Enzo Loner, University of Trento, Italy enzo.loner@unitn.it Environmental Concern in Europe. Proposing Measurement Instruments and Comparing Results Using WVS and ISSP data Enzo Loner, University of Trento, Italy enzo.loner@unitn.it

Purpose of the study This study deals with the creation of an instrument for measuring environmental concern. The study uses data from the 2000 WVS and ISSP surveys to build a cumulative scale of mobilization for the defense of the environment

Method: Mokken Scale Analysis Non parametric probabilistic model derived from Guttman’s cumulative scale analysis Developed by Robert Mokken (1971) I also use Guttman Errors Analysis, i.e. the study of individuals who “deviate” from the “perfect” cumulative scale.

WVS 2000 DATA: 15 countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Great Britain 19719 valid cases

WVS: Scale analysis H- Item Mean score WORK. Voluntary work for: Conservation, the environment, ecology, animal rights .53 .03 MEMBER. Belongs to: Conservation, the environment, ecology, animal rights .48 .08 TAX. I would agree to an increase in taxes if the extra money is used to prevent environmental pollution .59 PAY. I would give part of my income if I were certain that the money would be used to prevent environmental pollution) .64 .58 H-Scale = .59

Validity of the WVS scale To check for validity, I repeat the analysis across demographic and social-cultural dimensions: gender, education, age, cohort, postmaterialism, altruism, social participation, activism, racism and cosmopolitism for a total of 385 scales analysed: In each of the 385 sub-groups the H-scale was > 0.30 the order of difficulty of the steps is always respected for the total of scales examined.

WVS: scale result Country n. Scale WORK MEMBER TAX PAY Austria 1438 .55 .02 .10 .38 .49 Belgium 1837 .57 .03 .11 .46 .60 Denmark 965 .52 .13 .65 .79 Finland 975 .05 .50 .54 France 1554 .64 .01 .37 Germany 1927 .26 .30 Greece 1091 .45 .09 .82 Ireland 945 .62 .40 Italy 1863 .61 .04 .44 Luxembourg 1119 .51 .56 Netherlands 996 .34 .74 Portugal 895 .00 Spain 2224 .68 .58 Sweden 1003 .47 .12 .77 Great Britain 887 .43 .08 All 19719 .59 .48

Netherlands The ISSP survey registered, in 2000, 16.2% of Dutch population as member of an ecologically oriented organization and, in 1993, the same percentage was 16.7. For EVS 1990, the level of membership was 28.3%, for Eurobarometer 43.1 bis (1995) 21.7% and, finally, for ESS 2003 20.1%. 996 valid cases Contrary to other surveys, WVS asks also for the membership in animal rights groups

Great Britain WVS in 1990 registered 5.0% for MEMBER and 1.5% for WORK: values perfectly in line with the general trend of the scale. The same was for the 1981’s wave (5.0% and 1.0%, respectively), while other surveys include only the membership that is: 5.9% for ESS 2003, 5.8% and 5.2% for ISSP 2000 and 1993 and, finally, 7.3% for Eurobarometer 43.1 bis 1995. 887 valid cases

ISSP 2000 DATA: 9 countries: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden 10188 valid cases

ISSP: Scale analysis Item Mean score H-item DEMONST. Has taken part in a demonstration on an environmental issue 4 .41 MEMBER. Belongs to an environmental protection organization 7 .47 GIVEMON. Has given money to an environmental protection organization 22 .43 PETITION. Has signed a petition on an environmental issue 23 .36 TAX. Is willing to pay higher taxes in order to protect the environment 49 .57 CUTS. Would accept a lower standard of living in order to protect the environment 60 .51 PAY. Is willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment 64 .60 H-Scale = .49

ISSP: validity of the scale Analysis across 52 subgroups (by nation, gender, age, education level, social class, civil status, occupation, self-placement on the left/right political axis, degree of postmaterialism) confirmed the cross-cultural validity of the scale. The H value for the entire scale was above the minimum threshold of 0.30 in each of the 52 subgroups

ISSP: itemsteps

WVS-ISSP comparison (membership in organizations only):   % MEMBER DIFF. ISSP WVS Incr. (%) Spain 1.8 2.1 0.3 12 Ireland 3.8 3.4 0.4 11 Finland 5.3 4.7 0.6 Portugal 2.9 0.8 36 Germany 4.4 2.2 20 Great Britain 1.6 2.8 28 Denmark 10.7 13.5 13 Sweden 6.3 11.9 5.6 19 Netherlands 18.8 45.2 26.4 24 (n.: WVS = 10817; ISSP = 10188)

Guttman Errors: Comparison of the two surveys: WVS   1 2 3 4 Denmark 91.3 6.3 2.1 0.0 0.3 Finland 87.1 11.7 0.6 0.2 0.4 Germany 93.0 0.1 Ireland 92.4 6.7 Netherlands 77.5 13.2 8.8 Portugal 91.5 8.2 Spain 93.2 Sweden 88.4 9.6 1.5 Great Britain 81.4 14.8 1.2 2.5 Total 89.4 8.6

ISSP Guttman errors (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6+ Denmark 65.9 15.5 8.2 4.8 2.6 1.4   1 2 3 4 5 6+ Denmark 65.9 15.5 8.2 4.8 2.6 1.4 1.7 Finland 50.0 25.2 7.3 7.2 6.1 2.4 Germany 62.8 17.6 5.7 2.2 1.1 3.2 Ireland 67.9 13.9 6.8 4.1 1.5 Netherlands 56.3 21.5 10.5 1.3 Portugal 84.1 7.0 4.5 0.9 0.8 Spain 74.8 12.0 4.2 1.0 Sweden 52.8 22.5 8.0 4.7 2.3 2.5 Great Britain 67.5 6.3 3.4 Total 63.9 16.9 6.7 3.0

Guttman errors Focus: subjects whose behaviour ‘deviates’ from the average of the other subjects The term ‘deviant’ is not to be taken in the pejorative sense. It refers to respondents who ordered the items of environmental concern in a different way from the majority

Guttman Errors (%) by country: WVS   1 2 3 4 Denmark 91.3 6.3 2.1 0.0 0.3 Finland 87.1 11.7 0.6 0.2 0.4 Germany 93.0 0.1 Ireland 92.4 6.7 Netherlands 77.5 13.2 8.8 Portugal 91.5 8.2 Spain 93.2 Sweden 88.4 9.6 1.5 Great Britain 81.4 14.8 1.2 2.5 Total 89.4 8.6 (n) 9668 930 162 32 25

Guttman Errors (%) by country: ISSP   1 2 3 4 5 6+ Denmark 65.9 15.5 8.2 4.8 2.6 1.4 1.7 Finland 50.0 25.2 7.3 7.2 6.1 2.4 Germany 62.8 17.6 5.7 2.2 1.1 3.2 Ireland 67.9 13.9 6.8 4.1 1.5 Netherlands 56.3 21.5 10.5 1.3 Portugal 84.1 7.0 4.5 0.9 0.8 Spain 74.8 12.0 4.2 1.0 Sweden 52.8 22.5 8.0 4.7 2.3 2.5 Great Britain 67.5 6.3 3.4 Total 63.9 16.9 6.7 3.0 (n) 6500 1724 685 579 310 135 244

Are some environmentalists different from the majority? Analysis: Only respondents member of an organization for the defense of the environment 666 cases of the ISSP and the 887 of the WVS Guttman Errors Analysis

“Members” and “non-members” of an environmental organization “Members” and “non-members” of an environmental organization. Mean of Guttman Errors N = ISSP: 10188, WVS: 9668

Members of environmentalist associations Members of environmentalist associations. Guttman Errors according to the main demographic and socio-structural variables   ISSP WVS Country *** * Sex n.s. Age Social class ** n.a. Employment Education Income Left-right self-placement Postmaterialism Significance level F test: * .10; ** .05; *** .001, n.s. = non significant, n.a. = not applicable

Methods of data collection ISSP: Sample: The sampling frame varied by country. Variations of the following sampling techniques were used: simple random sampling, systematic random sampling, (two- or multi-stage) clustered or area probability random sampling, and (two- or multi-stage) stratified random sampling.  Data Source: personal interviews, self-enumerated questionnaires, and mail-back questionnaires

WVS: In most countries, some form of stratified multistage random probability sampling was used to obtain representative national samples. Other sampling procedures used included cluster sampling, multistage sampling utilizing the Kish-grid method, purposive sampling, and quota sampling.  Data Source: face-to-face interviews  Response Rates: The response rates varied from a low of 25 percent in Spain to a high of 95 percent in Slovakia (country not included in this work).