1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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 For EVS 1990, the level of membership was 28.3%, for Eurobarometer 43.1 bis (1995) 21.7% and, finally, for ESS %.
996 valid cases
Contrary to other surveys, WVS asks also for the membership in animal rights groups

9. 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

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. ISSP: itemsteps

14. 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)

15. Guttman Errors: Comparison of the two surveys: WVS1 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

16. ISSP Guttman errors (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6+ Denmark 65.9 15.5 8.2 4.8 2.6 1.41 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

17. 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

18. Guttman Errors (%) by country: WVS1 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

19. Guttman Errors (%) by country: ISSP1 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

20. 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

21. “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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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).