Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Eric W Welch

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 4. State environmental policies. Figure 5, showing the combine score for these indi- cators, emphasizes the environmental strength of the We examined the stability of state-level public opinion by comparing GSS responses during the

Figure 4 State environmental policies. Figure 5, showing the combine score for these indi- cators, emphasizes the environmental strength of the We examined the stability of state-level public opinion by comparing GSS responses during the

Related Figures (7)

E Pearson correlations among indicators of environmentalism. P< 0.01, ** P < 00001
E Pearson correlations among indicators of environmentalism. P< 0.01, ** P < 00001
State values for each indicator of environmentalism Table 2
State values for each indicator of environmentalism Table 2
Fig. 1. Organization members.
Fig. 1. Organization members.
Fig. 2. Public: env. spending is ‘too little’. Public opinion that the government spends ‘too lit- tle’ on environmental protection is strongest in the State environmental policies are, like other dimen-
Fig. 2. Public: env. spending is ‘too little’. Public opinion that the government spends ‘too lit- tle’ on environmental protection is strongest in the State environmental policies are, like other dimen-
Fig. 3. Environmental support in congress.
Fig. 3. Environmental support in congress.
Fig. 5. Combined indicators. Thus, the spatial pattern of environmentalism is fairly persistent and begs for an explanation. While we lack a well developed theory to explain this state-to- state variation, support for environmental initiatives is often found to be highest among people who are well educated and politically liberal (Dunlap and Mertig, 1992; Elliott et al., 1997) and in regions that are afflu- ent and industrially modern (Ringquist, 1993). Also, we might expect environmental concern to be high in states with the most severe environmental problems (Lowry, 1992). Therefore we regressed our combined measure of environmentalism on demographic, en- vironmental and economic characteristics of each state selected to represent these conceptual variables. The most efficient result (adjusted r?=0.78, p = 0.0001) was obtained by combining as independent variables the state’s total electricity consumption as a measure of industrial affluence (6=0.52, p = 0.0001); percent of adults with a high school degree or college edu- cation (6 =0.42, p = 0.0001); and percent of vote for Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election as a measure of political liberalism (6 =—0.50, p = 0.0001). (Pollution level and economic activity explained little additional variance.) Residuals (i.e. the portion of environmentalism not explained by state-to-state vari- ations in electricity consumption, education and Reagan vote) are mapped in Fig. 6. As expected, this Broadly speaking, the nation’s areas of strongest environmentalism are the northeast quadrant and the West Coast. The Dakotas, the intermountain West and the Deep South have the least concern.
Fig. 5. Combined indicators. Thus, the spatial pattern of environmentalism is fairly persistent and begs for an explanation. While we lack a well developed theory to explain this state-to- state variation, support for environmental initiatives is often found to be highest among people who are well educated and politically liberal (Dunlap and Mertig, 1992; Elliott et al., 1997) and in regions that are afflu- ent and industrially modern (Ringquist, 1993). Also, we might expect environmental concern to be high in states with the most severe environmental problems (Lowry, 1992). Therefore we regressed our combined measure of environmentalism on demographic, en- vironmental and economic characteristics of each state selected to represent these conceptual variables. The most efficient result (adjusted r?=0.78, p = 0.0001) was obtained by combining as independent variables the state’s total electricity consumption as a measure of industrial affluence (6=0.52, p = 0.0001); percent of adults with a high school degree or college edu- cation (6 =0.42, p = 0.0001); and percent of vote for Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election as a measure of political liberalism (6 =—0.50, p = 0.0001). (Pollution level and economic activity explained little additional variance.) Residuals (i.e. the portion of environmentalism not explained by state-to-state vari- ations in electricity consumption, education and Reagan vote) are mapped in Fig. 6. As expected, this Broadly speaking, the nation’s areas of strongest environmentalism are the northeast quadrant and the West Coast. The Dakotas, the intermountain West and the Deep South have the least concern.
Fig. 6. Unexplained residuals of combined indicators.
Fig. 6. Unexplained residuals of combined indicators.
Related topics:
GeographyPublic OpinionEnvironmental PolicyEnvironmental science and policyClean Air Act
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved