The environmental movement is often viewed as a response to the growing and intensifying environmental problems. Since the 1960s, concerns about the use of pesticides, pollution, deforestation, and other forms of environmental degradation have led to a rise in environmental awareness and activism. Environmental organisations demanded stronger government policies to tackle these issues, with variable success. Although, since around 1970, many governments have introduced a raft of environmental policies, it is debatable how effective such measures have been in halting, let alone reversing, the process of environmental degradation. Thus, by implication, one can also question the effectiveness of the environmental movement. However, there is another way of looking at the significance of the environmental movement.
The environmental movement: a vanguard in value change?
Although the effectiveness of environmental activism over the past 50 or 60 years is questionable, one can view the significance of the environmental movement in a different light. Some analysts have regarded the environmental movement as a potential vanguard in societal change toward a new dominant value system, in which environmental values become integral to the core.[1] In the literature, this process of change has been referred to as a shift towards “post-materialism” or a New Environmental Paradigm. So, arguably, the environmental movement should not be viewed solely as a form of social action or mobilisation in response to the emergence of environmental problems, but rather as spearheading a process of value change driven by other factors.
The post-materialism thesis
Over several decades, extensive research has been conducted to determine whether such a change has occurred. Based on surveys held in many countries, Ronald Inglehart and his followers argue that the shift from material to post-material values is indeed underway.[2] Inglehart’s research has been framed by two main arguments or hypotheses: first, the scarcity hypothesis, which claims that, under conditions of prosperity, people are more likely to emphasise non-material values like belonging, esteem, and aesthetic and intellectual satisfaction; second, the socialisation hypothesis, which claims that the values that people adopt during their formative (pre-adult) years are likely to be enduring, leading to intergenerational value change when, gradually, younger generations with post-material values replace older generations with predominantly material values. This theory builds on the idea, advanced by Abraham Maslow, of the existence of a hierarchy in basic human needs,[3] which in turn was influenced by the principle of diminishing marginal utility in economic theory. As noted, the theory is also based on the assumption that the values people acquire during their youth will likely stay with them for the rest of their lives and change little.[4] In his later work, Inglehart argued that there is a broader cultural shift from survival and traditional values to secular-rational and self-expression values,[5] affecting attitudes towards, among others, authority, religion, abortion, homosexuality, child-rearing, and the role of women.
Environmentalism of the rich
As noted above, Inglehart saw the rise in economic prosperity as the primary driver of value change. This idea aligns with a widely held view that only well-off individuals can afford to assign importance, let alone give priority to, environmental values and concerns, which explains why support for environmental protection is thought to be higher in high-income countries than in so-called developing countries. This view was also expressed by some on the left who argued that members of the movement are predominantly middle class and concerned foremost about the protection and advancement of values and interests that align with their privileged status in society, like a preoccupation with “hygiene and cleanliness” and the protection of their neighbourhoods from undesirable developments (commonly referred to as the “Not-In-My-Back Yard” or NIMBY phenomenon).[6] The argument is also integral to the claim widely accepted in economic circles that, although levels of emissions or pollution initially increase with economic growth, at some point, public demand for environmental protection increases, leading governments to adopt measures that bring about declining rates of emissions and/or pollution after they have first increased, a claim or theory referred to as the Environmental Kuznets Curve.[7]
At face value, these arguments seem plausible. Environmentalists in the North generally have a higher socioeconomic status (be it more so in education than income), and a large proportion is employed in the public sector (including universities).[8] Other studies have found that most members of environmental organisations, along with members of various social movements and green parties, adhere to a post-material profile more so than the broader population.[9] However, they are also mostly young, more knowledgeable about environmental issues, and, given their university training and relative independence from the production sector, in a better position than many others to articulate their concerns, act upon their beliefs, and pursue change to address environmental issues.[10] Hence, there is merit in characterising the environmental movement as a vanguard, both in terms of the level of environmental awareness and the ability to act upon its concerns.
Environmentalism of the poor
However, whether or to what extent environmental activism is driven by self-interest is highly questionable. Given the broad and public interest nature of many environmental issues, explanations of environmentalism based on self-interest are logically weak, as individuals investing time and energy in environmental action stand to gain little if anything personally, as the logic of collective action implies.[11] Additionally, the costs associated with environmental activism can be substantial, given the often violent and repressive reactions of authorities and vested interests, as reflected in the growing number of activists who pay with their lives for their efforts to protect the environment.[12] Rather than dismissing environmentalists as a self-serving bunch, in line with dominant economic theory, which assumes that people only act based on self-interest, it makes more sense to view these individuals as genuinely driven by concern about issues that pose real threats to societies or the world.
Moreover, the argument that people only develop environmental concerns after reaching a comfortable income level has also been contested. Research on environmental activism in low-income countries has demonstrated that environmental advocacy is not limited to countries in the North but is also prevalent in the South.[13] Based on Gallup surveys, it has been argued that people in low-income countries are at least as concerned about the environment as people in high-income countries.[14] Other researchers have found that the statistical evidence underlying the environmental Kuznets curve is not robust and applies only to certain pollutants.[15] These findings contradict the claim that environmental values are only important to the rich or the middle class.
However, the specific concerns of people in low-income countries differ significantly from those in the North, reflecting both the types of environmental issues they face and their direct dependence on local resources for their livelihood. Environmental action in low-income countries is often triggered by developments that pose an immediate threat to survival rather than global or long-term concerns.[16] Given their low income and poor living conditions, it is unsurprising that people in low-income countries prioritise local rather than global environmental problems, and are less willing to pay for environmental protection.[17] Despite this, Dunlap found that people in rich and poor countries do not differ significantly in their assessment of the causes of environmental problems (notably pointing to business and industry practices), and that they agree that stronger laws and action are needed to tackle these issues, also at the international level.[18] Research on “key decision-makers” in seven countries of the Global South finds that environmentalism has become a “truly international” issue, and that in these countries, too, there is a growing awareness among elites and populations of the international and global dimensions of environmental problems, transcending local issues.[19]
Towards post-materialism?
Although the claim that concern about the environment is confined to the rich or middle-class is contestable, research based on Inglehart’s theory confirms that in advanced industrial societies, a significant shift has occurred towards post-material values over three to four decades. In the early 1970s, six Western European countries had four times as many materialists as post-materialists, but by 2006, post-materialists slightly outnumbered materialists. In the United States, three times as many materialists in the early 1970s, but by 2006, there were twice as many post-materialists as materialists.[20] Research indicates that value change is not confined to the Western world; it is also occurring in many so-called less developed countries, albeit at different rates, while cultural differences remain significant.[21]
Still, what these changes mean for people’s environmental thinking is unclear. Although a shift towards post-materialist values suggests that people attach greater importance to the environment, the broader cultural shift that has been observed also implies that people now assign priority to their self-development and personal happiness (self-expression values) and that they “no longer feel committed to the public case”.[22] On their own, these surveys do not provide much insight into people’s views on the environment or the relative importance of environmental values in their worldviews and the potential changes therein.
A New Environmental Paradigm?
Riley Dunlop’s work on the notion of a New Environmental (or Ecological) Paradigm (NEP) addresses these questions more directly. The NEP scale that he developed (three versions over time), aims to gauge explicitly whether and to what extent people’s support for environmental values can be seen to constitute a new way of looking at the environment, including a recognition of its complexity and vulnerability and of environmental limits, and a rejection of an anthropocentric world view.[23] Based on the view that the dominant way of thinking, referred to as the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP), is unsustainable, a stance held by a range of environmental thinkers,[24] and that there is growing support in societies for that view, the NEP scale has been used in research to assess whether such a change is underway.[25]
Findings from this research are not clear-cut. In a preliminary study, Dunlap and Van Liere[26] found a “surprising” level of support among respondents in Washington State (USA), with majorities supporting eight out of the twelve NEP indicators. A meta-analysis of 69 studies using different versions of the NEP scale across 36 countries, with some two-thirds located in North America and Europe, yielded variable results depending on the scale and questions employed.[27] Although studies provide evidence that the level of support for the NEP has grown, this varies significantly between countries and groups.[28] Also, as different versions of the NEP framework have been developed and used, the responses to the various dimensions or facets of the NEP have been mixed and inconsistent. Results have been influenced by differences in (cultural) contexts, analysts have cautioned against seeing the NEP framework as a unidimensional scale for measuring a shift towards an environmental worldview.[29]
Hence, we are not in a position to draw firm conclusions about the extent to which a new environmental paradigm has replaced the Dominant Social Paradigm, even in so-called developed countries.[30] The mixed responses to the various facets of the NEP scale suggest that most people do not possess a coherent worldview that aligns with the NEP’s depiction. Although some view this as a weakness of the NEP framework, highlighting the need for a framework capable of capturing more cohesive and inclusive worldviews [31], it seems plausible that inconsistency in worldviews is a common or even inevitable aspect of life. Many, if not all, people hold values that are not (entirely) compatible and can conflict with each other, especially in particular contexts and circumstances. This is particularly likely when people are starting to assign (greater) importance to new values, as in the case of growing environmental awareness. The question is thus not so much whether (most) people in societies and governments have embraced a new, environmentally cohesive worldview, but what relative weight or importance they assign to the environmental values that they hold vis-à-vis other values, and under what circumstances. In that context, it makes sense to classify people’s environmental views in categories like “pro-ecological, mid-ecological and anti-ecological”.[32]
Although the NEP studies do not conclusively prove that people across the world have fully embraced the New Environmental (or Ecological) Paradigm, they do support three conclusions: first, that support for the NEP is generally higher among students (the well-educated) and white-collar workers, and lower among blue-collar workers;[33] second, in the United States, the NEP is far from replacing the Dominant Social Paradigm, even though support for the former has been growing,[34] a finding that seems contradictory to the value shift in that country observed by Inglehart, noted above; third, that concern about the environment is not confined to high–income countries but is also prevalent (if not stronger) in low-income countries, a finding which also contradicts Inglehart’s post-materialist theory.[35]
Environmentalism: A global dimension
The latter point is worth elaborating upon. From its beginnings, the modern environmental movement has recognised the importance of combining local action with an awareness of the global nature of the challenge, as expressed in the slogan “Think globally, act locally”. Environmental thinking worldwide has been inspired and influenced by a shared literature and informed by a global exchange of ideas, views, and experiences. Environmental activism at the global level, supported by a growing number of people in many countries [36], is arguably a cornerstone in the evolution towards a global civil society [37] and a source and sign of an emergent global environmental ethic. As the global nature of environmental problems and destruction becomes increasingly apparent, people around the world are expressing similar views about the need for humans to respect the environment, regardless of their other belief systems, whether religious or non-religious.[38] This phenomenon, which already provides the basis for widespread condemnation of countries and governments that openly flout their environmental responsibilities, offers some hope for more meaningful environmental integration in the coming decades.
Conclusion
While we should not be starry-eyed about the emergence of a global civil society, which, although neither a unified cosmopolitan actor nor exempt from the influence of dominant political-economic forces [39], forms an increasingly important source of global agency for environmental protection. The discussion above supports the view that environmental values have gained widespread public support and that many people have incorporated them into their personal worldviews. Nonetheless, there is little evidence that these values have gained priority status for most people, let alone for governments. This raises the question of what factors hinder the greening of dominant worldviews or ideologies.
References
[1] Milbrath, Lester (1984), Environmentalists. Vanguard for a New Society. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
[2] Inglehart, Ronald (1977), The Silent Revolution. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; Inglehart, Ronald (2002), “Special Issue – Green Parties in National Governments – Foreword”, Environmental Politics, Vol.11, No.1, VII-VIII; Inglehart, Ronald (2008), “Changing Values among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006 “, West European Politics, Vol.31, No.1-2, 130-146.
[3] Maslow, Abraham H. (1970, 2d ed.), Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
[4] Rokeach, Milton (1968), Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Inglehart, Ronald (1990), Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 68-70.
[5] Inglehart, Ronald (2008), “Changing Values among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006 “, 138-140.
[6] Enzensberger, Hans Magnus (1974), “A Critique of Political Ecology”, New Left Review, Vol.84, 3-31; Horowitz, Irving Louis (1972), “The Environmental Cleavage: Social Ecology Versus Political Economy”, Social Theory and Practice, Vol.2, No.1, 125-134; Beresford, Melanie (1977), “Doomsayers and Eco-Nuts: A Critique of the Ecology Movement”, Politics, Vol.12, No.1, 98-106.
[7] Bo, Sun (2011), “A Literature Survey on Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Energy Procedia, Vol . 5, 1322-1325.
[8] Morrison, Denton and Riley Dunlap (1986), “Environmentalism and Elitism: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis”, Environmental Management, Vol.10, No.5, 581-589; Beaudonnet, Laurie and Pavlos Vasilopoulos (2014), “Green Parties in Hard Times: The Case of EELV in the 2012 French Presidential Election”, Party Politics, Vol.20, No.2, 275-285; Rootes, Chris (1995), “Environmental Consciousness, Institutional Structures and Political Competition in the Formation and Development of Green Parties”, in Richardson, D. and C. Rootes (eds.), The Green Challenge: The Development of Green Parties in Europe. London and New York: Routledge, pp.232-252; Eckersley, Robyn (1989), “Green Politics and the New Class: Selfishness or Virtue?”, Political Studies, Vol . 37, 205-233.
[9] Muller-Rommel, Ferdinand (1985), “New Social Movements and Smaller Parties: A Comparative Perspective”, West European Politics, Vol 8, 41-54; Uekötter, Frank (2014, e-book ed.), The Greenest Nation? A New History of German Environmentalism. The MIT Press, 169.
[10] Eckersley, Robyn (1989), “Green Politics and the New Class: Selfishness or Virtue?”.
[11] Olson, Mancur (1965), The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
[12] The Guardian (2017), The Defenders, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2017/jul/13/the-defenders-tracker (Accessed: 3 October 2017).
[13] Esteva, Gustavo and Mdhu Suri Prakash (1988), Grassroots Post-Modernism. Remaking the Soil of Cultures. London: Zed Books; Haynes, Jeff (1999), “Power, Politics and Environmental Movements in the Third World”, Environmental Politics, Vol.8, No.1, 222-242; Taylor, Bron, Hadsell, Heidi, Lorentzen, Lois, Scarce, Rik (1993), “Grass-Roots Resistance: The Emergence of Popular Environmental Movements in Less Affluent Countries”, in S. Kamieniecki (ed.) Environmental Politics in the International Arena. Albany: State University of New York Press, 69-89.
[14] Dunlap, Riley E. (1997), “International Opinion at the Century’s End: Public Attitudes toward Environmental Issues”, in L. K. Caldwell and R. V. Bartlett (eds.), Environmental Policy. Transnational Issues and National Trends. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books, 201-224; Dunlap, Riley E. and Richard York (2012), “The Globalisation of Environmental Concern”, in P. F. Steinberg and S. D. VanDeveer (eds.), Comparative Environmental Politics. Theory, Practice and Prospects. Cambridge and Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 89-111.
[15] Stern, David I. (2004), “The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, World Development, Vol . 32, No.8, 1419-1439.
[16] Haynes, Jeff (1999), “Power, Politics and Environmental Movements in the Third World”, Environmental Politics, Vol . 8, No.1, pp.222-242; Esteva, Gustavo and Mdhu Suri Prakash (1988), Grassroots Post-Modernism. Remaking the Soil of Cultures. London: Zed Books; Taylor, Bron, Hadsell, Heidi, Lorentzen, Lois, Scarce, Rik, “Grass-Roots Resistance: The Emergence of Popular Environmental Movements in Less Affluent Countries”; Martinez-Alier, Joan (2002), The Environmentalism of the Poor. A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
[17] Dalton, Russell and Robert Rohrschneider (2015), “Environmental Concerns During a Time of Duress: An Introduction”, Environmental Politics, Vol . 24, No.4, 523-529.
[18] Dunlap, Riley E., “International Opinion at the Century’s End: Public Attitudes toward Environmental Issues”; Dunlap, Riley E. (2008), “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use”, The Journal of Environmental Education, Vol . 40, No.1, 3-18.
[19] Peritore, N. Patrick (1999), Third World Environmentalism. Case Studies from the Global South. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 30-36; Dunlap, Riley E. and Richard York, “The Globalisation of Environmental Concern”.
[20] Inglehart, Ronald (2008), “Changing Values among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006 “, 136-137.
[21] Halman, Loek, et al. (2008), Changing Values and Beliefs in 85 Countries: Trends from the Values Surveys from 1981 to 2004. Leiden; Boston: Brill. ; Li, Liman Man Wai and Michael Harris Bond (2010), “Value Change: Analyzing National Change in Citizen Secularism across Four Time Periods in the World Values Survey”, The Social Science Journal, Vol. 47, No.2, 294-306.
[22] Halman, Loek, et al., Changing Values and Beliefs in 85 Countries: Trends from the Values Surveys from 1981 to 2004, 5.
[23] Dunlap, Riley E. and Kent D. Van Liere (1978), “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’”, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol.9, No.4, 10-19; Dunlap, Riley E., et al. (2000), “New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol.56, No.3, 425-442.
[24] Pirages, Dennis and Paul R. Ehrlich (1973), Ark II: Social Response to Environmental Imperatives. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman; Catton, William R. (1980), Overshoot, the Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; Cotgrove, Stephen and Andrew Duff (1981), “Environmentalism, Values and Social Change”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol . 32, No.1, 92-110.
[25] Dunlap, Riley E. (2008), “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use”; Dunlap, Riley E. and Richard York, “The Globalisation of Environmental Concern”; Hawcroft, Lucy J. and Taciano L. Milfont (2010), “The Use (and Abuse) of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale over the Last 30 Years: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol.30, No.2, 143-158.
[26] Dunlap, Riley E. and Kent D. Van Liere (1978), “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’”.
[27] Hawcroft, Lucy J. and Taciano L. Milfont (2010), “The Use (and Abuse) of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale over the Last 30 Years: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol . 30, No.2, pp.143-158.
[28] Erdogan, Nazmiye (2009), “Testing the New Ecological Paradigm Scale: Turkish Case”, African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol.4, No.10, 1023-1031; Nistor, Laura (2012), “The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) in Romania. Some Empirical Findings”, Sociologie Romaneasca, Vol.10, No.4, 75-98.
[29] Erdogan, Nazmiye (2009), “Testing the New Ecological Paradigm Scale: Turkish Case”; Hawcroft, Lucy J. and Taciano L. Milfont (2010), “The Use (and Abuse) of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale over the Last 30 Years: A Meta-Analysis”; Hodis, D. Denis and N. Pereira Luis (2014), “Measuring the Level of Endorsement of the New Environmental Paradigm: A Transnational Study”, Dos Algarves: A Multidisciplinary e-Journal, No.23, 4-26; Pienaar, Elizabeth F., et al. (2013), “Are Environmental Attitudes Influenced by Survey Context? An Investigation of the Context Dependency of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale”, Social Science Research, Vol.42, No.6, 1542-1554.
[30] Hawcroft, Lucy J. and Taciano L. Milfont (2010), “The Use (and Abuse) of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale over the Last 30 Years: A Meta-Analysis”; Hodis, D. Denis and N. Pereira Luis (2014), “Measuring the Level of Endorsement of the New Environmental Paradigm: A Transnational Study”.
[31] Hedlund-de Witt, Annick (2012), “Exploring Worldviews and Their Relationships to Sustainable Lifestyles: Towards a New Conceptual and Methodological Approach”, Ecological Economics, Vol . 84, 74-83.
[32] Thomson, J. (2013), New Ecological Paradigm Survey 2008: Analysis of NEP Results, Hamilton: Waikato Regional Council.
[33] Dunlap, Riley E. and Kent D. Van Liere (1978), “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’”; Hawcroft, Lucy J. and Taciano L. Milfont (2010), “The Use (and Abuse) of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale over the Last 30 Years: A Meta-Analysis”.
[34] Dunlap, Riley E. (2008), “The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use”, 13-14.
[35] Dunlap, Riley E. and Richard York, “The Globalisation of Environmental Concern”.
[36] For instance, apart from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups that operate a global network, AVAAZ is an internet-petition-based organisation with more than 45 million supporters worldwide that wages major global campaigns on (sometimes local) environmental and social justice issues, often successfully. AVAAZ – The world in action (2017), https://secure.avaaz.org/page/en/ (Accessed: 3 October 2017).
[37] Lipschutz, R. (1996), “Governing Nature: Global Change, Social Complexity and Environmental Management”, in R. Lipschutz (ed.) Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance. The Politics of Nature from Place to Planet, 19-77.
[38] The papal encyclical letter Laudato Si’ is just one example of how an environmental ethic has infused a dominant belief system. See The Holy See (2015), Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ of the Holy Father Francis on Care for Our Common Home, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2017).
[39] Pasha, M. K. and D. L. Blaney (1998), “Elusive Paradise: The Promise and Peril of Global Civil Society”, Alternatives-Social Transformation and Humane Governance, Vol . 23, No.4, 417-450.