1. The University of Manchester
ANALYSING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN OVER TIME: RESULTS FROM THE BRITISH NATIONAL CHILD DEVELOPMENT STUDY 1958
Gabriella Melis
Mark Elliot
Nick Shryane
CCSR/ISC
The University of Manchester

2. AIMS AND RATIONALE
A.: To observe whether levels of attention towards environmental problems amongst the public change over time, as well as how individuals’ socio-economic characteristics are related to this
R.: Focus on patterns of association in a longitudinal and individual-level perspective rather than on cross-sectional aggregate data

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Does the level of environmental concern change over time?
How is environmental concern associated with socio-demographic characteristics over time?
How does political orientation affect environmental concern across time?

4. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES: MACRO-LEVEL
Trends:
Preference for environmental protection over economic growth has decreased (Newport, 2009);
Environmental concern was high in the 70s, low in the 80s, high in the 90s until , then further contraction (Leiserowitz, et al., 2010)
HP1: aggregate level of environmental concern was stable from the 90s until In 2008 a contraction can be observed

5. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES: MICRO-LEVEL
HP2: Main covariates, as per relevant literature (Fransson and Garling, 1999):
Age
Social class
Place of residence
Political ideology
Gender
Partnership status
Presence of children

6. HOW HAS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN BEEN DEFINED AND MEASURED?
ONE KEY QUESTION
HOW HAS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN BEEN DEFINED AND MEASURED?
Tension between construct validity and external validity
(Dunlap and Jones: 2002)

7. RESEARCH TOOLS DATASET: National Child Development Study 1958 (NCDS)
1991 (age 33): cases
2000 (age 42): cases
(age 51): 9790 cases
Pooled-longitudinal achieved: 13292
MEASURING INSTRUMENT: 5-POINT Likert scale
Environmental problems are as serious as people claim (‘Problems’)
We should tackle problems in the environment even if this means slower economic growth (‘Growth’)
Preserving the environment is more important than any other political issue today (‘Important’)
METHODS: Categorical Multiple-indicator Latent Growth Curve Modelling

8. SINGLE-INDICATOR TRAJECTORIES (SELECTED CATEGORIES)
“Strongly agree” and “Agree” over time (% valid cross-sectional values)
Source: NCDS sweeps 1991, 2000,

9. VALIDATION: 2-P NORMAL-OGIVE IRT MODEL
Choices affecting the estimation of structural parameters
The theoretical model (correlated errors and residuals)
Reference indicator (Growth)
Polychoric inter-item correlations for ordered categorical indicators
Estimator: WLSMV for missing data and categorical outcome variables

10. VALIDATION: RESULTS Chi-square = 175.560, 15 d.f.
RMSEA 90% C.I. =
CFI = .995
TLI= .989
WRMSR= 1.258
Cases: 12994
V(EC2000)=
0.576 (0.020)

11. R.Q. 1: CHANGE OVER TIME?
Unconditional latent growth curve models (estimator: WLSMV, cases: 12994)
Factorial invariance tests: Chi-square difference test WEAK vs. STRONG invariance = (18 D.F.)
However, strong invariance is needed for further analysis
Strong-invariance model fit:
Chi-square = , 36 D.F.
RMSEA 95% C.I. =
CFI = .938
TLI= .938
WRMSR= 4.919

12. R.Q. 1: CHANGE OVER TIME? Mean change across sweeps
Mean Intercept= (constraint); Variance= (p-value= 0.000)
Mean slope= (p-value= 0.000); Variance= (p-value= 0.092)
Corr(Intercept, slope)= (p-value=0.024): individuals with higher initial values record a steeper decline

13. R.Q. 2 & 3: socio-demographic predictors I
Micro-level theory: Age, Social class, Place of residence, Political ideology, Gender, Partnership status, Presence of children

14. R.Q. 2 & 3: Socio-demographic predictors II -Time-invariant covariates model (TIC) (cases: 9127)
when p-value<0.05

15. R.Q. 2 & 3: Socio-demographic predictors III -Time-varying covariates model (TVC) (cases: 6951)

16. Conclusions Model-fit indices: TIC vs. TVC
Answer to research question 1: from 1991 to the level of environmental concern as measured in the NCSD 1958 records a small but statistically significant decrease
Answer to research question 2 and 3: political orientation is a consistent predictor of levels of environmental concern in our sample and amongst the theoretically relevant covariates of environmental concern accounted for in our study

17. Limitations Predictors/covariates of political orientation?
Better measure of environmental concern
Model complexity
Relax assumption of Strong factorial invariance (Bayesian SEM?)

18. References
DUNLAP, R. E. & JONES, R. E Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues. In: DUNLAP, R. E. & MICHELSON, W. (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
FRANSSON, N. & GARLING, T Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19,
LEISEROWITZ, A., MAIBACH, E. W., ROSER-RENOUF, C., SMITH, N. & DAWSON, E Climategate, public opinion and the loss to trust. Social Science Research Network (SSRN) [Online]. Available: [Accessed 31/05/2013].
NEWPORT, F Americans: economy takes precedence over environment. First time majority has supported economy in 25 years of asking questions. Gallup Economy [Online]. Available: [Accessed 15/05/2012].
Thank you!