmental assessments as ‘‘a means by which individuals in a social context construct the environment in order to understand and deal with what is a threatening state of affairs’’ (Uzzell, 2000, p. 315), there is a need to unravel the diversity of positions hidden in a global mean of concern. This paper addressed this issue drawing mainly on cultural theory, an approach widely used as a framework to understand different constellations of views about social relations, and also about the relationships between humanity and nature. Its aim was to understand how cultural views about nature guide the ways different individuals distinctly approach the local/global dichotomy and the levels of involvement in local and global issues. The first step of this paper implied drawing on the literature in order to construct valid indexes of the four views of nature predicted by cultural theory. We wanted these indexes to also include some widely consensual indicators developed in the context of the very extensively used NEP Scale, in order to link these two traditions of research, in line with other recent attempts. This task was not simple in psychometric terms, since the bi-dimensional cultural theory predicts particular relations between the four sets of beliefs. However, our 14-item scale proved to be an acceptable way of differentiating the four views of nature, with results

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35

broadly compatible with the theory. Contrary to recent proposals that claim to reduce environmental thought to a bipolar, continuous construct (Poortinga et al., 2002), our results clearly support an interrelated four-factor structure. However, more efforts should be made in this area, as the sample was quite specific and some items (namely, the hierarchy dimension) showed only tangentially acceptable levels of reliability. Altogether, our results on environmental concern supported the ‘‘environmental hyperopia’’ effect. In other words, concern for local environmental issues was more attenuated than for worldwide ones, risk perception of local sources of pollution was perceived as lower than global, distant threats and global sources of information about the environment were considered more trustable than local ones. These results were both a replication and an extension of Uzzell (2000)’s results. However, all of these effects proved to be influenced by general views of nature. In particular, egalitarians were the ones who exacerbated these effects, whereas individualistic persons were the ones who were more immune to them. These results are very interesting for different reasons. The first reason is that the beliefs of these two groups are considered as opposed by cultural theory, and our results strongly confirm that prediction using a set of indicators different from those of previous studies. The second reason is that, in environmental literature, individualistic positions are perceived as part of the problem. Our results show that, at least for local problems, they can also be interested in the solution. In fact, some authors (e.g., Freudenberg & Pastor, 1992) have identified the local opposition to controversial environmental projects known as ‘‘not in my backyard’’ with an individualistic standpoint. In these cases, individuals are quite attentive to defend their interests, and they are much less involved in the general problems of the world. They, in sum, seem to be the ones to whom the idea applies that individuals only become concerned with what they personally experience, and with direct and visible threats, as defended by some researchers (Catton & Dunlap, 1978). From our point of view, the results presented in this paper support the idea that this is, indeed, the case for some individuals—those that cultural theory characterises as endorsing the individualistic view of nature. They are not alarmed by prospects of an ecological catastrophe, because they trust science and technology can solve the problems of an extremely adaptable nature and they believe in striving to be rich and successful. However, precisely because they are not as alarmed by global threats as the other groups, it seems as if they can be focused in local issues, since their levels of concern for the latter are not lower than for the former. An indirect corroboration of this idea is the fact that Goksen, Adaman, and Zenginobuz (2002) showed how people with materialist values exhibit more concern

33

for the local environment. Since materialist values are more congruent with the individualist rationality, this can be taken as a concurring result with ours, and perhaps future research should test this more directly. And, overall, these results are totally in line with Cultural Theory’s reasoning that all four types of worldviews are to be expected for all socially relevant issues, and that it is in fact from the involvement of all of them that the dynamics of change may assure better decisions (Thompson, 2003). The third point worth underlining is that egalitarians are less sensitive to local problems, and are particularly attentive to global ones. As they proved to be particularly responsive to the social integration and belongingness dimensions of local attachment, the ‘‘identity hypothesis’’ probably applies particularly well to them. In fact, one of the ways to understand the different levels of concern elicited by local and global targets is to consider that the ingroup’s attributes are valued in order to achieve a positive social identity. Egalitarians, highly alarmed by the prospect of imminent catastrophe as a consequence of a fragile and abused nature, seem to need the shield of local integration, of community belongingness, to protect them from a menacing future. However, their precious community cannot be seen as (too much) contaminated with the same problems that alarm them so on a global scale—and, for them, local concern is much lower than global one. Therefore, to summarize the general pattern of findings concerning the interplay of the local/global dichotomy with the worldviews proposed by cultural theory, in the dispute between egalitarians and individualists, global concern would be higher, as a general mean, if there were no individualists; in turn, local concern could be even lower than it already is, if it were not for the individualists.

Acknowledgements The research presented in this paper was part of the ongoing study of the External Environmental Follow-up of LIPORII, coordinated by Instituto do Ambiente e Desenvolvimento (IDAD) and it was funded by Servic- o Intermunicipalizado de Gesta˜o de Resı´ duos do Grande Porto (LIPOR). The authors are very grateful to three anonymous reviewers that provided valuable suggestions to an earlier version of this paper.

Appendix Principal component factor analysis of the 14 items used to assess the views of nature: factor loadings of the items after a varimax rotation (Table 7).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 34

M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35

Table 7 F1 Egalitarian

F2 Individualistic

F3 Hierarchical

F4 Fatalist

EGA1—If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe EGA2—The environment is fragile, and human interference can cause unexpected disaster EGA3—The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset EGA4—Environmental problems can only be controlled if people are obliged to radically change their behaviour

.77

.01

.05

.08

.72

.02

.02

.08

.70 .59

.12 .08

.04 .19

.06 .25

IND1—Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it IND2—Human beings were meant to rule over the rest of nature IND3—The environment is quite adaptable and it will recover from any damage caused by us IND4—We do not need worry about environmental problems because science and technology will be able to solve them

.15

.81

.21

.00

.06 .51

.79 .53

.13 .00

.02 .39

.60

.36

.10

.17

.12

.10

.76

.07

.09

.25

.65

.24

.21 .55

.01 .02

.64 .43

.19 .13

.02

.03

.03

.81

.02

.01

.08

.80

HIE1—It is possible to avoid ecological catastrophe if environmental problems are managed by experts and scientists HIE2—Environmental problems are controlled, but the government should produce laws indicating clearly what we can and what we cannot do HIE3—During the last years much was done to protect the environment HIE4—To avoid environmental disasters it is necessary to pay more attention to the advises of specialists FAT1—No matter what we do, it is unpredictable what it will happen to the environment FAT2—We do not know whether environmental problems will aggravate or not

References Adams, J. (1995). Risk. London: UCL Press. Adeola, F. O. (1994). Environmental hazards, health and racial inequity in hazardous waste distribution. Environment and Behavior, 26, 99–126. Baltazar, A. P., & Lima, M. L. (2003). Identidade associada ao lugar: Conteu´dos identita´rios e percepc- a˜o de qualidade ambiental. [Place identity: Identity contents and perceived environmental quality]. Master thesis, ISCTE, Lisboa, Portugal. Baxter, J., & Lee, D. (2003). Understanding expressed low concern and latent concern near a hazardous waste treatment facility. Journal of Risk Research, 6(1), 1–26. Bechtel, R. B., Verdugo, V. C., & Pinheiro, J. Q. (1999). Environmental belief systems: United States, Brasil, and Mexico. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(1), 122–128. Bonaiuto, M., Breakwell, G., & Cano, I. (1996). Identity processes and environmental threat: The effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 157–175. Brazier, A., Simmons, P., & Wynne, B. E. (1997). Public perceptions of risks associated with major hazard sites. In C. Guedes Soares (Ed.), Proceedings of ESREL ‘97: international conference on safety and reliability: Advances in safety and reliability (pp. 37–44). Oxford: Pergamon. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106–148. Castro, P. (2002). Sameness and difference in beliefs about science and the environment. In R. Garcia´-Mira, J. M. Sabucedo, & J. Romay,

(Eds.), Culture and quality of life-problems and challenges for the new millennium (pp. 253–254). Proceedings of the 17th IAPS Meeting, La Coruna. Castro, P. (2004). Cultura cientı´ fica e percepc- o˜es do papel da cieˆncia em mate´rias ambientais—Portugal no contexto da Unia˜o Europeia [Scientific culture and perceptions of the role of science in environmental matters—Portugal in the context of European Union]. In L. Lima, M. V. Cabral, & J. Vala (Eds.), Ambiente e desenvolvimento. [Environment and development]. Lisboa: ICS. Castro, P., & Lima, L. (2001). Old and new ideas about the environment and science: An exploratory study. Environment and Behavior, 33, 400–423. Catton, C. J., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13, 41–49. Chavis, D., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 55–81. Dake, P. (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 21–37. Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press. Douglas, M. (1997). The depoliticization of risk. In R. J. Ellis, & M. Thompson (Eds.), Culture matters: Essays in honour of Aaron Wildvasky (pp. 121–132). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Dunlap, R. E. (1993). From environmental to ecological problems. In C. Calhoun, & G. Ritzer (Eds.), Social problems (pp. 707–738). New York: McGraw-Hill.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M.L. Lima, P. Castro / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 23–35 Dunlap, R. E., Gallup, G. H., Jr., & Gallup, A. M. (1993). Of global concern. Results of the health of the planet survey. Environment, 35(9) 7–15, 33–39. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The ‘new environmental paradigm’: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442. Ellis, R. J., & Thompson, F. (1997). Culture and environment in the Pacific Northwest. American Political Science Review, 91(4), 885–897. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17. Freudenberg, W. R., & Pastor, S. K. (1992). NIMBYs and LULUs: stalking the syndromes. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 36–61. Goksen, F., Adaman, F., & Zenginobuz, E. U. (2002). On environmental concern, willingness to pay and postmaterialist values. Environment and Behavior, 34, 616–633. Gooch, G. D. (1995). Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic States. Environment & Behavior, 27, 513–539. Irwin, A., Simmons, P., & Walker, G. P. (1999). Faulty environments and risk reasoning: The local understanding of industrial hazards. Environment and Planning A, 31, 1311–1326. Lalli, M. (1992). Urban related identity: Theory, measurement and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 285–303. Lichtenstein, P., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578. Lima, M. L. (2004). On the influence of risk perception on mental health: Living near an incinerator. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 71–84. Lyons, E., Uzzell, D., & Storey, L. (2001). Surrey waste attitudes and actions study. Final Report to Surrey CC & SITA Environmental Trust. Downloaded on 8 January 2004 from http://www.surrey.ac.uk/Psychology/WasteReport.pdf. Marris, C., Langford, I., & O’Riordan, T. (1996). Integrating sociological and psychological approaches to public perceptions of environmental risks: Detailed results from a questionnaire survey. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 96-07, Norwich. Marris, C., Langford, I., & O’Riordan, T. (1998). A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis, 18, 635–647. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.

35

Moscovici, S. (1984). The myth of the lonely paradigm: A rejoinder. Social Research, 51, 939–967. Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 211–250. Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Environmental risk concern and preferences for energy-saving measures. Environment and Behavior, 34, 455–478. Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky, & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 83–115). New York: Praeger. Schmidt, L., Valente, S., & Pinheiro, J. (2000). Paı´ s: Percepc- a˜o, retrato e desejo [The country: perception, portrait and desire]. In J. F. de Almeida (Ed.), Os Portugueses e o ambiente [Portuguese citizens and the environment] (pp. 33–101). Oeiras: Celta. Sjoberg, L. (1998). Explaining risk perception: An empirical evaluation of cultural theory. In R. E. Lofstedt, & L. Frewer (Eds.), Risk and modern society (pp. 115–131). London: Earthscan Publications. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285. Steg, L., & Sievers, I. (2000). Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environment and Behavior, 32, 250–269. Thompson, M. (2003, February). Technology and how to think about it. White Paper presented at the workshop ‘‘Democratic governance of technological change in an era of globalisation’’. FLAD, Lisbon. Twigger-Ross, C., & Uzzel, D. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205–220. Uzzell, D. (2000). The psycho-spatial dimension of global environmental problems. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 307–318. Uzzell, D. (2003). Our uncommon future. In R. G. Mira, J. M. S. Cameselle, & J. R. Martı´ nez (Eds.), Culture, environmental action and sustainability (pp. 21–39). Gottinger: Hogrefe & Huber. van der Pligt, J., Eiser, J. R., & Spears, R. (1986). Attitudes towards nuclear energy: Familiarity and salience. Environment and Behavior, 18, 75–93. Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990/1998). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? In R. E. Lofstedt, & L. Frewer (Eds.), Risk and modern society (pp. 101–114). London: Earthscan Publications (reprinted from Daedalus, 119, 41–60).

Further reading Schwarz, M., & Thompson, M. (1990). Divided we stand: redefining politics, technology and social choice. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.